| 1. | Do you think the environment affects your health? How? |
|
 |
| What a silly question!?! Well actually the MOST important question - so I take that back. Of course if does. asthma rates increasing, bronchitis, emotional and social stability being threatened due to a loss of green space. Why government does not accept this as enough of an incentive to put a halt to overly environmentally destructive practices in the forests and protected areas, plus water supplies being is beyond me. Not too mention biocide spraying, lack of alternative transportation in the province. This issue deserves it's own booklet. The use of pesticides for cosmetic reasons. |
|
|
| Absolutely - anyone who thinks otherwise should think again. The environment affects my health in good and bad ways - it depends on where I am. ** ** ** ** brought years of breathing problems and allergies - living in Halifax enhanced asthmatic reactions - walking in the woods after an ATV goes past brings difficulty breathing - living on the Atlantic Ocean brings ease of breathing - Do you know why? Environmental Pollution - Air Quality...Just an observation... |
|
|
| Without question the environment affects my health! My health and the health of my children is affected daily. MY children attend school with questionable air quality as are the schools in the area where I work.
Chemical sprays, cleaners, vehicle and building exhaust systems, as well as synthetic chemicals that stink up laundry soaps and beauty products.
We suffer from asthma, many allergies, hypersensitivity including hives and skin reactions.
It is infuriating how only 10-15 years ago people were encourage to reuse and reduce waste in our environment! Now plastic grocery bags are thicker, prominently used, and now they are smellier than ever! I can't take my childre (or self) to Sobey's, Wal-Mart, or Superstore anymore! It is pathetic. |
|
|
| Everyday I cycle to my office ** ** ** from my home ** ** **. Along the entire route I have to breathe in noxious fumes being emitted by vehicles. My lungs are affected by the air pollutants that are allowed to enter the environments. We need higher standards on vehicle emissions and actively encourage a reduction in car use around the province, especially in the urban areas.
Many of the foods I eat are sprayed with toxic chemicals which I have to ingest. The long term impacts on my health are yet to make themselves known. I can buy organic food and I do but it is more expensive. Why are products which protect the environment and human health more expensive than those which harm it. We need to look at the subsidisation of farming and begin to incentivise producers which are stewards of the earth and bringing to market healthy, chemical-free products.
The water I drink is heavily chlorinated, and laced with other trace elements detrimental to my health.
When the sun burns on my skin I have to worry about UV radiation and yet we still emit ozone depleting substances into the atmosphere.
|
|
|
| As a doctor ** ** ** **, and a patient who suffers from cancer (** **), I am acutely aware of the effects on our health of air, soil and water pollutants. I feel that nothing is more important to the helath and thus ehalth care budget of Nova Scotia that clearing up our environemtn. I have seen more cancer and illness that has been contributed to or caused by an unhealthy environment prevention is the only cure. |
|
|
| Absolutely. I think it's an absolute joke to think otherwise. I am currently a ** student at ** in environmental engineering and I do read a fair amount of research in epidemiology. In my view, the connections are obvious but impossible to prove conclusively. There are obviously to many factors to isolate one component of the environment and say "this is the cause of cancer." There is however very strong evidence that certain pollutants (i.e. ground level ozone, THM's in our drinking water, other organic and inorganic pollutants in our air and water) have a very profound effect on our health. We should be moving in a very prudent fashion to eliminate/reduce these pollutants in our air. It's not that difficult you just need the political will. |
|
|
| Of course the environment in which we live affects our health.
When I lived in Toronto, I had stress problems and my allergies were unbearable.
In Nova Scotia, there is less noise pollution, light pollution and life is slower. My stress problem has all but disappeared.
In Nova Scotia, our air quality is far better than that in Southwestern Ontario. My allergies have not been a problem since I moved east ** years ago. |
|
|
| The statement in your box titled human health and environmental quality is accurate in my opinion.I am a walker.I like to go on walks.I have noticed over the last five years in particalar that on certain days the air quality is not good at all.The air gives you the same type of sore throat and sore chest as if you had inhaled smoke from a fire ,this is the only way to describe the feeling and I have no respitory illnesses.I do think that the environment has an enormous impact on health.It is not only the health of the people either,I have noticed in the summer months ,after a rainfall,yellowish residue on my flowers in the garden.I look around my areas of the city and I see the stacks ** ** ** ,both spuing smoke all day long.Along with this are the numerous trails of jet exhaust in the skies.I have noticed an increase in the redness of the sunsets and sunrises which are a sign of increased pollution.I see this every day I walk to work and wonder why more care isn't being taken by businesses to reduce the extent of this destruction.I also wondered why governments became instituions that were more interested in making money for themselves than governing the concerns of citizens. |
|
|
| Too numerous to mention. One fact: taking helath costs into account - energy from wind is now cheaper than from coal! (** **). |
|
|
| Certainly - ** ** ** in a fairly unpolluted rural area but I can't get away from polluted air, road salt, agri-chemicals, and vehicle emissions.
One needs to ask why Nova Scotia has such a high rate of cancer, asthma and MS. |
|
|
| Yes! How? I've come to the conclusion that everything we eat, drink, and breathe is in some way poisoned. Pollution flowing from west to east goes into the ground and water supplies. You can't grow a garden without using insecticides and permeating into streams and watertables.
Go for a walk in the city, or rural NS. We are conintueously breathing in diesel fumes , gas fumes, and oil, all containing benzene. There is just no escape. |
|
|
| Environment affects all aspects of health. |
|
|
| I strongly agree with the above statement. We hae very inadequate ways to determine if products are safe. Usually testing is done on isolated chemicals, and no testing on the cocktail of pollutants taht occur in the real world (or NS). I firmly believe that the chemicals that enter our bodies contribute to disease. I make a point of buying orgainic foods, including meats. Many people cannot afford to, and we can all contribute when health costs are realized.
Being exposed to second hand smoke affects us all, and its not just limited to heart problems and lung cancer. The chemicals from perfumes, deodorants, hairspray, etc. may mimic estrogens in our bodies and contribut to breast cancer, endometriosis, and other health problems. We see warnings about air fresheners, and scented diaper wipes being harmful to babies, yet they are allowed to be sold (in the name of someone being able to make a proft). Then we wonder why the rates for asthma and autism have escalated. If Health Canada won't/can't regulate come of these products, maybe our health department can look at ways to better educated people. |
|
|
| Yes - What we eat, drink, breathe and come in contact with can affect our helath. All activities, both industrial and normal activities, should be monitored and education be applied.
However, we must watch to see that stupid, low consequence, too conservative rules do not come to be implemented. I have seen viable safe enterprises not get off the ground becasue of stupid, environmental rules that cost too much for the business to operate and the impact would have been neglegible. |
|
|
| There are a myriad of obvious ways that the environment can be detrimental to one's health: smog contributing to the rising incidence of asthma; polluted water causing e.Coli outbreaks; contaminated soil giving rise to poisonous vegetables; and cell-phone towers increasing cancer among those unlucky enough to live in their shadows. But I would also add a few more subtle examples such as noise pollution causing stress, violence and depressions; "pollution" of the "mental environment" by constant bombardment of advertising leading to information overload and greedy, thankless children; light pollution of urban centres where one would do well to see the moon, let alone the stars; and apathy brought on by the acceleration of civilization's downward spiral toward a dystopic, "inevitable" dichotomy of haves and have-nots. |
|
|
| Just walking down the street and smelling what comes out of cars is evidence enough that the environment affects my health. The ongoing debate about genetic vs. environmental effects of diseases has recently swung towards the environmental side of the argument (ref). Many of our modern diseases, most notably cancer, heart and lung disease, and endocrine (hormonal) disorders have been closely linked with environmental degradation and contamination.
There is no magic place where we can hide all the dioxins, furans, and other artificial compounds that have been the by-product of our industry. The air is what we breath, the earth is what we eat, and by trying to dump our human-made toxins high above us or deep underground, we only delay their inevitable return into our lives.
If we are going to have a sustainable environment, then we must not put pollutants into it. They cause only harm, and no benefit (only economic benefit to the polluters). For the health of all life, not just human life, we have to stop polluting.
|
|
|
| Living in HRM I am very strongly aware of how the environment affects my health. I do not use a car in Halifax - cycling or walking. I increasingly notice the increase in traffic and emissions - I am also concerned that very few cars hav emore that 1 person in them. In fact, I recently did a 20 minute survey on Robie st. by the Cunard St. intersection @ 8:30 am of 180 cars that went south during a 20 minute period, only 30 had more than 1 occupant. this means 6% so 94% of the vehicles were single occupant.
I also notice frequently (depending on the vehicle direction) the smell of sulphur from the refinery in Dartmouth. We need better standards for air quality - Halifax has one of the country's highest rates of respiratory problems - this is a huge burden to our health care system and our economy. Dependance on cars also relects on lifestyle - lack of excuse means even NS elementary age children are not meeting their required physical activity levels for targeting health determinants.
Why are we continuing to see people suntanning or not wearing hats when we are aware of rising rates of skin cancer due to ozone depletion - why isn't there an attept to educate elementary age children? Australia has a very strict program for hats in schools. |
|
|
| Yes I do. I think my primary concern is occasional poor air qaulity due to industrialized US. I am also concerned with the entraptment of Rado gas in our homes due to the sealed amnner of contruction being forced upon us by building codes. Of course, this is certainly a greater concern in uranium rich areas such as New Roos, than in a Meguma formation area like Lunenburg. I am sure that contaminating runoff from LARGE farming operations is affecting watercourses and even the water table in some areas. |
|
|
| Yes!
Air - the air we breathe is essential, therefore, clean air is important.
Water - we need clean water to survive.
Soil - soil grows the food we eatn |
|
|
| Of course. You have omitted food as a source of exposure to pollutants. Pesticide and herbicide use may be federally regulated, but the province could do much more to promote organic agriculture, particularly as this is a growing area of consumer demand. |
|
|
| Is the Government of Nova Scotia still unaware of the effects on health from a polluted environment?
Look at Garland.
Look at Coldbrook.
Look at Black Bull Quartz Mine's threat to the Tobeatic Wilderness.
When will the Government of Nova Scotia wake up and take responsibility for its lack of authority in the protection of the safety of water, air and soil? |
|
|
| Yes - the use of weed suppressors and insect repellants definitely affects the ehalth of a community. The gases given off by automboiales and home heating devices certainly affect health negatively.
We need to promote wind and solar energy and geothermal energy. |
|
|
| We need good clean air and clean water and food. You did not mention smoking or drinking alcohol. |
|
|
| Yes. The air we breathe also falls on the earth and all the contaminants we and our neighbours to the south and west put into the atmosphere get into our food chain as well as our lungs.
Stress induced by duplication of government programs and micromanagment takes its toll as well. |
|
|
| Yes.
Too many people, so little space. The one issue that most affects us seems too "hot" a topic to discuss!! Population control by family planning, etc. should be encouraged. |
|
|
| Yes! The exposure to various pollutants in our air, water, and food will continue to cause various health problems. Second-hand smoke, use of pesticides, scented products, and car emissions all are leading to problems with allergic reactions and hypersensitivities.
We need to protect our forests so they can continue to filter our air and protect our ground water. Farmers should be encouraged to group crops organically. |
|
|
| Yes of course. The environment affects everyone's health. The ongoing debate about genetic v. environmetnal effects of diseases has most recently swung towards to environmental side of the argument. Many of our modern diseases, most notably cancer, heart and lung disease, and endocrine (hormonal) disorders have been rising and have been closely linked with environmental degradation and contamination.
There is no magic place where we can hide all teh dioxins, furans, and otehr artificial compounds that have been the by-product of our industries. The air is what we breath, the earth is what we eat, and by trying to dump our human-made toxins into the air, water, and soil, we ensure their returen into our lives. If we are going to have a sustainable environment then we must stop putting pollutants into it.
Government must also acknowledge and address the threat which invasive species represents to human health. Whether invasive disease-causing organisms and parasites are transferred by ships, agriculture products, or via other forms of trade and transportation, the province must play a role in preventing their spread, carry out monitoring, and be prepared to remediate deleterious effects. |
|
|
| Of course it does. It does so in every possible way, positively and negatively. |
|
|
| Yes - " Essential components of life—air, water, and food—provide potential pathways for contaminants to affect our health. Exposure to pollutants through the contamination of air, water, and soil has been linked to various health conditions such as cancer, cardiac and respiratory illness, reproductive problems and birth defects, nervous system disorders, allergic reactions, hypersensitivity, and decreased resistance to disease." |
|
|
| Yes - it affects it in every way. We depend on the environemtn for our health. Without it we couldn't survive. It's that simple. |
|
|
| I most definitly think it affects everyones health. I believe all of us absorb a dailyintake of pollution via the air we breathe, the water we drink and wash in both airborne and seepage/contamination) and the meat, fish, fruit and vegetables we eat (hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, fungicides weedkillers etc. etc.) |
|
|
| Environment clearly affects the health of citizens. This is evident from statistics for CBRM which indicate higher numbers of cancer deaths, as a consequence of historic industrial activity. Increased levels of skin cancer are prevalent due to thinning ozone layer. |
|
|
| Most definately. Besides the obvious factors of water and air quality, with their obvious direct impacts on the body, there are psychological influences that affect the mind. Many find that escaping the human-centered environment of the city for the natural world is a great means for "recharging the batteries." Being out in a healthy, alive forest or walking along an unspoiled beach gives me, at least, a greater sense that things are still right in the world. It gives me the feeling that Nova Scotia is one of the best places to live in the world. That sense can often be jarred, however, when stumbling across a cut-and-run forestry operation or finding the ruts of last weekends ATV rally through the local wetland. So a healthy environmental has good effects, but a degraded, thoughtlessly exploited environment brings most people down. |
|
|
| I am my environment. The stability of it is the stability of me and whatevr offspring I leave when I die. |
|
|
| Humans are a part of the world around us, not separate from it, so the environemnt AFFECTS my health in the sense the I and the environment are one and the same. From the air, to the water, to the earth, to biodiversity, my physical, social, mental, and spirtual health is influenced by the health of the environment. |
|
|
| Lots of available natural environment is essential to mental health. Clean air and water are essential to physical health.
|
|
|
| Personally, it would have a limited effect on me. I live in a rural area, have "city" water, and eat a lot of food that is grown in our own garden. In general, it will affect people. One only has to drive through Lower Sackville in the wither when their is an inversion and all of the woodstoves are going to know that breathing that cannot be good for a persons lungs. The same would be true of any other place where people are exposed to high levels of contaminants. |
|
|
| of course. air pollution affects everyone's health, this is well established. this is a silly question. |
|
|
| The environment affects everyone's health in a variety of ways. Clean air and water are necessary for health, and freedom from pollutants and waste materials is necessary to maintain health. Climate change, a result of environmental change caused by human activity, may negatively affect our food security, and the species and ecosystems that surround us. Psychologically and socially, access to unspoiled and wilderness areas, from an ocean beach to a backcountry trail, enhances our lives. |
|
|
| YES!!!
air quality, water quality, food production etc. all affect our physical, mental and spiritual health.
The science is there, no time to elaborate here, because my daughter is bored. |
|
|
| Of course. Pollutants are ubiquitous throughout out the air, soil, water, vegetation and animal life. Everything we breathe, eat, drink is imbued with toxins, many of which cause cancer. The ecosystem is our life-support system and provides ecolgical serves that we cannot live without. WE are not separte; we filter and accummulate all of these things through our bodies. Just thinking about it is hazardous to my health. |
|
|
| Yes, in every possible way:
Mainly through water- and air quality, food quality (including genetic modification), through recreational quality (green spaces etc) |
|
|
| The outdoor enviroment has not affected my health. |
|
|
| Ways in which the environment affects health:
As our environment becomes impoverished, so does the quality of our nutrition, the air
we breathe, our climate, and our ability to cope with change. As we use up our resources and damage them, we use up our options.
|
|
|
| Yes, as we are part of our environment and its health affects all living things. |
|
|
| My health depends on the health of the environment. The air that I breath is produced by the green organisms of the land and the ocean. If these organisms are at risk, my ability to breath is at risk. Many areas are heading toward a sigificant depletion of green space (in particular, forest). Our province must not follow this trend. As much as possible, what is taken away through development should be replaced however possible.
The air that I breath may also be contaminated with pollutants such as exhaust, ozone, etc. Pollution of the air is also connected to pollution of the water that sustains me. This may be through the deposition of acid precipitation, or other chemicals that may enter water via our air.
All aspects of the environment are interconnected. There are many avenues that a particular pollutant can take to affect my health. |
|
|
| The environment not only affects our health, we are utterly reliant upon it not only for our health, but our survival. I reinforce the fact that good environmental policy is also good for the fiscal and economic health of us all. |
|
|
| The environment definately affects our health. We must stop the use of pesticides as control measures. Our forests are the lungs of the earth, we must protect them and prevent them form being cut down. |
|
|
| Of course, there are dangerous chemicals etc in the air that cause illness. Plants that could provide medicine are destroyed by irresponsible use of forests. How can I measure what pollutants are in my home, community etc? |
|
|
| Yes, of course it does. Pollution directly affects my body. Noise and night-lighting affects my ability to sleep, which affects my state of mind and my body. Feeling unable to escape a busy city affects my emotional well-being. |
|
|
| Yes, we feel this statement is absolutely true. The Government must get tough with local Major pollutors, clean up their own mess(s), work out an accord with distant pollutors (our neighbors to the South) and lobby the Federal Ministry of the Enviornment to get tough with our Provincial neighbors, but we must clean up our own backyard first. We must also educate our fellow Nova Scotians as to what constitutes Enviornmental pollution and explain what they can do to help reduce it. |
|
|
| Yes. Air pollution bothers me. It also affects other members of the family, one of whom has asthma. I am also very concerned about adulteration of the food supply, whether through additives, animal feed and medication, or genetic modification. |
|
|
| Any and all contamination of land or air leads to water contamination. This leads to all the health issues listed plus, and equally important, destruction of wildlife and its habitat. Zero tolerance on chemical dumping, mandatary reductions in coal fired generation and inspection of all wood stoves are required.Old stoves must be replaced with clean burn units. |
|
|
| Yes, pollution affects breathing (lung diseases) Trees help purify air. Toxins in air leads to increase in cancer. |
|
|
| Yes - residual poisons that accumulate as we eat, drink, breath and live. |
|
|
| There is substantial scientific evidence that the environment affects human health and it is disturbing that the Nova Scotia government would choose to consult public opinion on this issue rather than medical and scientific experts. As an example, increased air pollution levels have resulted in increased incidences of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. As well, depleted levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere have led to higher rates of skin cancer. There are undoubtedly many other examples that could be provided by experts in the field. |
|
|
| Absolutely. The air I breathe, the food I eat, the water I drink, all affect my health. Opportunities for outdoor recreation in protected natural areas affect my health.
ALso, my mental health is affected by opportunities to see wilderness protected, and to enjoy natural spaces. |
|
|
| Of course; but not only physically (ie Sydney Tar Ponds) but mentally. The clean outdoors and gorgeous views of this province can provide better and more healthy excercise than any "fitness centre" and reduce stress better than any psychiatrist. |
|
|
| Certainly. In order for communities to be healthy, a clean environment is necessary. Chemical contamination, illegal dumps, and lack of green spaces all contribute to illness, injuries and the degradation of communities. Contaminants that enter water and soils can enter the food chain through fish, or animals that are eaten. |
|
|
| yes. Pollutants in the environment eventually pollute people, cause disease and destroy our natural for future generations. |
|
|
| Air quality - Asthma and respiratory diseases.
Water quality - biodiversity, water born illness
Pollution (tar ponds)- cancer |
|
|
| Yes it does. See for example, the GPI Air Quality Accounts and Water Quality Accounts for detailed information on relationship between environment and health. |
|
|
| I think the environment has a direct and powerful effect on my health. We are products of our environment, we are what we eat. There are numerous cliches that light upon how the environment affects our health, and they all have some truth. The food we eat that has been chemically processed, or treated, is of less nutrional value to us and has adverse affects on our bodies. Likewise of course for the water we drink. The effect of the air we breathe is even more obvious for anyone who has smelled the fumes from traffic. I can feel the effect of breathing our dirty air, compared to the feeling from breathing the air in different parts of the world. It has also been scientifically proven that the environment shapes our health. |
|
|
| Of course it does. We all need clean waer and a supply of fresh, uncontaminated food to survive.But, equally as much, we all need to have wide open spaces to roam without unreasonable restrictions as well.
Its fine and noble to want to protect these areas for future generations but not if we can't use them at the present time!
There has to be a balance between protection and responsible uses. Land sterilization and land-lockups are not the way...tit for tat is not the way. Working together with all land users (Ecologists,farmers,anglers,Mature ATV users,prospectors,birdwatchers,nature lovers). BALANCE is the key word...the pendulum has swung to far to the right, the radical environmental movement...it must swing back to common sense use of our lands both now and in future generations.
|
|
|
| Of course.
Air pollution can stimulate or cause bronchial disorders, asthma, allergies, cancer
Contaminants in drinking water can kill you.
Eg, E.coli...
Water pollution poisons fish; consumption of fish with high levels of mercury, PCBs, dye, antibiotics is dangerous. Eg, recent recommendations for pregnant women and tuna consumption.
Excessive use of pesticides hurts the labourers who apply pesticides and consumption of excessive levels of pesticides can cause liver damage
|
|
|
| Most certainly, we rely on the environment for nutrition, oyxgen intake and just about evrything else. The environment's 'health' is our health.
|
|
|
| Yes,I think that all facets of the environment affect our health - from the air we breath to the water we drink to the food we consume that comes from NS soil or the Atlantic ocean. |
|
|
| Yes, of course. It does this through both natural and anthropogenically-forced phenomena (e.g., trace contamination of the food we eat, the air we breathe, exposure to contaminated domestic water and to polluted seawater, exposure to long periods of cloudy weather (psychological)).
|
|
|
| - pollutants in the environment are detrimental to everyone, not just those who have sensitivies to various compounds
- on the flipside, a well-managed, protected environment provides the recreation opportunities needed to release stress and provide a fulfilling addition to a day |
|
|
| yes. above quotation is good general description.
From a new report:
Chernomas, R., & L. Donner. (2004 March). The Cancer Epidemic as a Social Event. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - Manitoba. Available: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/cancer.pdf.
" The system that provided the wherewithal to overcome infectious disease did so at a price. It transformed food,water,air and the labour process into mediums for heart disease and cancer. By introducing more mechanised/intensive production processes capitalism transformed the context for disease. It has transformed our food, water,air and work process in unprecedented way and has created an historically unique disease pattern.
One measure of this is the amount of cancer-causing chemicals released into the environment each year. Each year, medium and large sized Canadian companies are required to report emissions of carcinogens to the National Pollution Release Inventory. In 2001, Canadian industries reported the release of 18,455,237 kilograms of known carcinogens into our air, soil and water." |
|
|
| yes. fresh air, no pollution. |
|
|
| Yes. There is no doubt about this. I have asthama and air pollution makes it difficult to breath sometimes.
Also many of the chemicals used in consumer products are probably at the heart of the high cancer rates Nova Scotians and other Canadians have. |
|
|
| What a moronic question! Anyone who is sufficiently able to read the booklet and this workbook should be insulted. Of course it affects one's health! We only have to look around at the mistakes; at the filth of Halifax Harbour; swim in Lunenburg's harbour; see what is happenening to the fish - to our skin. What % of people now have to resort to buying bottled water and why?
Look at the crowded development sites of new homes and compare thier problems with water supply, mental stress, transportation.
Look at the rapid increase in allergies, asthma, lung problems, cancer, obesity, etc. Then stop and consider where can people go for a quiet walk to smell the forest, to marvel at animals in the wild - or the quiet, away from cars/pollution/noise.
Why do you ask? What are you DOING ABOUT IT? |
|
|
| Yes, I think it affects my health--particularly air and water contamination. The problem with both of these, is that they are largely invisible. We need to be monitoring air and water quality, and limiting the use of sprays, pesticides, and chemicals in the environment generally. |
|
|
| Yes, through the air I breathe, the water and food I drink and eat. If the environment is contaminated, my personal health suffers. This all relates to pollution and contamination.
Protected and green areas also affect my health. High biodiversity and healthy lakes and forests are all essential to one's spiritual and mental health. A close relationship with nature gives one a more positive outlook on lfe. For example, loking out at polluted skies, dead rivers and clear cut land will leave anyone with a negative feeling, and perhaps a sense of despair. Reverse this scenaio to a nice forest with wildlife, rivers safe to fish and swim in, and clean air, and you've got a more positive and happy person. |
|
|
| Of course - most directly through the food I eat, the air I breath, the water I drink. |
|
|
| The outdoors does wonders for my health , my doctor encourages it. Studies show child raised on farms have less allergies.
I'm concerned about closed environments
with no air. |
|
|
| Yes at times. When I am in large buildings, resorts, hotels, some automobiles, trucks, heavy equipment, malls, etc. Refrigerants - this is the biggest environmental threat we have today. |
|
|
| There is no doubt the environment can affect health. However, on a personal level, I have been able to escape such problems for the most part. |
|
|
| The environment does effect your health. The food we eat and the life we live is all controlled by the envionment. Everything we have comes from the earth if it cannot be grown it must be mined. Too many people do not realize the connection we have with the earth. The heat we have comes from the wood, oil and coal the comes from the ground. We have to protect the environment but we have to use it or we do not live. |
|
|
| Water quality is one of the most important features of health for me. Industrial effluent and water table changes caused by clearcutting increases levels of contaminants in the water supply. Since we have little knowledge about its effects over a long period, why not err on the side of caution and stop or severely impede these destructive activities |
|
|
| Of course the environment affects our health. The air we breathe, the food we eat and the products we use all come from the Earth. If toxics are continued to be allowed in the production of food and products and are allowed to enter the atmosphere, our collective health will continue to be impacted negatively. |
|
|
| Everything I eat, touch and breathe affects my physical body. Not only does it affect my health but also the health of many other species and consequently the health of Nova Scotia. No matter what we do, we cannot escape from the fact that we are also in the food chain. |
|
|
| of course. the Air we breathe, water we drink, and food we consume |
|
|
| Most definitely. All humans use the environment whether for food, water or to breathe (We are consumers). We also use the environment for our various wastes (ie., human, industrial, residential, etc). There is a continuous cycle where our needs are affected by our actions. |
|
|
| yes . Air quality and water quality
Poor air or water is determental to everyone |
|
|
| Absolutely. Obviously, water and air quality have direct effects on human health, but also the ability to recreate outdoors is an important factor in NS health. Green spaces and wilderness are important for physical and mental health. |
|
|
| All things on this planet are connected. I am connected to the air I breath, the water I drink, the food I eat. If the natural environment suffers, so do we. |
|
|
| Yes. I have environmental sensativites. There are too many chemicals and other bad stuff in our environment and even in some of the food we eat. |
|
|
| Of course. The fewer pollutants, the less chance for problems. If we don't put pesticides into our environment, they can't get into our bodies (and those of other organisms).
Why does the health of humans (and other animals) take second seat to the forestry and farming industries? |
|
|
| The outdoor environment does not seem to affect my health at all. A physically active lifestyle, positive attitude and a few vitamins keep me in general good health. Ask my doctor, she says I have a very thin file. Stress induced symptoms are much more of a concern, as produced by filling out surveys like this one, especially when you think your comments will be ignored. Also, the 'closed' environments of many large buildings are a concern to me.
|
|
|
| I have asthma and allergies. Studies have been done that link auto-exhaust and other chemicals used in modern life to the development of these diseases in children. They must be better controlled to protect future generations. Denser communities can help decrease rampant automobile useage. |
|
|
| You have answered your own question in the square above.
Note the increase incidences of CANCER, HEART DISEASE, LUNG DISEASE,MENTAL DISORDERS [ADHD / Autism]etc., DISTROYED IMUNE SYSTEMS all these cause a great stress on our Nova Scotia population and our health care system. |
|
|
| Of course the environment affects my health! If the fish I eat is polluted with PCBS, I would get sick and perhaps die. Same goes for vegetables polluted by pesticides. Air pollution causes asthma and other respiratory problems. Chemicals in water, food and air can cause cancer! |
|
|
| Of course the environment effects our health. Why do we have the highest cancer rate in Canada in Nova Scotia? Is it our own industrial past? Current industrial activities in Cape Breton or the effects of emissions blown here from New England?
Our population suffers from increasingly high rates of asthma and environmental sensitivites.
|
|
|
| As humans we are inextricably linked to the quality of our environment. The water drink, the air we breath, the food we eat, the location of our home, this only names a few ways. One can even go as far as to say the quality fo the environment affects our jobs which in turn affect our health, through levels of stress and quality of life. Without a healthy environment we can not have a healthy society, whether physically, mentally, or emotionally. |
|
|
| This is simple as the Great Cheif Seattle said back in December of 1854. Cotinue to contaminate your own bed and one night you will suffocate in your own waste. |
|
|
| Low impact at present, the largest impact is lack of suitable recreation areas |
|
|
| re |
|
|
| Are you serious?!?
I'm not sure if I will be provided a little box to speak about this process overall at a later point - so I will do it here.
Questions like this are silly. Your "plan" is very hard to take seriously. Your lack of commitment to these issues is very clear in the way you have dealt with this from the beginning:
- This was obviouly thrown together at the last minute. Very little substance, no time lines or obvious commitments.
- You tried to sneak it past the public last June.
- There has been VERY little publicity promoting this feeback process.
- This is a terrible format for us to provide input.
I am disappointed in this government's approach to something so fundamentally important to our health, social and economic welfare.
Why should I take the time to respond to this properly, when you have demostrated that you are not really taking this seriously?
Leading by example? Hardly.
|
|
|
| Of course it does! Air pollution from cars and other vehicles, from industrial plants and from small engines all contribute to many types of disease. Noise pollution creates stress (the worst source being some recreational vehicles). Clearcutting damages water quality and overall forest health. |
|
|
| Yes. We drink water that has absorbed prescription drugs that have been swollowed by humans.
Water is polluted by a numebr of human activities, Agriculture, Industry and transportation
We breath air that has had a vaiety of pollutants |
|
|
| Absolutely! All types of pollution affect the health and well-being of all people and enjoying nature is important to the happiness of many people. Providing natural areas that people can enjoy away from city life are very important for general happiness and well-being. |
|
|
| Yes, and the results of Nova Scotia's poor environment are especially noticeable with regards to health. The extremely high levels of ozone and other air polution unfortunately funneled through Nova Scotia's valley from the rest of Canada contribute to azmatic problems, lung cancer etc. Pollutants in NS's aquafer that unfortunately covers a large expanse of the province and is tapped by many communties contributes to increase cancer rates. |
|
|
| Of course...in almost every way. We are not isolated from the environment somehow, but rather an intrical component of it. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat all come from the environment. These commodities must be protected, and to do that, we must have strong, responsible environmental policies. |
|
|
| Healthy communities need access to outdoor recreational activities |
|
|
| Yes, it makes me sick to my stomach to see what the DOE is doing and/or not doing. |
|
|
| Yes,
Pollutants, lack of cleanair, chemicals in foods, all directly affect my health. They, and things like noise pollution, can affect my quality of life. Drought, flooding, and other results of climate change would also likely have clear health effects. |
|
|
| Absolutely yes -- the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat must be clean and free of contaminants. It is well documented that the increase in certain cancer rates (lukemia in children for example has risen by 15% since 1950) and can only be related to degredation in our environment.
As well, having the opportunity to enjoy our wilderness areas for quiet recreational use is extremenly important to help manage stress and reconnect with our natural world. |
|
|
| -yes, i think the environment is one of the primary contributers to human health
-i am very concerned about the increases in cancer in our society and the connection between the environment and health needs to be further explored |
|
|
| Absolutey true. Our wonderful environment enhances health by enabling us to exercise outdoors, ie trails for walking, cross country skiing, beaches for walking, swimming, etc.
Polluting our environment kills us. The ATV's should be outlawed or at the very least, severely restricted. Starting with their pollution rates. Also noise control. And the lawlessness of the drivers going through private lands.
If our government is commited to health because it cares about our citizens and wants to save health care dollars, then our government must be firmly committed to providing more area and more accessability to those areas for outdoor activities. Non-motorized. |
|
|
| Yes. Our health is affected by what we eat, breath and drink and in our psychological well being. |
|
|
| Of course, we are almost a total product of our enviroment. |
|
|
| Absolutely! It is well known that air quality is linked to diseases such as asthma, that the foods we eat can impact our health, including the chemicals and additives in our food and that the cleanliness of our water is essential to good health. On a positive note, I think that positive experiences in nature promote good mental health and well being. |
|
|
| Absolutely! From the range of all the food we eat to the air we breathe, to the ozone and the sun, to sound pollution from ATVs and Transatlantic Jets, to polluted water, and lack of nutrition in the soil, I am affected in all that I do. Further, most all that I do for leisure and entertainment is dependent on the preservation of our environment from running, to swimming, paddling, gardening, biking, hiking, tripping, skating,and just plain viewing the horizon, nature and its inhabitants. |
|
|
| Man-made pollution in the environment is much less of a problem than man's own food and fitness habits. People have to take responsibility for their behaviour first. Use the tax system to encourage sprots, exercise and outdoor activities is a first step for government.
Stop universal health care for all self-inflicted illnesses: if they smoke they are on their own philosophy would be a switch.
Basically you cannot do much about the environment because all the provincial budget goes to health, but no more coal burning power generation is revenue-neutral and would be the most significant step. |
|
|
| Yes! No question! Long and short term, all research shows this to be true. |
|
|
| Yes, very much. There are the obvious things like clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and unspoiled places to walk. I also know that my well-being is affected by the natural world that I see around me. There is so much wanton damage occurring, such as by ATV riders and sprawling rural and suburban development, with increasing reliance on automobiles, that I feel a sense of stress that is a factor in my overall personal health. |
|
|
| of course it does. Ever heard of cancer? toxic metal buildup? athsma?
Our health is so tied to our environment is many ways. We need healthy ecosystems to allow healthy organisms to grow to we can remain healthy. |
|
|
| Of course. |
|
|
| Yes. Bad air quality
Construction materials such as arsenic- treated wood are detrimental to human health and the environment |
|
|
| absolutely! WE ARE NATURE> |
|
|
| This is the silliest and most anthropocentric question I have ever heard! WE ARE THE ENVIRONMENT! Humans are not somehow separate from the environment (no matter how much we try to be). This means (and is a principle element of sustainability) that if the environment is unhealth, then we are unhealthy.
|
|
|
| Yes... clean lakes and waterways are essential to our health. Clean air is also essential. Nova Scotia is the biggest air pollutor per capita in Canada. Shameful. |
|
|
| The environment affects our health through our food, our physical living environments (indoor and outdoor) and our sense of security (i.e. feeling assured that we are not damaging our environment and facing severe consequences now and in the future). |
|
|
| Yes. By being available and accessible to me, my health and well being are affected. If the province is not available to me my health and well being are curtailed. |
|
|
| | |
| 2. | We have identified priorities that support human health and environmental quality (for details see pages 12 to 16). We are interested in your thoughts on the best ways to meet these objectives. Please organize your answers under the headings listed below. You can respond to as many, or as few of these headings as you choose. If you need more space, please use a plain sheet of paper.
Please read our commitments on air quality (p. 13, all bullets). Please provide your comments on these commitments and any suggestions you may have about their implementation. |
|
|
| Great - now do it...reduce emissions from local source polluters - NSPower - OHV's - set a timeline of when they have to do this by.
Scent Free should be mandatory throughout the Province - not just in government buildings - perfume does not belong in our world...it's chemicals cause pollution, headaches, respiratory problems etc etc etc. |
|
|
| Work most closely with the ENGOs, scientific and industry partners so that the decisions made and implemented are of equal proportion and representation - this is critical for it to be effective. And ensure you have the engo's involved that will challenge this issue (** ** **) |
|
|
| These commitments sound impressive although serious measures may be necessary. At what point does industry and the almighty dollar prevent air quality from being addressed and mentioned? Are jobs created or is it ** ** responsibility - who is accountable? |
|
|
| - Tighten the timeline for reducing polluting emissions.
- Set up a timeline for meeting national standards for levels of ground level ozone and particulate matter
- Stop planning furhter coal fired power plants - use natural gas/cogeneration until we have enough renewable energy.
- Incentives to be more energy efficient for private and busienss use of energy. Lowers energy needs, lowers power plant emissions.
- Reduce car emissions - tax gas, subsidize public transport, tax rebates on fuel efficient cars, surtax on inefficient cars. Take high emission cars of the road - annual tests; requrie gasoline suppliers to provide gas with 10% ethanol content.
- Change to organic farming; excess nitrogen from synthetic fertilizer is dispersed in the air. |
|
|
| The commitments to these 3 areas are encouraging but comitment is the bottom line. Part of the MVI should include emission tests that should include all commercial vehicles, ie. dump trucks. |
|
|
| since a glass bubble over the province is out of the question, we must first clean up our contribution to polluted air and then push other states and provinces to do the same even if it means boycotting their products. |
|
|
| Why do we need to wait for national standards on particulate matter? Why can’t this province be a leader for a change rather than a follower. We as a province can establish our own standards and be ahead of the game for once. |
|
|
| Our number one priority is to control emmissions within Nova Scotia. Let's change what we can, then try to help others follow our lead and make the right decision.
The first step we should take is to generate our power through wind turbine technology. The Southwest Shore and Cape Breton's Northwest Shore have enough wind to power the whole province.
Taking this step within the next three years and eliminating our need for foreign coal would not only be the best thing for our environment, it would also be the fiscally responsible thing to do. |
|
|
| In principle all nice, but once again I only saw the word regulate once in all of the points. Makes me think it's just political rhetoric and you have no intention on moving on it. |
|
|
| I certainly hope that we can achieve these commitments on air quality and would prefer that we aim higher for reducing mercury emisions. Considering that forests are a natural way of removing pollutants from the air, more effort should be put towards ensuring that sufficient forests (not seedlings) are sustained throughout all areas of the province to act as our lungs in cleansing the air. |
|
|
| HRM in particular and 100 series highways in general desperatley need a mass transit system such as an electric commuter train to reduce fossil fuel use. Maybe a toll to drive one's car or truck downtown. |
|
|
| Setting reduction targets for suphurous, nitrogenous, and mercuric wastes is a step in the right direction, but there must be a concrete, defined plan to completely phase-out the production of these wastes. If that is too politically ambitious for Nova Scotia’s government, then we must at the very least nullify their impact by trapping them at the source and make them inert. If this proves to be too expensive, then we must return to the dark ages without power production or we must seriously develop alternative energy sources and demand-side management strategies.
Nova Scotia should create a campaign to become the first ‘zero-smoke stack” province in Canada by 2050. We now know that sending our pollution into the air only shifts the nature of the problem from a local (solvable) issue to a global (unseen) issue. Our province produces the majority of its electricity from coal, and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation (NSP) intends to use coal as a major generation source for the foreseeable future, despite the multiple pollutants that coal-fired generation causes.
The answer that NSP provides when asked about the pollution from coal is that they plant to implement (yet undeveloped) clean coal technology. But clean coal prototypes in development today still release high amounts of CO2. Clean coal technologies do nothing to address climate change issues tied to coal-fired electricity generation.
In relation to climate change, Nova Scotia has two international agreements that we are obligated to address. Both the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 and the New England Governors’ and Eastern Canadian Premiers’ (NEG-ECP) Climate Change Action Plan of 2001 set emissions targets for Nova Scotia, and to date, the Nova Scotia government hasn’t developed a strategy to meet either of these targets. Granted, the Kyoto targets (6% below 1990 levels by 2012) were agreed to by the federal government.
However, the current Hamm government signed the NEG-ECP agreement (which call for a return to 1990 emissions levels by 2010), and concrete a concrete strategy should be put in place with all possible speed for this target to be met. It would just take a little extra effort to then meet Nova Scotia’s portion of the Kyoto Protocol
The three areas that should be addressed under this program are transportation emissions (ground, air, and water), home heating (oil/gas, wood, and coal), and industry emissions (including NSPI, Pulp and Paper, and Tire manufacturing). The national standards on smog are a good way to get action on these pollutants, but it should be acknowledged that there are other important reasons for reducing practices that produce ground level ozone and particulate matter (such as climate change from associated emissions, habitat loss and degradation from road transportation, fossil fuel overuse from overall transportation).
One clear goal that the government should take is to legislate that, as long as industrial smoke stacks are in use, there must be scrubbers on them to remove harmful pollutants. Currently, there are no scrubbers on NSP’s plants, and no plans to put any in place.
This is a good strategy, but like the rest of the document, it lacks concrete numbers and timelines. As a first step, the province should reintroduce the monitoring equipment that has been removed from industrial sites like Point Tupper, as outlined in the GPI Atlantic Ambient Air Quality report released in the spring of 2004.
Each large facility should have monitoring equipment (actual emissions sensors, not just a camera trained on the plume) that is centrally connected to a government system that would provide real-time emissions data and alert the public on days when health hazards would be expected from emissions releases. Ideally, such a system could direct emitters to shut down if the health hazards are too high-risk for a given set of weather conditions. |
|
|
| Most of the poor air quality comes from the US and what we do will affect our environment very little. |
|
|
| · The commitments on air pollution (p. 13) seem rather weak.
· The province should move agressively to drastically reduce the level of particulates permitted in diesel fuel. Currently diesel trucks, buses, and cars seem to be permitted to spew totally black smog out of their exhaust systems.
· NS Power should no longer be permitted to burn dirty fuels at their Tufts Cove plant. The plant has been upgraded to handle Sable natural gas, but the company has refused to use their gas quota because of greedy profiteering at the expense of HRM residents who have to breath the smog. A hefty pollution tax should be levied in order to encourage the company to do the right thing.
· Additional pollution taxes should be levied on gasoline in order to encourage more commuters to car pool, cycle, walk, or take public transit.
Money from these pollution taxes should be put back into improving public transit.
|
|
|
| This is a noble gesture and thought, BUT we are only a very minor contributor to air quality problems. The US is the culprit in this case and making things tougher for the industry here isn't going to change that at all. |
|
|
| Good to see specific targets by specific dates BUT when are the targets for GHG emissions reduction? Canada is a sygnatory of Kyoto, NS has sighned the agreement with New England Governors does the government imagine GHG reduction strategies can be eimplemented by turning a stwich "on" or "off"? What are the incentives for increasing energy production by sustainable means such as wind? Quebec is setting huge targets and linking this to wind turbinde manufacturing in economically depressed areas at the same time that the NS governement is preparing new strip mines and NSPI is spending $30 million on a new wharf to import "clean" coal. Its turbine at Tufts Cove will only marginally improve efficiency - if they had held a combined cycle this could have been improved from 39.1% efficient to 50.6%. General Electric has a new gas turbing which with combined cycle would improve efficiency to 60%. What is the policy on demand side management? NSPI has set a mere 1.4% target. California cut back demand by 14% in 6 months. |
|
|
| There should be a commitment to work with gasoline supplying companies to produce lower polluting gases. Support more electric cars to appear in Metro. |
|
|
| When will we see evidence of the intentions of government in addresssing all the bullets on page 13? |
|
|
| Good luck!!! |
|
|
| Reducing emissions will fail if we continue to demand more energy from a growing population!! |
|
|
| The bullets are good but in order to implement them we have to have global commitment. The US needs to ratify Kyoto. |
|
|
| Setting reduction targets for sulphurous, nirtrogenous and mercuric wastes is a step in the right direction, but there must be a concrete, defined plan to dompletely phase out the production of these wastes. If that is too politically ambitious for Nova Scotia's government, then we must at the very least nullify their impact by trapping them at the source and make them inert. If this proves to be too expensive, then we must return to the dark ages without power productsion or we must seriously develop alternative energy sources and demand side management strategies.
Nova Scotia should create a campaign to become the first 'zero-smoke stack' province in Canada by 2050. WE now know that sending our pollution into the air only shifts the nature of the problem from a local, solvable issue to an act of global irresponsibility. Our province produces the majority of its electricity from coal, and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation (NSP) intends to use coal as a major genertation source for the foreseeable future desprite the multiple pollutants that coal-fired generation causes.
The answer that NSP provides when asked about the pollution from coal is that they plan to implement (yet undeveloped) clean coal technology. But clean coal prototypes in development today still release high amounts of CO2. Clean coal technologies do nothing to address climate change issues tied to coal-fired electricity generation.
In relation to climate change, Nova Scotia has two international agreements that we are obligated to address. Both the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 and the New England Governors' and Eastern Canadian Premiers' (NEG-ECP) Climate Change Action Plan of 2001 set emissions targets for Nova Scotia, and to date, the Nova Scotia government hasn't developed a strategy to meet either of these targets. Granted, the Kyoto targets (6% below 1990 levels by 2012) were greed to by the federal government.
However, the current government signed the NEG-ECP agreements (which calls for a return to 1990 emissions levels by 2010), and a concrete strategy should be put in place with all possible speed for this target to be met. It would just take a little extra effort to then meet Nova Scotia's portion of the Kyoto Protocol.
The three areas that should be addressed under the probram to meet national standards for two primary components of smog are transportation emissions (ground, air and water), homke heating (oil/gas, wood, and coal), and industry emissions (including NSPI, Pulp and Paper, and Tire manufacturing). The national standards on smog are a good way to get action on these pollutants, but it should be acknowledged that there are other important reasons for reducing practives that produce ground-level ozone and particulate matter (such as climate change from associated emissions, habitat loss and degredation from road transportatoin, fossil fuel overuse from overall transportation).
One clear goal that the government should take is to legislate that, as long as industrial smoke stacks are in use, there must be scrubbers on them to remove harmful pollutants. Currently, there are no scrubbers on NSP's plants, and no plans to put any in place. This is disgraceful and should be made a legislated requirement immediately.
Also, all transport infrastructure projects should be evaluated, first and foremost, on the potential impact on air wuality, and the costs of associated effects on human health.
Expanding the ambient air monitoring program is a good strategy, but like the rest of the document, it lacks concrete timelines and numbers. As a first step the province should reintroduce the monitoring equipment that has been removed from industrial sites like Point Tupper, as outlined in the GPI Atlantic Ambient Air Quality report released in the spring of 2004.
Each large industrial facility should have monitoring equipment (actual emissions sensors, not just a camera trained on the plume) that is centrally connected to a government system that would provide real-time emissions data and alert the public on days when health hazards would be expected from emissions releases. Ideally, such a system could direct emitters to shut down if the health hazards are too high-risk for a given set of weather conditions. |
|
|
| Stop "promoting", "monitoring", and "working to...". Put some effort into enforcing them. |
|
|
| Reduce emissions by how much? What levels are they at now and how much and when will the reductions be made? |
|
|
| See above comments. |
|
|
| They sound lovely, but nothing very substantial ever seems to happen!
Canada seems to be lagging disgracefully behind other countries in this area - why are we not doing more to convert to wind and solar power? |
|
|
| All this and more.
All committment and targets to date are too little and too slow, and filled with exceptions and loopholes. It is time to increase, strengthen, expand, and enforce with much stiffer penalites all targets and committments realted to emmissions. Endocrine disrupting compounds should also be addressed, and more emphasis should be placed on non-toxic, renewable alternatives for energy and other sources of emmissions. Iinternational transboundry initiatives are critical, since we're sitting in the tail pipe, and its affecting native American moose. |
|
|
| Air quality is extremely important, and is an area in which actions in Nova Scotia will have a global impact, since air doesn't respect provincial or national boundaries. We don't want our province to be known as an international polluter. Neither our citizens nor responsible corporations want to be associated with a reputation like that. |
|
|
| Again, the provincial government must acknowledge and address the threat which invasive species represent to human health. Whether invasive disease-causing organisms and parasites are transferred by ships, agriculture products, or via other forms of trade and transportation, the province must play a role in preventing their spread, carry out monitoring, and be prepared to remediate deleterious effects.
|
|
|
| Does the province intend to implement a program similar to British Columbia (AirCare) where as part of a vehicle inspection; exhaust testing is conducted which the vehicle must pass to receive an inspection sticker?
Will the province create legislation requiring that all vehicles sold in the province are Low Vehicle Emissions (LEV) vehicles?
Will incentive programs for fuel efficient automobiles such as gas/electric hybrids be developed?
|
|
|
| First, we need to set an example and wean ourselves off fossil fuels and toward solar and wind power. We also need strong programs for energy conservation - reducing demand is our best strategy for cleaner air. Second, in the HRM, at least, we need to promote public transit (bus, rail and ferry), carpooling and biking. We need to support the Kyoto Protocol. We need to push for a greater presence for the Green Building movement (LEED certification for goverment and corporate building, for example). |
|
|
| Air pollution could be minimized though encouragment of active and public transportation instead of building more and more and more roads.
wind, solar, geothermal etc systems need to be devloped and made affordable for the public
low impact and energy efficient building systems need to be made mandatory. |
|
|
| Bullet one sounds clear-cut and concrete; is a good start!
I am missing information on public transport and a commitment to improving it; simultaneously to public transport improvement (including in rural areas) there should be financial incentives to use public transportation by increasing taxation of highly polluting / energy inefficiant ways of transport -
taxation of gas, energy inefficient vehicles etc. |
|
|
| the obvious thing is to stop importing and burning coal. |
|
|
| All the commitments on air quality should be implimented. There are so many aspects to air quality that must be addressed. Initiatives must be provided for stewardship of our air and individuals must be educated about the effects that their activities have on air quality. |
|
|
| Air quality:
specifics for action are lacking in the foggy language of page 13. We need to get serious,for instance, not just in monitoring transport and deposition from major sources
but to get rid of it.
we need to improve air quality information, improve air quality. The toxic pool of
pesticides in the Annapolis Valley in summer discourages tourists and makes people sick.
promote small businesses which engage in organic agriculture: don’t make small
producers send their cattle to PEI for finishing and then to an abattoir in Ontario
for slaughtering before the meat can be sold.
facilitate entry into the market by local producers.
enact labelling laws to give consumers the choice of eating uncontaminated food that is not genetically manipulated
|
|
|
| Fully support all commitments. |
|
|
| I agree with all bullets except bullet 2.WE should take care of our own before getting involved with other governments. |
|
|
| Without a link to these paragraphs it is not possible for me to make comments on them. Sorry. Otherwise I would have. |
|
|
| It is unclear what the provinces goals are for air quality. Without goals, it is difficult to evaluate how effective these commitments may be. I'm surprised that energy conservation and efficiency aren't highlighted here. If the demand for energy goes down, so do the pollutants generated by that demand. Given how many opportunities there are to reduce demand, I think this should be the focus. |
|
|
| Can't answer because I can't access your document. |
|
|
| See above |
|
|
| The government must continue to move toward renewable energy sources and set high standards for industry. |
|
|
| I support these but think that tax breaks should be applied to people who purchase low emmission vehicles, such as the system in BC and Ontario. Further, there should be a public transport system put in place to reduce people reliance on their motor vehicles. |
|
|
| Very good strategy. |
|
|
| Scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks should be mandatory. |
|
|
| We support the commitments to improving air quality and we urge the government to do better than the established targets and timeframes. We also urge stronger language: Nova Scotia must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and do better than the targets already. Nova Scotia would earn much positive media attention by meeting Kyoto targets early and doing better than those targets. We have suggestions on how these commitments could be implemented:
• increased support for public transportation;
• support for rail transportation of freight;
• emission taxes. |
|
|
| Not soon enough! |
|
|
| Make NS Power use its supply of cleaner burning gas instead of hawking it to the highest bidder in the US. Witness one of the great disadvantages of privatising a public utility. Now profits are more important than our health. |
|
|
| See GPI Air Quality accounts. The targets will be achieved by reducing reliance on coal for electricity generation, and following other recommendations in the GPI report. |
|
|
| Coal burning is so dirty. Can't we claen it up? |
|
|
| I support these commitments wholeheartedly. In particular I would like to see more government involvement in addressing trans-boundary air issues. I think we should be making our voice heard more to our Canadian and American neighbours whose pollution we inherit. Perhaps there are legal recourses that our province could examine, since we can measure the cost on our health in dollars.
I would also suggest that we involve more academic experts in air quality in this aspect of the project. |
|
|
| Blaming air quality problems on the States and industrial provinces does not take Nova Scotia off the hook. I believe that Nova Scotia Power has not been reporting or testing air quality from its smokestacks for some time. Also, what are the air quality results for the municipal incinerator? Mercury from fossil fuels and incinerated garbage eventually come back to earth through rain or snow. How is the government reducing mercury emissions? What about sustainable power such as wind power? |
|
|
| All of the commitments regarding air quality, water quality, and hazardous waste are essential. They need to be implemented as soon as possible. The province needs an efficient, green public transportation system; the Protected areas network needs to be completed to protect our air and water quality and biodiversity. There needs to be a province wide effort to seriously educate people (children and adults) on the implications for their health and the environment of continuing to live without regard for the environment. There needs to be a strict regulation of development. Businesses need to be encouraged to be as green as possible and there needs to be regulations in place to force businesses to be as green as possible. |
|
|
| Good ideas. |
|
|
| Please see new GPI Atlantic report on air quality (www.gpiatlantic.org) |
|
|
| good for your health. |
|
|
| - these are brash predictions, and will take severe education to the public and enforcement of anti-pollution laws to enforce |
|
|
| 1)Nova Scotia needs to work regionally within the Maritimes. Share monitoring network coordination, data management, analysis, & reporting efforts. New Brunswick does the same work. Do it once, together and both provinces will save money. Find a way not to fight over where the office will be!
2) Be sure to include wilderness areas in the ambient air quality monitoring program. Nova Scotians live in rural areas and the ecological effects of air pollution are felt in such places. The data is meaningful and should be gathered.s |
|
|
| Bullets on page 13 are for words only - promises! The public needs to know specifics, not just motherhood statements - the proof is in the eating. So how exactly do you prpose to meet your lofty goals or did you spend all your focus on goal setting and leave out reality! |
|
|
| I like all these points, but believe it falls short of including Renewable Energy (RE). RE will play an important part in reducting air pollution, but I believe that RE should be mentioned, as with a target that seeks to install a good amount of RE production by a certain date. |
|
|
| Good objectives . Srubbers should be mandatory on industrial smoke stacks .
Look at indoor air quality. |
|
|
| Again, strategies outlined by industrial ecologists are helpful here. |
|
|
| No solution: Unless all countries take a very active part in this problem. |
|
|
| Glad that N.S. is trying to do something. Too bad most of the acid rain and pollution comes from the U.S. |
|
|
| International initiatives may threaten sovereignty. Perhaps the Federal government may wish to delegate. If not, I beleive the province should ask the Federal government to negotiate the matter. |
|
|
| All bullets are noble objectives, but will probably be controlled by emissions from the Ohio River Valley. It appears to me that the United States is very good at giving instruction that benefits them, but not very good at doing things that will not directly benefit them. Scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks should be mandatory, but I think your focus should be on INDOOR air quality. |
|
|
| Clean up the air in NS |
|
|
| Until we come up with new fuels for cars, planes, factories, trains, ships etc, we will have polution from the air. Did you know that four [4] days after 9-11 in N.Y. that the temperature dropped 1' over North America as polution dropped.
The fuels have been developed and are available. |
|
|
| One comment, "Time is of the essence". ACT NOW. |
|
|
| I'm very concerned about pesticide & herbicide use, especially in reural agricultural areas. Tighter restrictions on checmical use, more organically grown produce-farmers supported by government to grow organically!! |
|
|
| We need to improve quality of emissions from industrial activity. Stop allowing exceptions for long term or traditional indusries. Look at co-generation and other ways of saving money while dealing with emision control.
We need to pressure Ottawa to ban ethanol in gas
Promote bus and bike use and offer incentives for carpooling
Make parking so expensive that people bike or bus to work
Discourage urban sprawl to reduce commuting |
|
|
| I agree, emissions must be reduced! Especially from Nova Scotia Power.
Developing trans-boundary policies must be implemented - especially with Ontario and the U.S. Nova Scotia is known as the "tail pipe" of North America and this must STOP!! |
|
|
| Keep our air clean
Stop acid rain
Make all industry accountable for their pollution. |
|
|
| er |
|
|
| Again - great - you have identified priorities. Show us true commitments. How will things be different a year from now? |
|
|
| This must be done, with specific timelines and commitment. |
|
|
| Page 13 to my understanding talks about land aquisition for nature reserves.. but as far as air polution is concerned I would hope NS is trying to take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by discouraging the sale of poorly processed fuel (of which Irving Oil is well known for selling), as well as looking at alternatives to fossil fuel use for power generation. Perhaps NS would have a great potential for power generation based on tidal changes, since the bay of Funday has the greatest tides in the world. It could be implemented with initial small experimentation in remote areas where a single power generator could be hooked up to provide power for a few homes. Then if that process proves satisfactory it could be expanded. The same proposal could be given for wind power, which to my understanding could potentially be a great source of power in the valley at least. Also I hope the government is looking into the research that has been conducted in Great Britain which has shown great potential for the reduction of methane emission in cattle and other livestock by a simple feed additive. |
|
|
| These sound like great ideas. What about addressing indoor air quality as well, which seriously affects the health of many people? Chemicals used in building products, such as formaldehyde in carpets, are responsible for many chemical sensitivities and health problems. |
|
|
| Need to regulate the pollution emitted by off road vehicles.
We need more public transportation. |
|
|
| -increase public transit and discourage car use
-promote smart growth and decrase need to communte
-provide incentives for industry to decrease pollution i.i. pollution tax |
|
|
| Clean up our air. Make the power company eliminate pollution emission.
Stop acid rain. |
|
|
| These initiatives are all important, but it is also important to encourage individuals to do their part as well. Part of this is working with municipalities in updating and making public transportation more efficient. |
|
|
| A recent study released by CBC suggested that the quality of air in Nova Scotia ranked poorly in Canada. I was taken aback since I always thought we were better off than say Hamilton. Obviously work needs to be done in this area.
Agree on all comments made in paper on this issue. |
|
|
| Agree with all. |
|
|
| The initiatives listed are good, but the one most directly under our own control is missing: reducing reliance on the automobile. This can be done by planning the kinds of municipal development that capitalize on clustering near existing facilities, and avoiding the strip developments and suburban sprawl that make cars so essential. |
|
|
| Except for burning of soft coal and not monitoring quarries and a few other items, the government of NS is not a serious player - this is essentially a national and continental problem. |
|
|
| I think first of all that improving environment solely for human health reasons is just plain silly. You can live in a bubble and be healthy.
Actual legistlation instead of simple-minded 'encouragement' would be a good idea. Reseraching major sources is a good idea but it is already obvious what some of them are. Stop them now instead of waiting for more research. |
|
|
| we should EXCEED the primary
components of smog: ground level ozone and
particulate matter
instead of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
mercury through regulatory programs, perhaps INCENTIVE programs would be better received? |
|
|
| | |
| 3. | Please read our commitments on water quality (p. 14, all bullets). Please provide your comments on these commitments and any suggestions you may have about their implementation. |
|
|
| (As above) Work most closely with the ENGOs, scientific and industry partners so that the decisions made and implemented are of equal proportion and representation - this is critical for it to be effective.And ensure you have the engo's involved that will challenge this issue (** ** **) |
|
|
| Great...another priority...this is our water we are talking about... |
|
|
| I agree issues need to be supported, but realistically the results of the positive changes made now won't be realized for 40-50 years - so I hope that is truly a commitment that will be honoured. |
|
|
| Enough money has been spent on studying the water quality of Halifax and Sydney Harbours. They suck. A grade two student can tell you how to improve the water quality in the harbours (just ask one). My suggestion is to stop dumping raw waste into the water.
As for the other inititives, any steps towards a safer water supply are improvements on what we have now, and should be implemented without delay. |
|
|
| - Enforce and strengthen legislation re: farm, home and cottage sewage runoff into watercourses and bodies.
- Educate the public re: water protecting legislation.
- Set up an anonymous report-line for observed infraction of water-protecting legislation.
- Employ staff to follow up such reports and take the necessary action.
- Free annual water testing for private well owners.
- Prevent nitrogen runoff into waterways from farms - change to organic farming (abolish HST refunds for synthetic fertilizers).
- Grants to communities to upgrade water treatment plants to highest available standard.
- Timeline for upgrading of water treatment plants where highest standards have not been achieved yet.
- Legilsation to prevent storm drains to pollute water bodies and courses. An abundance of filtration systems exist!
- Timeline for ending all discharges of raw sewage.
- Grants to communities to install sewage treatment facilities with extra incentives for natural systems.
- Revoke all licences for open sea-cage fish farms.
- Legislation re: quality of sea water that's returned from land-based cages of fishfarms |
|
|
| I like that you will provide some funding to help muncipalities improve. Otherwise, it's all talk... |
|
|
| Agree with all the bullets on page 14. Study the water resources of the probince as is being done in Kings Co. and then educate industry, eg. agriculture and fisheries re. their responsibilities and force them to comply by dogged detection, enforcement and fines. |
|
|
| See above. |
|
|
| Ensuring clean healthy water supplies in the long run requires us to use the resources we have more efficiently. There should be targets set for water conservation in this province. Each household could receive a base level for which they are charged a nominal fee, but anything above subsistence level is charged. Why should people be allowed to fill swimming pools and water lawns on a hot day for no additional charge. We are prolific water (and energy) wasters in Canada – the worst in the world. The reason is that we do not charge the true costs of using these resources. I’m not suggesting people paying for water required for basic needs, but for frivolous water usage. Let’s begin to get progressive in our approach to resource management. The approach described above is called tiered pricing and it can also be applied to energy use. Its common elsewhere – so its not rocket science.
Incentivise conservation and educate people about the preciousness of our resources.
|
|
|
| The release of the Provincial Water Strategy was long awaited. While the document does provde many measures for protection of drinking water on a municipal level it falls seriously shourt with regard to protection of well water for the many rural private well users. It also is void of the necessary protection mesures for our water resources. The Province has stated this is only part one of what will further be developed, however with municipal water supplies being drawn from rural aquifers, it is necessary to eimplement water protectoni which will protect and ensure protection for all groundwater sources.
Some of the measures requried to implement protection in rural areas will requrie a more careful review of farming practices, education of private septic systems, and a financial mechanism to allow those who require an improvement to afford the necessary upgrades. Mandatory composint of manures would be a great benefit to rural communities and stricter controsl on application allowances of manures during the spring, especailly true during periods of heavy rains.
Radius allowances in rural areas for industrial activities would also benefit the protection of the groundwater. This should also include items and considerations of issues such as drawn down on our water resources. Industrial activities and farming are scattered upon many rural areas and as such land use planning plays a key role in the protection of groundwater. All activities including aggregate must be allowed to be involved on a municiapl level for correct land use planning to occur.
Outdoor oil tanks should be insureed and not exception be allowed.
Recharge areas must also be protected. The use of road salt must be reviewed in rural areas and viewed with regard to types of transportation and use of rural areas roads. |
|
|
| A though should be given to windshield washer fluid (poison). Tens of millions of litres of thies are used yearly on automobiles eitehr evaporating into tht eari or running off into ditches polluting the water table. |
|
|
| I'd like to see more specific details about the Drinking Water Strategy. "Source protection" is definitely a need. How much of the actual watershed areas is going to be protected from chemical pollutants? My understanding after talking to someone at DEL is that most real watershed areas are not protected, but only those with a special designation. I beleive it would be more cost effective to educate and provide incentives for better "source protection". |
|
|
| Very admirable objectives - but I think impossible to do. The arsenic in water is natural and in all the slates and shale. |
|
|
| More attention should be paid to altering and infilling of watercourses and lakes, on both private and public lands. Whiel I am unsure what else could be done with it, the spreading of human waste on farmland does not "smell right". |
|
|
| · This section also seems weak and vague.
· The province should state unequivocally that fresh water resources are public goods that will not be privatised, exported, or otherwise be dedicated to private profiteering.
The province should immediately halt all withdrawals for bottling water. This is simply an unregulated way for transnational corporations to export and profit from the finite public water resources of the province.
|
|
|
| Farms should develop timelines to reduce chemical pesticide use.
I repeat my suggestion about a special bottle water tax to fund programs to raise awareness over the importance of good water quality and watershed management.
- Farms, cottages and home septic systmes should have more rigorous inspection/enforcement. |
|
|
| This sounds good as long as certain areas are not "closed to the public" or "closed to exploration" under the trumped up guise of "water protection". Protection is great as l;ong as it is administered reasonably. |
|
|
| Halifax harbour cleanup should do. |
|
|
| Same as above for all the bullets on page 14. |
|
|
| What about the Tobeatic? Insist on expansion of riparian protection zone. |
|
|
| Bullet #8: Good idea! Can we afford it? |
|
|
| Needs to be a national objective. We have to be careful of big operations. |
|
|
| Much larger buffer strips (100 metres on either side of streams, lakes and wetlands) should be legislated with respect to forestry harvesting and other forms of devlopment.
The sitting and containment of pollutants must also be restricted with respect to watercourses and preventative measures to ensure the purity of groundwater must be strengthened.
Invasive species have also irreversibly altered the water quality of the Great Lakes and increased incidences of botulism and blue-green algae have been shown to be linked to the invasive zebra mussel. tox algae introduced via ballast water can threaten wild aquatic species as well as aquaculture operations and cause sickness and even death in humans who eat toxic shellfish. Disease-causing bacteria and viruses carried in ballast also represent a threat to water quality. Unless the province works to remedy its response to invasive species issues, this province is vulnerable to the damage which invasive species can incur on healthy watersheds and human health. |
|
|
| Again, stop paying up-service and start doing some serious regulation. The only meaningful commitment here is the provision of funding to municipalities. |
|
|
| I notice there is no mention of working with the forest industry. Making sure buffer zones are left around our waterways will do much to keep our water sources protected. |
|
|
| These contain more detail that most of the so-called "commitments" but again, see above comments. |
|
|
| In addition to getting on with sewage treatment implementation province-wide, the massive, uncontrolled escalation in rural subdivisions - around Halifax, for example needs to be addressed as it is already resulting in predictable contamination of wells from septic systems. |
|
|
| The bullets do not discuss the concept of water conservation, which would minimize extraction from aquifers and reduce treatment costs prior to potable water entering the distribution system.
With particular emphasis on rural communities, the province and municipalities should be promoting alternative means of wastewater handling. For example, grey water recycling would reduce demand on groundwater or systems such as the Waterloo Biofilter, an aerobic wastewater treatment unit, can treat wastes while reducing the size of the disposal bed should be encouraged possibly via grants.
|
|
|
| All this and more.
Again, provide support to municipalities for land use planning to proect all aquatic systems, not just water "supply" areas. It is also important to improve recognition of the role of environmental stewardship in water management, since healthy ecosystems, watersheds and aquatic systems are critical to many aspects of human and non-human health, not just as water "supply". Municipal planners and public works personnel need to be educated, empowered and provided with resources to protect watersheds.
|
|
|
| HRM moratorium needs to be implemented so that water treatment systems can be adequately planned.
stop clear cutting to stop degradation of water sheds and siltification of water ways. |
|
|
| These are admirable commitments. I urge you however, to work to protect all water in Nova Scotia, whether it's directly used by people or not. Also, as well as quality, water quantity is important. We need to protect wetlands and underground aquifers and water tables. |
|
|
| see answer above. |
|
|
| Toughen up regulations on activities (mining, forestry, farming) occurring in watersheds of streams and rivers (both in areas used for human consumption and elsewhere - safe water is important for all life). Individuals whose activities occur in sensitive watershed areas need to be properly trained to recognize the seriousness of the issue and how best to conduct their work. |
|
|
| Too vague - what exactly is going to be implemented? This needs much more defined commitments! |
|
|
| Fully support.
Implement free water-testing, monitoring and expertise. Find ways to provide funding for water and wastewater infrastructure programs in smaller, rural communities which may not be incorporated or eligible for existing programs. |
|
|
| Water quality:
none of the promises on page 14 require the government to set high standards. The
provincial government has to provide leadership here.
mining’s effect on the level of the water table and the contamination mining causes need to meet higher standards of environmental protection. For instance, The Black Bull mine on the edge of the Tobeatic wilderness should have to meet higher standards.
watercourses need more protection. Trees within 100 metres of a watercourse should be
left standing
there should be adequate staff to monitor and enforce improved regulations
|
|
|
| I agree with all bullets except bullet2 if there no consultation with all stakeholders. |
|
|
| Implement mandatory water testing, tax water use and penalise polluters. |
|
|
| High standards for industry and protecting what is left of our forests and wilderness areas is the best way to ensure water quality. |
|
|
| Water conservation appears to be missing from these commitments. We, like most Canadians, use far more water than we require. Incentives for reducing this use should be developed. |
|
|
| It soulds like a very good strategy, but bullet 3 and 8 should be the number 1 and 2 priority, especially the wastewater infrastructure program. |
|
|
| I support these, however, there has to be a commitment to consulting and liaising with environmental groups and the community |
|
|
| The effects of agriculture on streams, rivers, and the local water table should be monitored more closely. |
|
|
| Not soon enough! |
|
|
| . yes definitely expand the groundwater, stream, tidal and climate montioring programs. Ensure they are integrated to make the best use of information - not scattered all over the province. Key to hydrological regions and watershed approach
. focus management concerns on the impact of subdivisions - especially those with on-site systems. |
|
|
| This should have a high priority. Whereas there is only so much can be done about air quality (mostly downstream from NE states) water quality is completely within our control.
Too much land development is going on without concern for water source and also disposal of waste water. Good example, land around much of Bras d'Or Lakes not suitable for small lots since underlying rock is limestone.
|
|
|
| Protect water shed areas in their entirity |
|
|
| Once again I would try to involve more experts from acadamia in this aspect. |
|
|
| Why do you say work with municpalities, but not First Nations? We use the same waters and watersheds. We have issues that may be better adressed by working with the province. Reaching out to First Nations is important especially as we all share common waste water issues with the municipalities. |
|
|
| See GPI Water Quality Accounts |
|
|
| Good comments however don't sterilize huge tracts of land (thousands of acres) around water sources with the sole purpose to lock land up for all time. Limit the acceptable uses in these areas, do not cut out ALL uses.
|
|
|
| must have good water to grow things,for good health. |
|
|
| A friend of mine was seriously ill, her liver was very enlarged, and doctors here could not find the cause. She was diagnosed in Switzerland as having acute copper poisoning. It was from the acidity from the well water causing the metal to leach into the water. She did drink a lot of water, but I should think there might be other undiagnosed cases of the same thing,
Lakes (and loons) are in grave danger. |
|
|
| - water quality must be monitored at all times, with respect to chemical and biological contaminants |
|
|
| Go beyond the traditional coliform counts, protect wetlands at headwaters and reduce chemical treatments with chlorine. |
|
|
| 1) I see no focus on ground water. Why not? Ground water supply is important and measures are needed to better safe guard this vital water resource.
2) Most of these statements are meaningless - "work with the Dept of Health on issues related to contaminants in drinking water" Who is to do this ... last time I looked the Dept of Health was still part of the Provincial government.
3) The water quality monitoring should include ground water.
3) We need some way to better control pollution from existing septic systems. They should be examined regularly and cetrified - like a car is inspected for safety every year, every septic system should be verified safe every year or else taken out of service.
|
|
|
| Same as above!! How will you (and the public) know if and when you have achieved the lofty goals? With no objectives that have measureable aims you could spend a fortune of tax payers' money and achieve minimal results but still gloat. Imagine that! Not the way to do business nor serve the public. |
|
|
| Looks great. The only other thing I would add may not even fall within NSDEL's realm. That would be to develop a coastal policy for NS. I would think this may be NS Agriculture and Fisheries' turf, but NSDEL could help push this too. |
|
|
| Good objectives. |
|
|
| see above |
|
|
| The problem is poor water for drinking while in Nova Scotia because of acid rain, rock geology, etc. Farms are too big - it would be better if there were several smaller farms - this would give off less pollutants. |
|
|
| Make all industries more responsible for what they do. |
|
|
| Designate more and more protected areas. We have so little crown land we should hold it as a buffer for our future.
Control road building by private land owners. Many people live downstream of these places and run-off can contaminate their water supply. |
|
|
| Fair commitments. "Time is of the essence". |
|
|
| The N.S. government was involved in action to dump Halifax's garbage into the tin mine pit at East Kempville Yarmouth Co. This is a well water source for Argyle, Yarmouth, and Shelburne Counties. Commitment lacking here. |
|
|
| Water "Quantity" is also addressed. No agriculture should be allowed in areas that routinely have too little rainfall to support the intended crops. Irrigation should not be a reason to use our waters. Irrigation depletes natural resources (ground water)and gives rise to salination of the land, making it eventually unsuitable for agriculture, then unsuitable for the original natural biota as well. |
|
|
| Again, admirable objectives. Just a couple of comments on water. The modern practice of concentrating things into one place for economic reasons is a big mistake. Be it aquaculture, poultry, hogs, etc. The cramped conditions lead to higher stress levels, lower resistance to disease, more need for drugs and intervention, but more importantly, highly concentrated waste and runoff. If this were spread around in a more uniform manner it would be absorbed and go un-noticed (maybe?). |
|
|
| Protect our water |
|
|
| Safe water is a necessity for good health. I think a Drinking Water Management Committee is an excellent idea! The Department of Health should be involved in regular water-monitoring.
I agree the fishing and farming industries need to be monitored regularly (especially the acquaculture industry). Environmentally friendly pesticides need to be implemented in the farming industry. |
|
|
| Protect watersheds
Buffe zones around all waterways
Provincial guidelines on aquaculture
Provincial guidelines on sewage treatment in rural areas
Sewage treatment for Halifax Harbour
Educate cities and road crews about reducign salt use in winter
Protect groundwater from agricultural chemicals.
Better disposal of contaminate water
Adopt proceedures to protect against bio-invaders and contaminated ballast water |
|
|
| Keep logging and development away from our local watershed areas. |
|
|
| rer |
|
|
| What are your commitments to source protection? What does that mean?
Tell us more! |
|
|
| The bullets are fine, but forestry practises must be added, as suggested earlier.
My reaction here is that we already have a lot of legislation in things like green belts and agricultural runoff, and the problem is a lack of will in government to properly eversee and enforce it. |
|
|
| I'm surprised there's not much mentioned on the clean up of the aquifer or on the clean up of our oceans... I would think these two issues are two of the largest areas that we need to conquer - especially as they have shown direct influence on the health of Nova Scotians and on the life of all classes of salt-water organisms (organisms upon which a good sector of the economy of NS is dependent). |
|
|
| I think water use in agriculture may become a serious issue in the near future. It might be a good idea to begin to look into this. Water conservation at the individual household level and in business and industry arealos inportant components. |
|
|
| -protect headwaters
-keep water testing in the public sector
|
|
|
| Let's get the Harbour cleaned up.
Wells need control so that water quality is safe. |
|
|
| Ban logging and other industrial development in municipal watershed areas. |
|
|
| Also important to work with landowners adjacent to water courses to ensure that actions on land have little or no impact on waterways. This would include working with landowners to require buffer areas adjacent to waterways and restrict activities on land along a waterway. This should also apply to land developers. |
|
|
| The ocean is a major concern for me as I swim and dive and eat from it. I know that people continue to believe that what they do not see won't hurt them. I would like to see continued and ongoing policing of populated areas including the fisheries and other potentially polluting industries.
I agree with statements on water protection.
I am also concerned about private land use and ownership in protected areas and wilderness areas. I have seen too many sources of pollution left behind by recreators and hunters and camp owners with not apparent concern for the environment or the pollution of water. These people have been given a gift and they have abused it. (re leases in the Tobeatic or other such areas). |
|
|
| Just make sure the public knows if problemns arise. Interdepartmental committees tend to cover up their own mistakes if within their power. |
|
|
| Agree but would add that watershed and aquatic habitat protection and conservation has instrinsic value, not simply value for human consumption. |
|
|
| What is missing is a clear statement, perhaps in bullet #1, that clearcutting of our forests must be seen as a major cause of water supply problems (not to mention loss of key wildlife habitat).
The second bullet is the next most important and the easiest to implement: we need much wider green belts along watercourses, and a will to enforce them. There is now widespread disregard for protective green belts, and DNR usually seems to bow to industry pressures. |
|
|
| I see nothing specicifying the type of treatments to be used. It seems that the intitative for healthy communities, protected wetlands and improved human waste treatment can be combined. |
|
|
| NEED A COUPLE MORE:
1. Develop incentive programs for water conservation (i.e. grants for low flow and/or composting toilets)
2. Develop incentives for rainwater collection (perhaps provide free rainbarrels) for people's gardens |
|
|
| bullet 3: There are presently too many legislative barriers to deal with regarding surface water. Pursueing further regulation of this resource is not warranted or endorsed. |
|
|
| | |
| 4. | Please read our commitments on hazardous waste (p. 16, all bullets). Please provide your comments on these commitments and any suggestions you may have about their implementation. |
|
|
| Even with all the work government hasd done, and I recognize that it is alot, there is such a lack of education regarding what to do with them. And NO information as to the real threat they pose to human health. Is it not government's responsibility to also let people know the science as well as the disposal of and reduction of usage |
|
|
| Our current regulations need to be stronger - some products need to be banned outright, some need restricted usage. The government's mandate should be to reduce this waste significantly. |
|
|
| I have a similar concern with these commitments hoping realistic time grams have been accounted for. Enforcing changes to stop pollution and contaminatinos must begin immediately. The sooner it begins the sooner our environment will begin to benefit. |
|
|
| - Elminate immediately all hazardous materials that are used for cosmetic reasons (eg. lawn care)
- Grants for research into replacing hazardous materials with non-hazardous ones - eliminate HST on these.
- Legislate closed system for hazardous materials; leftovers go back to the manufaturer via place of sale for reuse, recycling, or safe disposal.
- Disposal has to be done to the highest environmental standard available, even when it is more expensive. If this raises the price of the product in the first place, so be it; it is only the true cost!
- Where it is known that hazardous material is in the ground, landowners have to be made responsible for immediate cleanup.
- Legislate the use of styrofoam or equivalent out of existence. Compostable materials exist to replace them.
|
|
|
| See above. It should be easier for households to dispose of hazardous waste - Maybe with more collection centres or pickup. |
|
|
| Establish standards which carry a penalty for violation. The bar can be raised overtime to allow industry and households to adjust. |
|
|
| Love the "polluter pays" strategy. Penalties should be harsh. Otherwise, once again every point sounds nice but at the same time is all talk. |
|
|
| Agree fully and strongly with all bullets on page 16 and encourage the provincial and federal governments to research thoroughly all new products for the possibility of future pollutants and/or toxicity and/or ozone depletion. |
|
|
| The green plan only lists ideas without any details of how this can be fulfilled. Household hazardous waste is a difficulty in Nova Scotia. In part, the problem lies with the cost to home owners to dispose of these types of waste.
Reusing paing is a good conception, but one in which consideration should be given to eliminating the cost to the home owner of disposal. Another difficulty is property owners who have had their land targeted as disposal sites by those unwilling to pay for proper disposal. It is unfair to charge the victim of unwanted waste. Moer provincial ability to reuse scrap metals, rubbers, and plastics should be used. In Europe there is a system of bottle banks set up in communities. the banks are located near retailoutlets, whereby citizens can dispos of glass and other bottles. The money made from these banks is given for community projects, and while this requries commmunity invovlement, it also involves provincial support to start up and for initial costs. |
|
|
| Communities need to made aware of source of hazardous waste, and educated about potnetial risks, etc. |
|
|
| These priorities are well-intentioned, and they highlight key solutions to hazardous waste issues (especially the polluter pays principal). That said, there still is no direct mention of action to date, staff-time allocated to these initiatives, budget allocations, or even set goals or targets.
One solution that must not be initiated is the incineration of hazardous wastes. These wastes must be dealt with in a more holistic way, considering all environmental effects. As stated before, burning the problem and distributing the pollution into the atmosphere brings about cumulative damage, and it changes a local pollution problem into a global problem.
|
|
|
| Mandatory reporting of site contamination is a good idea, but enforceable? Will there be toxic waste at the quartz mine north of Shelburned in the form of a tailings pond bulnerable to overflowing due to heavy rains. Is that uranium mine proposal near New Ross dead and buried? |
|
|
| Is this voluntary? If there are standards which carry a penalty, is the penalty increasingly harsh for re-offence? Is there appropriate involvement of community in determining where acquacluture sites can be located? Should there be a zoning of areas where it simply should not occur? There should certainly be limits to the sizes of aquaculture sites. |
|
|
| I like this section as I am very concerned about protecting the environment. I am also concerned about the possibility of halting and costly stalling manoevers by those in charge when it comes to environmentally conscious development of mines, quarries, etc. |
|
|
| What does bullet #1 mean? Your statement at the end of paragraph 2 should read, "...consistent with the principles of environmentally sound sustainable development." What barriers to "responsible economic growth" will you remove? Who decides what is "unnecessary"? |
|
|
| There is no evidence of any intention to clean up this mess in Sydney! |
|
|
| There is too much salt applied to our highways each year. Ice is a hazard. Salt affects our wells and waterways. Let's use more sand and less salt. 280,000 tonnes of salt is an enormous amount of salt. |
|
|
| Good. When developing new subdivisions or city, the land should be checked for natural as well as manmade contaminants. |
|
|
| All worthwhile endeavors, but population growth will over power these programs, etc. |
|
|
| These priorities are well intentioned, and they highlight key solutions to hazardous waste issues - especially the polluter pays principal. That said, there is still no direct mention of action to date, staff time allocated to these initiatives, budget allocations, or even set goals or targets.
One solution that must not be initiated is the incineration of hazardous wastes. These wastes must be dealt with in a more holistic way, considering all environmental effects. As stated before, burning the problem and distributing the pollution into the atmosphere brings about cumulative damage, and it changes a local pollution problem into a global problem. |
|
|
| The tenor of these "commitments" is anything but reassuring. They suggest that regulation will be relaxed rather than strengthened. |
|
|
| The word promote is used in most bullets, but how will you get industries to act and what will happen if they don't? |
|
|
| Again, these sound good but mroe details are needed - and don't "promote" - make it happen. |
|
|
| IMPLEMENT EXISTING RULES, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL THE POLLUTER!
Also, give prominent media coverage and recognition to pollution reducers and eliminators. |
|
|
| no nukes.
don't cut corners in the short term. we need vision and commitment to get out of the predicament we are in.
Look to creative humanure solutions and biotreatments both human and hazardous waste |
|
|
| We need to have more 'upfront' control of the situation. First, remove the loopholes that allows the piecemeal development of a project without an environmental assessment. Second, demand security upfront in case of any accidents - don't wait for the company to go bankrupt and then ask the taxpayers to clean up the mess. Third, put a special tax or deposit on products with a serious environmental liability so there is an incentive for their recovery. Fourth, reward those companies that improve their operations or products. |
|
|
| This section should spell out specific programs/regulations which will be used to promote pollution prevention. There are too many generalities, not enough specifics. |
|
|
| The province should move as quickly as possible to adopt the toughest standards on hazardous waste. A good model for this might be found in Sweden, which adopted a "sustainability in one generation" policy on this and many other environmental issues - reduce as much as possible in one generation. |
|
|
| I strongly support all of these commitments, especially those concerning the "polluter pays" principle, life-cycle management, and legislated requirements for mandatory reporting of site contamination. |
|
|
| License and greatly restrict "receational" use of OHVs.
Encourae and provide incentives and remove disincentives to organic agriculture; and, discourae and remove incentives for non-organic, industrial agriculture.
Prohibit consetic yse of pesticides and herbicides.
When applying risk based management, utilize a risk assessment that does not focus only on direct risks to human health.
Yes, polluters should pay.
All this and more. |
|
|
| All hazardous waste disposal must be open to public scrutiny. |
|
|
| There should be more localised collection of household hazardous waste, even if it is only once a year, especially in rural areas. In Falmouth, any household hazardous waste can only be properly disposed of by taking it ot the Cogmagun landfill, which is more that 30 minutes, one way. |
|
|
| I agree with the bullets but I strongly disagree with stewartship. |
|
|
| Agree, especially re. updating existing regulations and enforcing them with greater penalties. |
|
|
| Hazardous waste:
Do not let eliminating regulatory duplication weaken these regulations. They need
strengthening. Standards should be set and met. There should be adequate personnel to monitor and enforce. “Promote” should read “require”. |
|
|
| Hazardous waste must be managed. There is no excuse for allowing hazardous waste to contaminate our ecosystems. Incentives must be provided to reduce the hazardous waste being generated. |
|
|
| Good strategy. |
|
|
| I support these and recommend that sufficient funding and human resources are allocated to the task. |
|
|
| Industry must be held accountable foprt he management of the waste they produce. Water ways must be safe from run off and the government standards must be set high and consistenly enforced. |
|
|
| The prevention and "polluter pays" approaches are certainly appropriate. |
|
|
| Road salt should be phased out, mandate the use of studded winter tires, thus transferring the responsibility to the motorists for their safety. Again penalise those who fail to conform.
All polluters should pay, stop promoting and start enforcing. Use so called job creation money to hire and train inspectors. |
|
|
| Residents of subdivisions that have been developed on or near old gold districts, complain that "mining contaminated my drilled well with arsenic". This is false. The arsenic is the result of a 'mineral association' between gold and arsenic, and other sulfides, that exist in the underlying bedrock, and is due to geologic structure. It would be there even if no mining had been done. Indeed, trace amounts of arsenic in soils are used as exploration tools to aid in finding gold deposits. |
|
|
| Not soon enough! |
|
|
| Far too much road salt is used; the cost to human health, environmental degradation and vehicle deterioration due not warrant the overliberal use of salt. Should be used at intersections and on hills. Sand otherwise; and strictly enforce lower speed limits during winter snow and ice conditions. |
|
|
| The technology exists to safely despose of hazardous wastes and it can also be a viable industry. Explore more!
|
|
|
| See upcoming GPI Solid Waste Resource Accounts (Due for release in April-May). We can supply you with an advance copy of this report - actually NSDEL already has an advance copy. Lots of suggestions in that report on reduction of hazardous waste. |
|
|
| I support modernizing (and enforcing!) our regulations as they pertain to all aspects of pollution, both industrial and residential. |
|
|
| Not sure what the second bullet means. Very vague points all around. The seventh bullet is particularly ridiculous as the best approach to an area might be to let it recover over time rather than to redevelop it. Does this mean schools and parks over industrial waste sites? How would the last bullet apply to First Nations? Reporting of environmental spills on First Nations lands is a nightmare. Is it reported to Feds? or province? How is that structure set up? |
|
|
| Good ideas. |
|
|
| - ensure and enforce the "polluter pays" principle |
|
|
| make companies responsible for clean ups. |
|
|
| 1) life cycle management of hazardous substances should be regulated. This is not a matter for promotion
2) contaminants on land should remain forever the property and responsibility of the person or organization that released it to the environment. This principle needs to find a way into our legal system so that latter are not stuck with the liabilities and careless of others.
3) early detection and response is regulatory issue not an issue for promotion. |
|
|
| As above! How much do you get paid from the tax payers' money and how much did this material cost to prepare and distribut - and what exactly did you hope to achieve? A snow job? Be results oriented for goodness sake - not airy fairy with sugar
coated promises! |
|
|
| I like the "polluter pays" principle.
It all looks great; if possible it would be nice to see more specific targets. |
|
|
| I'm tired of people who complain of arsenic levels in their water who build near old gold districts which are abundant in N.S.. The arsenic exists in the underlying bedrock with other sulphides --
mining didn't cause this . |
|
|
| see above |
|
|
| The tar ponds are an example: too much survey work when what we need is solutions and a depot to dispose of these items.
|
|
|
| Again, heavy industry is one of the problems. Even the N.S. Power Co. is a large polluter - or do the little guys have to pay as usual? |
|
|
| I have experienced residents of subdivisions that have been developed on or near old gold districts, who complain that "mining contaminated my drilled well with arsenic". This is false. The arsenic is the result of a 'mineral association' between gold and arsenic, and other sulfides, that exist in the underlying bedrock, and is due to geologic structure. It would be there even if no mining had been done. Indeed, trace amounts of arsenic in soils are used as exploration tools to aid in finding gold deposits. |
|
|
| Make sure that it is safely taken care of and stop making so much of it. |
|
|
| Disposal of hazardous waste in small towns and rural areas could be a problem with no drop off areas. |
|
|
| Fair commitments. "Time is of the essence". |
|
|
| I totally agree with the practice of "making the polluter pay".
Proper procedures of hazardous products need to be implemented and followed. Areas need to be cleaned effectively (i.e. Sydney Tar Ponds). |
|
|
| Make those who cause hazardous waste clean up after themselves. Huge fines that will make them think twice. |
|
|
| rere |
|
|
| As in previous comments, this is a decent list of principles but is very lacking in any specifics that will actually move us forward. |
|
|
| Sounds good to me. As I believe, guidelines for the disposal of hazardous waste are fairly well outlined by international policy and national policy. |
|
|
| Need better guidelines for generation and disposal. |
|
|
| Polluter pays in every case, whatever the type or circumstances. Big fines for law breakers. |
|
|
| Sustainable development is not sustainable if it pollutes, otherwise agree. |
|
|
| The problem here is political will. the words look fine, but there are many examples of operators violating existing regulations, so new ones in themselves will not help without timely enforcement. |
|
|
| We have overkill for some items like oil in soil while we flush real poison into the ocean. Strange. |
|
|
| Agree |
|
|
| I see nothing about Prior informed consent. That would be nice. Also the precautionary princple would be applicable here before allowing use of new pesticide and herbicides.
Once again you plan to encourage/promote. You are the government - LEGISLATE |
|
|
| CLEAN UP THE HARBOUR ALREADY> STOP DUMPING OUR DISGUSTING WASTE INTO THE PRECIOUS OCEAN!!! |
|
|
| My questions is HOW WILL YOU promote pollution prevention? THese are all nice statements, but if there is no implementation plan with it, it is hard to comment!
OK...what does "sustainable redevelopment" mean? Can development actually be sustainable? You need to operationalize your definitions before I can comment on these somewhat vaccuous statements. |
|
|
| The definition of, "hazardous waste", should not include such material as crushed rock which is, essentially, inert material. |
|
|
|
 |
|
* In keeping with the privacy provisions of the NS Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, [S.20] personal information has been removed from these comments. |
