www.sendacow.org.uk
Our work
This year, we will help almost 16,000 families along on their journey out of poverty. Each of those will go on to lend a hand to an average of 10 further families, restoring real hope to communities in rural Africa.
Those we work with include women, orphans, child-headed households and people living with HIV/AIDS. They have often lived in extreme poverty – despite their hard work. Yet now, with our support, they are starting to feed their families, send their children to school, earn a steady income, and lead happy and fulfilled lives.
Our work has three core strands: strengthening people, farming and animals and caring for the environment.
Working with people in groups, to make use of peer support, we train them in how to use their natural resources wisely to build thriving mixed crop-livestock farming systems. This includes training in natural – or organic – farming; and in livestock care. Where necessary, we provide good quality animals, seeds and tools to get families started.
As well as being cheap and effective, the farming methods we promote are kind to the environment and are truly 'sustainable' development. Families learn how to combat environmental challenges such as soil erosion and water shortages – often the result of climate change.
It’s an approach that is enabling whole communities in seven African countries to move towards self-sufficiency. And along the way, they know they can rely on the support of our extension workers.
“Now my family eats three times a day, and we are able to save in case of any future shocks. I am planning to support my kids until they complete school and also to train more farmers in natural farming methods. Nothing is impossible.”
Alemu Buka Birra, Ethiopia.
How can I get involved? www.sendacow.org.uuk
Find out how you can make a difference
Family Friend gives you a unique opportunity to share a family’s journey out of poverty. Find out more about changing a family's future
Read moreSend to a friendNewsletter sign up
Where we work
Find out more about the countries we work in
Read moreSmallholder Farmers Report
Read the African Smallholder Farmers' Group report which showcases, amongst others; Send a Cow's approach to development and how we have notably improved the livelihoods of African families.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Dance Up a Storm at Oakdene
"Chance to Dance" - Tuesdays @ Oakdene
Flora Doehler | November 5, 2010 at 3:13 am | Categories: Bear River, Oakdene Centre, dance | URL: http://wp.me/pfgTD-au
"Chance to Dance" is a fun mixture of different dance genre's including jazz, yoga, and ballet. Everyone should bring their own mat and a bottle of water. For more info contact Jane @ 467-0989
Where: Oakdene Centre, Bear River
When: every Tuesday, 7-8:30pm starting November 9
Fee: $2 donation/ week (proceeds to Oakdene)
Flora Doehler | November 5, 2010 at 3:13 am | Categories: Bear River, Oakdene Centre, dance | URL: http://wp.me/pfgTD-au
"Chance to Dance" is a fun mixture of different dance genre's including jazz, yoga, and ballet. Everyone should bring their own mat and a bottle of water. For more info contact Jane @ 467-0989
Where: Oakdene Centre, Bear River
When: every Tuesday, 7-8:30pm starting November 9
Fee: $2 donation/ week (proceeds to Oakdene)
Labels:
dancing Oakdene Nova Scotia
Georges Bank and Exploration
NS: Indefinite exploration ban placed on Georges Bank
By Staff, Transcontinental Media
Source: The Sou’Wester, November 4, 2010
[HALIFAX, NS] - The Government of Nova Scotia says the marine eco-system off Nova Scotia is too important to place at risk, so it is introducing legislation to indefinitely extend a moratorium on oil and gas exploration on the Canadian portion of Georges Bank.
“It’s just not worth the risk to drill in an area this important to Nova Scotians,” said Premier Darrell Dexter. “Rather than continue this debate every few years, this legislation will provide certainty about our intentions around Georges Bank. Until a compelling case can be made for this decision to be reconsidered, the moratorium will stand.”
The latest moratorium on Georges Bank had been set to expire in June of this year. Prior to that the province had announced that it would extend the moratorium until December 31, 2015, to allow for more scientific study.
But now this provincial legislation will extend the moratorium indefinitely and will require a public hearing and a vote in the legislature to lift it.
The legislation also requires the province to work with the federal government to support this recommendation to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the independent joint agency responsible for the regulation of petroleum activities in Nova Scotia’s offshore.
“Georges Bank is clearly different from the rest of our offshore,” said Energy Minister Bill Estabrooks. “We need to ensure that industry practices, technology, and other factors have improved to the point where we have full confidence to proceed and we are making the right decision to protect the Georges Bank and its valuable resources.”
The NoRigs 3 coalition – which is made up of fishermen, seafood processors, environmentalists and Aboriginal communities – is pleased with the province’s direction on this issue.
The coalition has been advocating for a permanent ban on oil and gas development on Georges Bank since 2008.
It calls Georges Bank “arguably the most productive marine ecosystem in Canadian Atlantic waters,” noting that many communities in southwestern Nova Scotia depend on the commercial fishery that contributes more than $200 million annually to the Nova Scotia economy.
NoRigs 3 says recent explosions of oil wells and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and near Australia in the Timor Sea have highlighted the kind of damage that can occur to a marine ecosystem and to fishing and tourism industries in the wake of large oil spills.
“This is the third time since the mid 1980s that NoRigs has fought to protect Georges Bank”, says Denny Morrow, NoRigs 3 chairperson. “We applaud this forward thinking action by the premier and his government.”
Georges Bank is home to more than 200 marine species, including the endangered North Atlantic right whale, and it is an important feeding ground for other whales, tuna, swordfish, sharks, turtles and seabirds. Spawning by at least one commercial species is taking place on Georges every month of the year.
Growth rates of fish on Georges surpass those in any other area of the Scotian shelf. The circular gyre resulting from tidal action and currents traps nutrients, eggs and larvae making Georges Bank a unique marine area.
NoRigs 3 says Georges Bank is the one place in Atlantic Canadian waters where a significant recovery of groundfish stocks has been seen. The haddock biomass is at the highest level in 50 years. Cod and yellow tail flounder are also rebuilding, but at a slower rate.
Georges Bank is also considered a successful example of joint Canadian and American groundfish stock management. The Americans have a moratorium on their side of the bank and legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to provide permanent protection to the 80 per cent of Georges that is in American waters.
The NoRigs 3 coalition points out that the fishing industry and coalition members are not opposed to oil and gas exploration or development in other less sensitive areas of the Scotia Shelf. It says it recognizes the importance of oil and gas revenues and jobs to the Nova Scotia economy.
By Staff, Transcontinental Media
Source: The Sou’Wester, November 4, 2010
[HALIFAX, NS] - The Government of Nova Scotia says the marine eco-system off Nova Scotia is too important to place at risk, so it is introducing legislation to indefinitely extend a moratorium on oil and gas exploration on the Canadian portion of Georges Bank.
“It’s just not worth the risk to drill in an area this important to Nova Scotians,” said Premier Darrell Dexter. “Rather than continue this debate every few years, this legislation will provide certainty about our intentions around Georges Bank. Until a compelling case can be made for this decision to be reconsidered, the moratorium will stand.”
The latest moratorium on Georges Bank had been set to expire in June of this year. Prior to that the province had announced that it would extend the moratorium until December 31, 2015, to allow for more scientific study.
But now this provincial legislation will extend the moratorium indefinitely and will require a public hearing and a vote in the legislature to lift it.
The legislation also requires the province to work with the federal government to support this recommendation to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, the independent joint agency responsible for the regulation of petroleum activities in Nova Scotia’s offshore.
“Georges Bank is clearly different from the rest of our offshore,” said Energy Minister Bill Estabrooks. “We need to ensure that industry practices, technology, and other factors have improved to the point where we have full confidence to proceed and we are making the right decision to protect the Georges Bank and its valuable resources.”
The NoRigs 3 coalition – which is made up of fishermen, seafood processors, environmentalists and Aboriginal communities – is pleased with the province’s direction on this issue.
The coalition has been advocating for a permanent ban on oil and gas development on Georges Bank since 2008.
It calls Georges Bank “arguably the most productive marine ecosystem in Canadian Atlantic waters,” noting that many communities in southwestern Nova Scotia depend on the commercial fishery that contributes more than $200 million annually to the Nova Scotia economy.
NoRigs 3 says recent explosions of oil wells and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and near Australia in the Timor Sea have highlighted the kind of damage that can occur to a marine ecosystem and to fishing and tourism industries in the wake of large oil spills.
“This is the third time since the mid 1980s that NoRigs has fought to protect Georges Bank”, says Denny Morrow, NoRigs 3 chairperson. “We applaud this forward thinking action by the premier and his government.”
Georges Bank is home to more than 200 marine species, including the endangered North Atlantic right whale, and it is an important feeding ground for other whales, tuna, swordfish, sharks, turtles and seabirds. Spawning by at least one commercial species is taking place on Georges every month of the year.
Growth rates of fish on Georges surpass those in any other area of the Scotian shelf. The circular gyre resulting from tidal action and currents traps nutrients, eggs and larvae making Georges Bank a unique marine area.
NoRigs 3 says Georges Bank is the one place in Atlantic Canadian waters where a significant recovery of groundfish stocks has been seen. The haddock biomass is at the highest level in 50 years. Cod and yellow tail flounder are also rebuilding, but at a slower rate.
Georges Bank is also considered a successful example of joint Canadian and American groundfish stock management. The Americans have a moratorium on their side of the bank and legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to provide permanent protection to the 80 per cent of Georges that is in American waters.
The NoRigs 3 coalition points out that the fishing industry and coalition members are not opposed to oil and gas exploration or development in other less sensitive areas of the Scotia Shelf. It says it recognizes the importance of oil and gas revenues and jobs to the Nova Scotia economy.
Wind Turbines
Via Dan Mills
Symposium Delivers Facts on Wind Energy
The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects, held this past weekend in Picton, brought together American, British and Canadian acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia.
Our understanding of how wind turbines can affect human health is steadily increasing. Since the facts often contradict the Ontario government’s and wind industry’s claims, it may be useful to clarify the current state of knowledge.
1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.
FACTS: Orville Walsh, CCSAGE chair and APPEC vice president, studied government regulations in every country hosting wind turbines. The standards differ widely and most are based on noise, not setback distances. Ontario’s noise level is 40 dbA, measured outside a home. Countries, like Germany, with lower levels cite either 35 dbA or +3 dbA above ambient sound. Night time ambient sound in a rural area is typically 30 dbA or less. (On the dbA scale, the ear can detect a difference of +/- 2-3 decibels and perceives 10 decibels as a doubling of sound.)
2. Claim: The sounds heard from wind turbines are no louder than whispers or a refrigerator.
FACTS: Dr. John Harrison, a physicist, explained that wind turbine sounds, especially the “swoosh,” are different because of their amplitude and can exceed the 40 dbA regulatory limit because turbine sitings are based on computer models, not live measurements. Moreover, turbine noise is not masked by natural sounds and can sometimes be perceived over great distances. Depending on weather conditions and cloud cover, a large installation of wind turbines, such as those planned for Lake Ontario, could emit over 40 dbA of noise as far as 9-15 km away.
3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.
FACTS: Acoustician Rick James exhibited spectrograms of the sound coming from land-based wind turbines in which the low-frequency component was substantial and could be measured more than 5 km away. He also compared the symptoms of people suffering from “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to the identical symptoms reported in the 1970’s and 80s by those working in so-called “sick buildings.” The latter problem was eventually identified as due to infra low-frequency sound (ILFN) transmitted through ducting.
4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.
FACTS: Dr. Alex Salt, a physiologist, described his recent research findings in which parts of the inner ear reacted visibly to infrasound. His research shows that the ear does respond to low-frequency sound even though we do not perceive it as sound. Further research will be required to understand how these impulses are transmitted to the brain, with possible disturbance and detrimental effects.
5. Claim: Complaints about wind turbine noise indicate annoyance, which is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Arline Bronzaft, a noise researcher, explained how daytime transit noise near a New York City public school went well beyond annoyance and affected students’ academic achievement. The effects of noise disturbance are not restricted to nighttime, and the effects of noise on children can be profound, impacting development.
6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Christopher Hanning, a specialist in Sleep Medicine, explained how noise can disrupt the sleep patterns necessary for health and how loss of sleep affects memory and thinking, and can lead in the long term to risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician and researcher and author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained how auditory systems react to sound and the negative effects of wind turbine sound on the patients she has studied.
7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.
FACTS: Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reported on his studies of people living near wind projects in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Both studies indicate that residents within 2 km and beyond, compared to a control group outside the project areas, suffered serious sleep disturbance and stress.
8. Claim: Wind turbines are safe because no peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise.
FACTS: Dr. Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist, explained that clinical reports around the world are sufficient evidence of adverse health effects and that wind industry denials reflect misunderstanding of the stages of scientific inquiry and the value of peer review.
9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.
FACTS: Carmen Krogh, board member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, applied the concept of social justice to public health and presented testimonies from Ontario, Germany, and Japan of people suffering from wind projects. Ontario rural residents are dismayed, to put it mildly, that every government agency has ignored their plight.
10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.
FACTS: Lawyer Eric Gillespie outlined the legal actions Ontario residents can take against wind development, including the appeal process for the Ministry of Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval of projects. Appeals, however, must meet a high standard by proving that harm to health is serious or harm to the environment is both serious and irreversible. By contrast, the Ian Hanna case has only to prove scientific uncertainty about the harm to human health.
11. Claim: Wind development saves lives by closing coal-burning electricity plants.
FACTS: Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick reported that Ontario’s air pollution has declined steadily since the 1960s and that, according to data from government measuring stations, coal-related emissions are no more than one part per billion. Statistics of 250 to 9,000 Ontario deaths annually related to coal burning are based on dubious computer models from elsewhere; they are not founded on actual certificates of death. There is simply no problem on which wind energy development could have a positive effect.
12. Claim: Wind Energy Development is a solution to the Need for Electricity.
FACTS: Journalist Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, described society’s need for reliable electric power, not intermittent, variable wind energy. Since there is no technology for mass storage of electricity, the power produced from wind cannot contribute substantially to electricity supply, let alone replace base load.
Considering the adverse health effects and practical limitations of wind energy, how is it that wind development remains so popular? The answer lies in twenty years of social marketing, environmental fears, and the false economic hope of green jobs. The Symposium should make everyone question what the Ontario government and wind industry would like us to believe.
Henri Garand
Chair, APPEC
Symposium Delivers Facts on Wind Energy
The First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects, held this past weekend in Picton, brought together American, British and Canadian acousticians, physicists, physicians, and medical researchers. The audience came from across Ontario and the United States and from as far as Australia.
Our understanding of how wind turbines can affect human health is steadily increasing. Since the facts often contradict the Ontario government’s and wind industry’s claims, it may be useful to clarify the current state of knowledge.
1. Claim: Ontario’s regulations are the best in the world.
FACTS: Orville Walsh, CCSAGE chair and APPEC vice president, studied government regulations in every country hosting wind turbines. The standards differ widely and most are based on noise, not setback distances. Ontario’s noise level is 40 dbA, measured outside a home. Countries, like Germany, with lower levels cite either 35 dbA or +3 dbA above ambient sound. Night time ambient sound in a rural area is typically 30 dbA or less. (On the dbA scale, the ear can detect a difference of +/- 2-3 decibels and perceives 10 decibels as a doubling of sound.)
2. Claim: The sounds heard from wind turbines are no louder than whispers or a refrigerator.
FACTS: Dr. John Harrison, a physicist, explained that wind turbine sounds, especially the “swoosh,” are different because of their amplitude and can exceed the 40 dbA regulatory limit because turbine sitings are based on computer models, not live measurements. Moreover, turbine noise is not masked by natural sounds and can sometimes be perceived over great distances. Depending on weather conditions and cloud cover, a large installation of wind turbines, such as those planned for Lake Ontario, could emit over 40 dbA of noise as far as 9-15 km away.
3. Claim: Wind Turbines do not produce low-frequency sound.
FACTS: Acoustician Rick James exhibited spectrograms of the sound coming from land-based wind turbines in which the low-frequency component was substantial and could be measured more than 5 km away. He also compared the symptoms of people suffering from “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to the identical symptoms reported in the 1970’s and 80s by those working in so-called “sick buildings.” The latter problem was eventually identified as due to infra low-frequency sound (ILFN) transmitted through ducting.
4. Claim: People cannot detect infrasound.
FACTS: Dr. Alex Salt, a physiologist, described his recent research findings in which parts of the inner ear reacted visibly to infrasound. His research shows that the ear does respond to low-frequency sound even though we do not perceive it as sound. Further research will be required to understand how these impulses are transmitted to the brain, with possible disturbance and detrimental effects.
5. Claim: Complaints about wind turbine noise indicate annoyance, which is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Arline Bronzaft, a noise researcher, explained how daytime transit noise near a New York City public school went well beyond annoyance and affected students’ academic achievement. The effects of noise disturbance are not restricted to nighttime, and the effects of noise on children can be profound, impacting development.
6. Claim: Wind turbine noise is harmless.
FACTS: Dr. Christopher Hanning, a specialist in Sleep Medicine, explained how noise can disrupt the sleep patterns necessary for health and how loss of sleep affects memory and thinking, and can lead in the long term to risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician and researcher and author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained how auditory systems react to sound and the negative effects of wind turbine sound on the patients she has studied.
7. Claim: Wind turbine noise affects few people seriously.
FACTS: Dr. Michael Nissenbaum reported on his studies of people living near wind projects in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Both studies indicate that residents within 2 km and beyond, compared to a control group outside the project areas, suffered serious sleep disturbance and stress.
8. Claim: Wind turbines are safe because no peer-reviewed studies prove otherwise.
FACTS: Dr. Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist, explained that clinical reports around the world are sufficient evidence of adverse health effects and that wind industry denials reflect misunderstanding of the stages of scientific inquiry and the value of peer review.
9. Claim: Wind development serves the public good.
FACTS: Carmen Krogh, board member of the Society for Wind Vigilance, applied the concept of social justice to public health and presented testimonies from Ontario, Germany, and Japan of people suffering from wind projects. Ontario rural residents are dismayed, to put it mildly, that every government agency has ignored their plight.
10. Claim: Ontario’s Green Energy Act is unchallengeable.
FACTS: Lawyer Eric Gillespie outlined the legal actions Ontario residents can take against wind development, including the appeal process for the Ministry of Environment’s Renewable Energy Approval of projects. Appeals, however, must meet a high standard by proving that harm to health is serious or harm to the environment is both serious and irreversible. By contrast, the Ian Hanna case has only to prove scientific uncertainty about the harm to human health.
11. Claim: Wind development saves lives by closing coal-burning electricity plants.
FACTS: Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick reported that Ontario’s air pollution has declined steadily since the 1960s and that, according to data from government measuring stations, coal-related emissions are no more than one part per billion. Statistics of 250 to 9,000 Ontario deaths annually related to coal burning are based on dubious computer models from elsewhere; they are not founded on actual certificates of death. There is simply no problem on which wind energy development could have a positive effect.
12. Claim: Wind Energy Development is a solution to the Need for Electricity.
FACTS: Journalist Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, described society’s need for reliable electric power, not intermittent, variable wind energy. Since there is no technology for mass storage of electricity, the power produced from wind cannot contribute substantially to electricity supply, let alone replace base load.
Considering the adverse health effects and practical limitations of wind energy, how is it that wind development remains so popular? The answer lies in twenty years of social marketing, environmental fears, and the false economic hope of green jobs. The Symposium should make everyone question what the Ontario government and wind industry would like us to believe.
Henri Garand
Chair, APPEC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
