Sample Cover Letter To Environmental Agencies: Fill & Download for Free

Truth is Never AfraidOf course the worthies of the NGT ‘expert panel’ should not apologize to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – apologize for a litany of lies. What would Sri Sri Ravi Shankar do with an apology – someone whose life is dedicated to truth?They should apologize to the tens of thousands of children from backward and terror-struck regions of India, who have been provided free and quality education by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and who have become the children of a new dawn, a dawn of creativity, innovation, and social commitment. They should apologize to the hundreds of thousands of women oppressed by a patriarchal world who have been provided livelihoods and dignity by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. They should apologize to the millions of Dalits who have been provided respect and a future through Art of Living projects. They should apologize to the rivers that are being rejuvenated throughout India, to the soil of India where chemical fertilizers are being replaced by natural fertilizers, to the millions of trees that have been planted and are reaching for the skies - all this being done by ordinary people inspired to take up volunteerism by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.These so-called experts should apologize to the Republic of Colombia where Sri Sri Ravi Shankar brought peace after decades of war, to the Yazdis who have been provided relief under fire by Art of Living volunteers (which includes women volunteers), to the innocent victims of war, terror, and bigotry world-wide who have been giving material and psychological solace. They should apologize to the countless humans weighed down by the ravages of illness or disability or crime or depression, who have learnt to smile again through Art of Living programs. They should apologize to traditional artists whose cause Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is championing. They should apologize to the hundreds of thousands of criminals and terrorists worldwide to whom Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has brought the tears of genuine repentance, and who have dedicated the rest of their lives to social work.And yes, these honorable worthies should apologize to an ancient civilization that is the mother of the Arts and Sciences. A civilization where all creeds were welcomed. Where women were respected and caste was but a synonym for vocation and was not hereditary. A civilization that is rising from the swamps of foreign exploitation, corruption, poverty, illiteracy, and social prejudice, and taking its rightful place as one of the pillars of the world.These members of the expert panel should apologize to India – where the world gathered to sing, dance, and celebrate the one world family, on the banks of the river Yamuna, for the World Culture Festival 2016.A Sangam of the Arts, Faiths, and Nationalities of the World​​​​​​The world is haunted by war, terrorism, prejudice, and bigotry. Tens of thousands of innocent humans are destroyed every year – humans who only wanted to work and raise families in peace. And the bloodshed never seems to end.And to begin the process of dissolving borders of hatred, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar hosted the World Culture Festival (WCF). WCF was a giant affirmation of one human family. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar gave the world a simple and sublime message by organizing WCF – that a world that sings and dances together is a world that will be peaceful.It was a matter of great pride to every right-thinking Indian that people came from every corner of the world, to affirm that the sound of Music can drown out the sound of gunfire, that the flow of Dance can replace the march of armies, that the colors of Art can paint the world in lovely hues of peace and goodwill.They came from America and Africa, from Pakistan and China, from all regions. Americans and Arabs, Chinese and Japanese, Russians and Ukrainians, ordinary people as well as VIPs, young and old, men and women, followers of Christ, the Prophet, Krishna, and Buddha, atheists and agnostics, all joined together to celebrate One Humanity.And instead of their hearts swelling with pride, these worthies of the NGT expert panel were filled with prejudice and spite.NGT – No Stranger to ControversyI request you to refer to the following link, which sheds light on the functioning of the National Green Tribunal.http://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/tribunal-on-trial-47400Some extracts from the above article:In the corridors of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), growing frustration is evident against NGT. In hushed tones, officials speak about the tribunal’s clamour to get more powers and perks. They call it a “power-hungry institution” that has failed the purpose for which it was created. They talk about unrealistic judgements given by NGT to the ministry and other government departments. They also cite the backlog of cases in NGT as another reason for the institution’s failure to address environmental matters.Activist Ramesh Agrawal from Chhattisgarh, who was recently awarded the Goldman Environment Prize, also called the “Green Nobel”, commented that NGT has not always been able to grant speedy justice. He cited the case of a 2,400 MW power plant in Tamnar, Chhattisgarh, owned by Naveen Jindal, industrialist and former member of Parliament, the environmental clearance of which he had challenged. The case has been with NGT for almost two years now.The issue of suomotu jurisdiction, which remained a grey area for quite some time, was addressed by the Madras High Court in early 2014. The court clipped the wings of NGT by passing an interim order which stated that it has no suomotu powers. After this order, NGT has refrained from taking up cases suomoto.Lies and Distortionshttp://srisriravishankar.org/entry/ngt-committee-report-biasedThe NGT can never get over the blot it has brought on itself by delaying natural justice to The Art of Living, and allowing its own committee to malign the law-abiding organisation. The Art of Living had obtained all the necessary permissions, including the NGT's. They could have stopped the event in the beginning if they wanted to. It defies all principles of natural justice that you give permissions and slap a fine for not violating any rules! Witnessed by 1.8 billion people all over the world and a massive turnout on the ground, a floating stage of 7 acres without any foundation (a marvel in itself!), the World Culture Festival polluted neither air, water nor land. The world over, cultural programs are held on riverbanks. The whole idea was to bring awareness to save the river. The silence of the so-called experts, on the debris being dumped there and permanent structures coming around, exposes their malafide intentions. The closeness of the petitioner to the committee raises serious questions for which The Art of Living has filed a bias application. Thanks to technology, all allegations against The Art of Living stand disproved by the data available on Google maps. I invite all honest environmentalists to study the case and unveil the truth.Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi ShankarThe expert committee set up by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has submitted two reports (preliminary and final) that contains its allegations of damage to the Yamuna Flood Plain by the Art of Living. Both reports contain highly questionable reasoning and are full of unscientific claimsThe truth behind the whole matter matter is revealed here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_g9xM8VUQg&t=8sThe facts are listed briefly below.1. The reports state that the Art of Living needed permission from the NGT before holding WCF on the Yamuna floodplains. The entire site where the WCF was held belongs to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), who gave permission to go ahead with the event. Nowhere on the permission letter given by the DDA does it say that prior permission from the NGT is required. Moreover the NGT is a tribunal, not a government agency like the DDA. in addition to taking permission from the DDA, the Art of Living took permission from the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee the Delhi Disaster Management Authority, and the Delhi Irrigation and Flood Control Department, just to name a few.2. The NGT alleges presence of wetlands on the event site. Floodplains where public and religious functions can be held do not need environmental clearance. The site where WCF was held is not a wetland nor does it contain any wetlands. The Survey of India is India's Central engineering agency in charge of mapping and survey. The Delhi guide map third edition 1989 published by the Survey of india describes the event site as extremely flat without undulation, and devoid of any wetland and/or or enclosed water body. In March 2011, the Space Application Center published the National Wetland Atlas. Chapter 8 elaborately covers in lists 399 wetlands in the Delhi region, but has not identified even a single wetland on the event site. Even the small water bodies just outside the event site have been described as man-made. Satellite images available on Google Earth clearly show that the event site never had any wetlands at all, but rather this area was under agricultural use since at least 22nd December 2000, which is as far back as you can go in Google Earth. The event site allotted to the Art of Living contains crop-harvested farmlands on the entire site. The Art of Living paid compensation to the farmers. Throughout the reports, the NGT expert committee makes various absurd claims, such as that the event site is completely devoid of any vegetation and that no plant cover was visible anywhere. Not a single tree was cut - the number of trees before the event and right after the event were counted using high-resolution satellite images, and the numbers were exactly the same.3. On top of this, the NGT claims that the floodplain lost all its natural vegetation, because of an event which took place on 25 hectare of the nine thousand three hundred hectare total area of the floodplain! One of the expert committee members, Professor Brij Gopal wrote a book that classifies water hyacinth as a weed, and says it's an invasive species that are an important threat to wetlands. Even the Indian government pays farmers every year to remove them from our rivers. It is bizarre that Professor Brij Gopal and the NGT expert is concerned by the removal of water hyacinth, which is mentioned in the report. Moreover, in 2013 a report titled Restoration and Conservation of the river Yamuna was written by three members of the expert committee, In this they state that the life-supporting potential of the river is lost, the stretch of the Yamuna bank where the event site was located has zero dissolved oxygen content, in which no life can survive, and as a floodplain biodiversity is lost. However in the restoration plans outlined by these same committee members in their final report, they state the need to restore fish, bird, and plant life that was killed and destroyed by the event! How can the Art of Living kill and destroy something that according to the same committee members was dead and hence never there to begin. In both reports the expert committee alleged that the floodplains have been compacted and leveled due to the event. The expert committee have calculated an approximate cost of 29 crore to undo the imaginary compaction of soils by the Art of Living. The floodplain soil where the event was held is sandy, and sandy soil cannot be compacted! It's a well-established fact that the soil type of North Indian floodplains is characterized as 95 percent sand. One of the expert committee members authored a case study on the Yamuna, where he characterizes the floodplain soil as sandy. Moreover, in the reports, the three expert committee members go on over to page describe the soil type of the Yamuna is as sand with gravel. Now, according to scientists, the pressure void ratio curves for sand show that over ninety percent of compaction of loose sand takes place in less than two minutes after it's been deposited, which implies that a compaction of sand on the event site took place decades before the event, due to farming, construction of roads & flyovers, etc., forming dense sand, which is now present at the event site. Even enormous amounts of pressure causes a negligible amount of compaction.4. Coming to the WCF stage, it was the world's first and only floating stage. The WCF stage was built with thin scaffolding rods reinforced in lattice-like structures. The foundation of the stage consisted of thousands of scaffolding rods spread across the 7.5 acre area of the stage. Each one of these rods in the foundation rested on a 1 foot by 1 foot rough footing further reducing the weight per unit area. Finally the only core permissible test to determine compaction is the California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR). It involves taking soil samples before and after a specified date, and then applying the test. Since the expert committee did not collect any soil samples in order to arrive at a factual conclusion, the Art of Living requested permission from the NGT to voluntarily conduct the CBR test at the event site. the application was disposed off without granting permission!5. The expert committee has relied upon a singular satellite image before the event, as opposed to a larger sample size covering pre-monsoon and post-monsoon images for fifteen to twenty years, despite its availability to the public via a Google Earth satellite image dated 5th September 2015. The expert committee image was taken during a peak monsoon season in Delhi. Comparing it to a midsummer picture from March 2016 after the event, the expert committee tried to attribute the negative effect of lack of rain to the event! This is clear sample selection bias of the satellite imagery.6. The expert committee came up with a compensation amount of 120 crore in its preliminary report, that to after admitting that the members never visited the site. Even the head of the expert committee wrote in a letter to the NGT, that the penalty of 120 crore was an inadvertent mistake, which he did not endorse, and that it was not based on any scientific assessment.7. No scientific study or quantifiable data was provided as evidence for the alleged damage. The final report goes on to state that damage damage done was due to past construction, farming, dumping of debris and to some undefined extent extent due to WCF. Even some of the expert committee members have contested the unscientific nature of the reports.8. Proceeding from ecological restoration to ecological rehabilitation of the floodplain, in the preliminary report, the expert committee members wrote about ‘restoration’ of the alleged damage. By the final report, they switched to using the word ‘rehabilitation’. let's understand the difference between. Why would the expert committee switch from restoration to rehabilitation? Essentially the expert committee is saying that they cannot prove any damage, and as a consequence cannot assign a cost to restore the damage. So the switch from ‘restoration’ to ‘rehabilitation’. In order to rehabilitate the site, they want to build an Utopian Biodiversity Park, and want the Art of Viving to pay for it, only because the Art of Living held a three-day cultural event, that did no damage to the floodplain, and which was held after taking all necessary permissions. Even more bizarre, is that in order to build this dream park, the expert committee members have submitted a budget with the final report, that lists salaries for various experts to monitor and supervise construction. These salaries total up to 7 crore! They go on to state that the supervision and monitoring of this project will take close to 10 years, and then proceed to volunteer themselves for the 7 crore job! This is not bias, but corruption.An insightful article by Prof. Dr Anish Dua, Environmental Biologist from the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar.https://medium.com/@anishdua/ngt-eia-aol-wcf-a3d8f133779d​Is this ‘expert’ panel report a very poor joke? Is this even conceivable that half-baked experts would produce such a puerile report, and that media totally devoid of integrity would actually lap this up? As an Indian, I can only hang my head in shame.Oh! My Fellow CitizensIndia is special. After eight centuries of foreign rule, India is rising. To be once more the intellectual and spiritual center of the world.However, before India rises to once more become the light of the world, the dregs of the past have got to be rid off. People who thrive on elitism, mediocrity, and corruption. The pseudo-intellectuals, the self-proclaimed experts who do not know the meaning of science, corrupt officials, and paid media. These are people who always denigrate anybody who is working to make India great.There is no mud on earth that can dim by even a tiny fraction Mother India’s radiance. Or the radiance of Her sons such as Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who is making such a huge contribution to make India the pride and glory of all humanity.My fellow Indians, listen carefully. Listen to the sound of a river flowing – a river of peace, of truth, of humanity, of culture, of respect for all. A river whose torrent is increasing daily, a river that will drown the dregs of our country, the dregs of corruption, of elitism, dregs that have no love for their country.Let us ride this river. Let us ride it with someone like Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – who will take all with him on this journey – the lowliest of the low, the weakest of the weak, his most bitter critics too. Let a billion voices rise against wrongdoing, falsehood, and injustice.India is on its way to great power status. Yet, India will be truly great when Her children learn to take pride in the achievements of those who work unceasingly to remove the wrinkles of corruption, bigotry, and evil from Her noble brow, and restore that glorious glow that once cast its radiance on the world, and will do so again, very soon.​Jai HindSatyameva Jayate - Let Truth Prevail!To know about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s great contribution to the rejuvenation of rivers in India, kindly read:Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: Making India’s Rivers SmileYou may want to follow Sri Sri Ravi Shankar atSri Sri Ravi ShankarShare(Copyright Bhavesh Parekh)

There have been many arguments both for and against the World Culture Festival 2016 being conducted on the Yamuna plains. The National Green Tribunal alleges that the event has destroyed the river and the environment.Let us go through a detailed analysis of the various important claims put out by the National Green Tribunal’s (to be referred as NGT hereafter) Expert Committee alleging damage to the Yamuna Floodplains post the World Culture Festival, 2016 conducted by the Art of Living Foundation.I would like to present before the readers a statistically unbiased and scientifically backed representation of this case which is currently sub-judice.Land Description:Before we go further, it is essential that we first geographically define the area over which the World Culture Festival was conducted (From 11th March –13th March 2016)The land parcel is a finite piece of land over the Yamuna floodplain bound by the DND Flyover to its South; Barapulla Drain to its North;River Yamuna to its East and Ring Road to its West.Area ~ 25 hectaresCan be located on WGS (World Geodetic System) 84 coordinates 24 deg 34’55’’N and 77 deg 16’43’’EHere is the detailed image categorically bifurcating the various land sites w.r.t it’s usage for the event(Source: Google Earth, 15th of March ,2016)2. It is very essential to draw the following conclusions from the above satellite images:3-Permanently ramps existed since 2008 (Having bituminous pavement,with potholes and degenerating bituminous overlay).7-Area marked by the purple region previously had mounts of construction waste (malba) solid waste,which has been cleared for the WCF 2016 event by the Art of Living foundation at its own expense.8-Unpaved earthen road running parallel to the Barapullah drain,which is in existence at least since the year 2000,used for vehicles and earth-movers engaged in drain cleaning and slit removal in this section of Barapullah drain.The temporary installations and the make-shift stage are also clearly visible from the satellite imagery.Fig 1:Permanent Ramp 1 having bituminous pavement existed at least since Jan 2008Fig 2:Permanent Ramp 2 having bituminous pavement existed at least since Jan 2008Now, let us go and categorically visit each claim made by the NGTClaim 1: No permission sought from the NGT by the Art of Living Foundation before the eventFacts:The entire site belongs to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)Firstly,the NGT is a court,a tribunal and an autonomous institute, not a government agency to give permissions.Here is the official permission letter sought by the Art of Living (Vyakti Vikas Kendra India-Trust of the foundation) to use the land site for the event and it no where states that prior permission from the NGT needs to be sought.As you can see, the permission letter is approved by the Honorable L.G. of Delhi and duly signed by the Office of the Chief Engineer (E.P.)Mr.D.P.Singh of the DDA on 15th of December 2015.Apart from this, the Art of Living organization had taken permission from 20 various organizations and competent authorities (Government Bodies)The entire list of the government bodies is elucidated below:Central Public Works DepartmentDelhi Development AuthorityDelhi Fire ServiceDelhi Jal BoardDelhi PoliceDelhi Pollution Control CommitteeDelhi Traffic PoliceDepartment of Irrigation and Flood ControlDistrict Disaster Management AuthorityEast Delhi Municipal CorporationIndian ArmyIrrigation DepartmentMinistry of Environment and ForestsMinistry of External AffairsMinistry of Home AffairsNew Okhla Industrial Development AuthorityPublic Works Department-DelhiPublic Works Department-UPSouth Delhi Municipal CorporationUttar Pradesh Government2. Claim 2: Alleging the presence of wetlands on the eventFacts:To understand this point, we need to first comprehend the difference between a wetland and a floodplain.According to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ,signed in 1971 (Iran) wetlands are defined as: "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres"(The Convention on Wetlands, called the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. Number of Contracting Parties: 169)There are currently 26 Ramar sites in India which are enlisted below:Ashtamudi Wetland,KeralaBhoj Wetland,Madhya ParadeshChandertal Wetland,Himachal PradeshChilika Lake,OrissaDeepor Beel,AssamEast Calcutta Wetlands,West BengalHarike Lake,PunjabHokera Wetland,Jammu and KashmirKanjili,PunjabKeoladeo National Park,RajasthanKolleru Lake,Andhra PradeshLoktak Lake,ManipurNalsarovar,GujaratPoint Calimere Wildlife and Bird Santuary,Tamil NaduPong Dam Lake,Himachal PradeshRenuka Wetland,Himachal PradeshRopar,PunjabRudrasagar Lake,West Tripura DistrictSambhar Lake,RajasthanSasthamkotta Lake,KeralaSurinsar-Mansar Lake,Jammu and KashmirTsomoriri,Jammu and KashmirUpper Ganga River,Uttar PradeshVembanad-Kol Wetland,KeralaWular Lake,Jammu and KashmirBhitarkanika Mangroves,OrissaSo, according to the Ramsar sites (India being a signatory of the Ramsar convention) , the World Culture Festival venue does not come under the wetland category.Wetlands come under Ecologically Sensitive Zones are are protected areas by the government.Now,let us analyse the land area with respect to the Survey of India (The Survey of India is India's central engineering agency in charge of mapping and surveying) mapsHere is the Annexure -1B Portion of 1:25000 Scale Detailed Map of Delhi, published by the Survey of India in the year 1985,Under the direction of Major General Girish Chandra Aggarwal, Surveyor General of India; Titled-’Delhi Guide Map,Third Edition 1985′The map clearly depicts the WCF 2016 event site as an extremely flat “Point Bar” (floodplain deposit) without existence of any wetland or enclosed waterbody. The flatness of this land parcel is to the extent that contour indicating difference in height of the order of 100cm is also non-existent throughout the area.Another important point for record in this map is the existence of natural path of ‘Kushak River – Barapullah Drain’ prior to straightening of its channel traversing straight into River Yamuna and filling of its original channel. The map also depicts the situation prior to construction of Guide Bank and DND Flyway.Looking at the National Wetland Atlas (Published in March 2011 by the Space Application Centre,ISRO,Ahmedabad),it fails to indentify a single wetland on the event site.According to the National Geographic Society, floodplains are defined as “A flood plain (or floodplain) is a generally flat area of land next to a river or stream. It stretches from the banks of the river to the outer edges of the valley”A Floodplain does not require jurisdictions of the environmental authorities that a wetland does.Floodplains have a rich history of interacting with the society for civilizations to flourish.The first great civilizations all grew up in river valleys. The oldest, 3300 to 2500 BCE, was along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Middle East; the name given to that civilization, Mesopotamia, means "land between the rivers". The Nile valley in Egypt had been home to agricultural settlements as early as 5500 BCE, but the growth of Egypt as a civilization began around 3100 BCE. A third civilization grew up along the Indus River around 2600 BCE, in parts of what are now India and Pakistan. The fourth great river civilization emerged around 1700 BCE along the Yellow River in China, also known as the Huang-He River Civilization.Many towns have been built across floodplains because of easy access to fresh water,the fertility of floodplain land for farming,cheap transportation, via rivers and railroads, which often followed rivers and ease of development of flat land.Large cultural and religious gatherings taking place on various floodplains across India like the Kumbh Mela and the Maramon Convention.The World Culture Festival venue was thus a floodplain and not a wetland as claimed by the Expert Committee of the NGT.3. Claim 3: Destroying the natural flow of the river YamunaFacts:A comparison of river morphology has been conducted on satellite images for the period between 22nd of December 2000 till 10th of May 2016.Fluvial Geo-morphology of the river (i.e. land form related to the river) and its floodplain (over which the event was organized) indicates continuity of a pattern in channel dimension, sedimentation,bank deposition,bank erosion and flow of the river.On a careful examinations of images between 26th August 2015(month of monsoon in Delhi) to 10th May 2016(Pre-Monsoon Dry Summer Season) no abnormality in the pattern of flow;channel dimension;riverbed;or morphology of both the banks has been noticed.Further,examination by ground verification in a series of field studies found no scientific acceptance of the above mentioned claim by the NGTHere are the satellite images taken that show the continuity of pattern of the river flow:Pic 1: 26th August 2015 (Post-monsoon)Pic 2: 29th October 2015 (Post-monsoon)Pic 3: 23rd November 2015 (Post-monsoon)Pic 4: 15th of December 2015 (Post-monsoon)Pic 5: 27th of February 2016 (Preparation for the event in progress;stage scaffoldings under construction)Pic 6: 15th of March 2016 (Post WCF, Pre-Monsoon)Pic 7: 25th of May 2016 (Depicting the entire area utilized by the World Culture Festival 2016,now evacuated,cleared and all the temporary installations removed)And as I write this answer now (13 th of May 2017, 15:39 hr), I have taken the snapshots from Google Earth of the venue and it is as it was before the event.The above images tell us that there is no change whatsoever in the natural river course of the Yamuna. This again proves the Expert Committee’s claims as false and unscientific.Selection Bias by the Expert Committee members?In the report,the expert committee have replied upon a singular satellite image for the event as opposed to a larger sample size covering pre-monsoon and post monsoon images for 15–20 years despite its availability to the public on Google Earth.The Expert Committee compared the satellite images of the venue dated 5th of Sept 2015 (Peak monsoon season) with that of a mid summer picture of March 2016, post the event (Summer pre-monsoon)It doesn’t take an Einstein to realize that such a comparison cannot be done in the first place.The Expert Committee is basically trying to attribute the negative effect of the lack of rain to the World Culture Festival !4. Claim 4: Destroying the reeds,grasses,natural vegetation on the river bed and the venueFacts:High pollution in the River Yamuna has led to a situation where dissolved oxygen tends to zero (often less than 1), high load of suspended particulate matter, high turbidity almost blocks the sunlight penetration in the water within few centimeters of vertical depth etc.All of the above factors collectively create a situation where no macro flora could grow or anchored within the riverbed of the Yamuna.Reeds and grasses could only grow beyond the riverbed in the riparian zone of the floodplain.The images of the last 15 years,indicate that the floodplain around the venue had some strips and patches of reeds. Those patches have been compared with the images after the event and on a comparison of images, no change in area covered by reeds has been observed.Riparian reeds along the Barapullah drain and small patches behind and in front of the guide bank (near the bridge of DND flyway) are unaltered before , during and the period post the event.Also the number of trees before and after the event were counted using high risk satellite images and they were found to be the same.Pic 1: Regrowth of grasses on over the location where once the stage was raised (17th of April 2016)Pic 2: State of grasses on the event venue (17th of April 2016)Pic 3: Undisturbed riparian reeds along the abandoned channel in front of the Guide Bank (17th of April 2016)Pic 4: Undisturbed riparian reeds along the Barapullah Drain (17th of April 2016)Also, another important to note that the Expert Committee of the NGT accused the Art of Living Foundation for bringing in and dumping the malba (construction debris) and flattening the malba thereby destroying the flood plain.Firstly, as shown by the satellite images of the land parcel furnished earlier, the purple area indicates the unsolicited construction debris that existed since the year 2000.Trucks were seen emptying tonnes of malba on a daily basis when the Art of Living began preparation for the event (circa December 2015)Once the land was allotted to the foundation, the Art of Living sent out a letter the the DDA citing these concerns about the existing construction dump.To which, the DDA didn’t remove the debris whereas told the Art of Living Foundation to remove the malba at its own cost !Here, is the invoice of the contractor ,who was given the duty to remove the debris from the venue site ,under the instructions the Art of Living Foundation (Cost borne by the Art of Living Foundation !)This is how the site appeared before the event:So, why did the NGT falsely accuse the foundation wherein no cementing/foundation work of any sort was undertaken for the event?5. Claim 5: Disturbed the aquatic life of the riverFacts:The river Yamuna (Delhi stretch) is nearly devoid of fish species due to extremely low level ( ~0) dissolved oxygen in the river water.Let us analyze the water quality of the river Yamuna first.Referring to the “Water Quality Status of Yamuna River” report by the Central Pollution and Control Board (erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests,Government of India),here is the longitudinal profile of the dissolved oxygen.(Report foreword by V. Rajagopalan, Chairman-CPCB)(Notice the graph points near Nizamuddin Bridge ,Agra Canal)The report goes out further to state that“ In Yamuna River low BOD and low DO was observed more oftenly may be due to consumption of oxygen by settled sludge in the riverbed.”(Ref 3.13, page No.42)Other key notations from the report are listed below:“The sources contributing pollution are both point & non-point type. Urban agglomeration at NCT – Delhi is the major contributor of pollution in the Yamuna River followed by Agra and Mathura. About 85% of the total pollution in the river is contributed by domestic sources. The condition of river deteriorate further due to abstraction of significant amount of river water, leaving almost no fresh water in the river, which is essential to maintain the assimilation capacity of the river.”“In the critically, polluted stretch of Yamuna river from Delhi to Chambal confluence, there was significant fluctuations in dissolved oxygen level from Nil to well above saturation level. This reflects presence of organic pollution load and persistence of eutrophic conditions in the river.”“Bacteriological contamination is significantly high in the entire Yamuna River stretch. Total Coliforms are generally well above the prescribed water quality standard even sometimes at Yamunotri also. The microbiological analysis confirms that the bacteriological contamination was predominantly contributed by human beings.”Here are the longitudinal profiles of the Total and Faecal Coliforms in Yamuna River :Not to forget the drains opening up in the Delhi stretch.“Najafgarh drain of NCT – Delhi is the biggest polluter of River Yamuna, which contributes about 26% (year 2001) to 33% 22 (year 2000) of total BOD load and 48% (year 2003) to 52% (year 2001) of total discharge that joins Yamuna river and canal at Delhi by various drains. There are 70 sub drains that join main Najafgarh Drain. The study indicated that the total BOD load received by Najafgarh Drain through sub-drains was 136 TPD, whereas the BOD load at the terminal end of the Najafgarh Drain was 83 TPD only. This reduction may be contributed by biodegradation, deposition of setllable material at the bottom and diversion of drain water for irrigation etc”.“ River Yamuna receives significantly high amount of organic matter, which is generally, originates from domestic sources. For biodegradation, this organic waste requires oxygen, causing significant depletion of dissolved oxygen in river water. The oxygen depletion not only affects biotic community of the river but also affects its self-purification capacity. This problem is critical in the river stretch between Delhi and confluences of river with Chambal. In Delhi stretch, the load of organic matter is so high that it consumes the entire dissolved oxygen available in river water.”Presenting another latest report by the Central Pollution Control Board titled “Water quality status of in Delhi stretch of Yamuna River”Exhibit 1: Water quality of river Yamuna river in terms of Dissolved Oxygen (DO)The above graph clearly shows that the standard DO should be~4–5 whereas near the Nizamuddin bridge and Okhla region it below 1.Exhibit 2: Water quality of river Yamuna in terms of Total ColiformThe report also throws light on the discharge of various drains in the river Yamuna.“There are twenty one major wastewater drains in NCT-Delhi, out of which 18 drains join Yamuna River and rest joins Agra/Gurgaon canal.All the drains join Yamuna River downstream of Wazirabad barrage.These drains are being monitored regularly on monthly basis.The range of total BOD Load of 18 drains join Yamuna river was 105 TPD (August, 2015) to 229 TPD (January, 2016).Total discharge of these drains was varied from 29 m3/s (May, 2016 to 43 m3/s (August, 2014).The collective average of these drains for the year 2015 and 2016 in terms of discharge was about 34.8 m3/s and 34.3 m3/s respectively whereas, BOD load average for these two years was 164 Tons/day (TPD) and 178 Tons/day respectively.Based on the Discharge and BOD load of 18 drains Najafgarh drain was the biggest polluter of Yamuna River followed by Shahdara drain. These two drains alone contributes about 74% of total Bod load and 82% of total discharge of the 18 major drains that join Yamuna river at Delhi.”Exhibit 3: Discharge of major drains joins Yamuna River at DelhiLastly, I wish to produce a report titled “ Restoration and Conservation of River Yamuna” authored by the NGT Expert Committee members itself in the year 2012–13(Authors Prof. C.R.Babu, Prof.A.K.Gosain, Prof.Brij Gopal-All being expert members of the NGT)The report categorically states that“the loss of life supporting potential of the river is the major concern to the public, the Government and the courts”“the flowing water, the river bed, the floodplain forest and grassland ecosystems are locally extinct”Here is a snapshot of the same :The report also states that:“The Delhi urban stretch of 22 km in the downstream of Wazirabad barrage upto Okhla barrage (Section III) is critically polluted and dry weather flow is almost the treated and untreated sewage from 22 drains and the fresh water flow from upstream or lateral connection and it is perhaps one of the most polluted river stretches in the country with zero DO and over 30 mg/l BOD levels”Whereas, the same committee members in its final report slamming the Art of Living state the following:How could the World Culture Festival destroy something that according to the same committee members didn’t even exist in the first place.Why is the Art of Living blamed selectively for the pollution of the river Yamuna over the past decades?Isn’t this nothing but sheer hypocrisy?From the above data, following points to be noted:Yamuna river (Delhi stretch)is a dead river with almost zero dissolved oxygen, high amounts of pollutants and no fresh water. How can aquatic life survive under these chemically harsh conditions?The discharge of major drains in the Delhi stretch of the river along with industrial effluents and the pollution levels of Yamuna is alarming.Why does the NGT put the blame on the Art of Living Foundation which has done zero damage to the floodplains and the river?What has NGT done to curb the industrial and human pollution which are harming the river Yamuna?There is a strong judgmental bias in the current NGT report Vs the Art of Living and Others6. Claim 6: Alleging compaction and leveling of the floodplainFacts:Before going to analyse the charges of compaction, it is quintessential that we first define the nature of the land where the event was conducted.According to the report “Environmental flow for monsoon rivers in India-The Yamuna river as a case study”, the Yamuna floodplains has alluvial sandy soil (Reference: Rao, S.V.N., Kumar, S., Shekhar, S., Sinha, S.K. & Manju, S. 2007. Optimal pumping from Skimming Wells from the Yamuna river flood plain in north India. Hydrogeology Journal 15: 1157-1167)According to one of the Expert Committee member-Prof.A.K.Gosain’s earlier published research paper titled- “A new scheme for large-scale natural water storage in the floodplains: the Delhi Yamuna floodplains as a case study”, the author says “the river has been bringing sand from the mountains and depositing it along its basin, forming the floodplains. This accumulated sandy layer exists to an average of depth of 40 m”The report earlier furnished in claim 5 by the expert committee members itself (Can be found here) states that the floodplain near the river Yamuna has “sand and gravel”.Hence, it is a well established fact that the floodplain has sandy soil ! So, can sandy soil be compacted ?Now,given the above data, let us go through some scientific studies about sand compaction and verify the allegations by the NGT.For a confirmatory statement on the extent and exact reason of consolidation and/ or compaction in qualitative and quantitative terms, laboratory test of undisturbed soil samples from the land parcel will be required.By comparing the current soil density with the previous records of soil density over the land parcel,the difference could be worked out.But conducting such a test of unconfined sand/sandy soil appears almost impossible due to the established principles of soil mechanics.Referring to the established principles of soil mechanics and geo-technical engineering from the widely accepted and used textbook for soil mechanics by Prof.V.N.S.Murthy tiled “A Text Book of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering” let us go through the pressure-void ratio curves of sandIn the above curve, it is clearly evident that “ more than 90 % of the compression has taken place within a period of less than 2 minutes. The time lag is largely frictional. The compression is about the same whether the sand is dry or saturated”.“The amount of compression even under high load intensity is not quite significant as can be seen from the curves.”It is obvious that the natural consolidation of this land parcel would have taken place in the geological past immediately after the deposition with some movement of animals and humans over it.It appears from the final report that the expert committee didn’t conduct any geo-technical analysis and not a single report was attached as an annexure to their claim.Verbally saying that they went there and saw the top soil layer become a thick crust is not evidence. There are tests that are legally permitted in the courts of law which the expert committee doesn’t seem to have done.The WCF area occupied ~ 25 hectares of land out of the total 9300 hectares of the floodplain (Approximately 0.26 %)So to exert the high pressure for land compaction it would require numerous heavy weight rollers (which apparently weren’t used by the organizers).Furthermore, the curve for dense sand in ‘Void ratio v/s pressure in kg/sq.cm’ indicates that dense sand (as deposited by the Yamuna and Ganga) does not show noticeable changes with increase in pressure.It is an undeniable fact that this land parcel has been under agricultural practices since decades (if not centuries).Agricultural practices; tilling (harrowing); movement of farms equipment and agricultural machinery; movement of dumpers for unabated dumping of construction waste for years and then the movement for trucks and dumpers for removal of the same has already shaped the consolidation and /or compaction of this land parcel ages before the event of the World Culture Festival 2016 was organized.Moreover, it is important to note that the entire stage for the event was supported by a series of iron scaffolding with raft footing (shown in the figure below)An Engineering Marvel ?Nothing was anchored in the natural stratum to hold the stage, overall the stage had a floating foundation. Can’t believe? have a look at this :Pics: The stage was made of thousands of such scaffolding rods in lattice structure spread across 7.5 acre (stage area)Pic: Scaffolding structure (showing the highest level) used for construction of the stage ; photographed during the removal of the stage.Pic: Steel plate rod used for distribution of the load, without any anchorage in the ground; photographed during the removal of the stage.The stage had negligible impact on the ground. Overall the stage was a floating stage and the impact of a floating stage on sandy soil is insignificant. For the record, no cement foundation was done as can be seen from the pictures.Trivia: The physics behind this stage bears a strong visual analogy with a yogi sleeping on a bed of nails. As a matter of fact, this ancient technique used by hathayogis in India has been a source of inspiration for the design of this stage !Pic: The concept of “Yogi Nail Bed” used as an inspiration for the WCF stage is based on the principle of uniform distribution of weight over a large surface area, therefore the overall impact is extremely low or negligible.Finally, the only court permissible test to determine compaction of soil is the CBR Test (California Bearing Ratio Test). It involves taking soil samples before and after the event and then applying the test. Since the expert committee did not collect any soil samples before and after the event to come up with the alleged 13 cr damage,the Art of Living Foundation themselves requested the NGT to conduct the CBR test at the venue, and the application was duly rejected !Here is the permission letter made by the Art of Living Foundation to the NGT (which was disposed off by the NGT !)The Chairman of the Expert Committee of the NGT Mrs.Shashi Shekhar (IAS) (Ministry of Water Resouces, Govt. of India)even goes out to the extent of saying the compensation of 120 cr put forth on the Art of Living foundation as ad-hoc and unscientific and not based on any scientific assessments. The Chairman does not even endorse the compensation.Also, it is important to see whether the NGT conducted any scientific studies before quantifying the damage if any ?It would be very astounding for the reader to realize that no such thing was done. Only a mere “visual inspection” was conducted by the Expert Committee members of the NGT at the venue on the 6th of June 2016(Singular visit).And no scientific evidence and data samples have been provided by the NGT Expert Committee in the Court of Law.That’s like going to a doctor who after just glancing at your direction hands you a list of ailments he assesses that you suffer from and proceeds to slap you with a fat bill for your future treatments !It is surprising to believe that the Chairman of the Expert Committee Mr.Shashi Shekhar has distanced himself from the committee’s recommendations. The Chairman’s signature is also missing from the final report. And only 4 out the 7 Expert Committee members have signed the final report !7. Claim 7: Going from ecological “restoration” to ecological “rehabilitation” of the floodplainFacts:Throughout the first report, the Expert Committee members of the NGT have used the term “restoration” and in the final report they use the word “rehablitation”Why the sudden switch?Because, the NGT Expert Committee cannot prove any damage that was done to the floodplain and the environment by the event.In their final report this is what they state:It is not possible for the ‘Expert Committee’ to assess the ecological status of the site before and after the event? This was their primary job in the first place !Also, the committee points out that it is extremely difficult to assess the costs of environment damage and degradation accurately because“it requires substantial time, human and other resources to collect detailed quantitative information on the nature, extend and magnitude of various activities listed earlier for restoration”That’s a clever way of saying that they cannot prove the damage quantitatively and qualitatively and hence the question of restoration is redundant.They also go on to state that “estimation of the costs of restoration requires the preparation of a Detailed Project Report that may take several months to a year besides financial resources.”Who can buy that argument? Why was the Expert Panel commissioned in the first place?Moreover, the Expert Committee states that it has now decided to “REHABILITATE THE IMPACTED SITE”.The NGT’s proposed plan includes creating a bio diversity park, two large water bodies, three tier planting of vegetation,and establishing new sewage treatment plants,etcLet’s put things into perspective, firstly, the Committee says that it cannot prove any damage scientifically. Consequently they cannot assign costs to restore damage. Hence, they wish to switch the narrative from being a “restoration cost” to “rehabilitation cost”. And moreover, they wish to build a utopian biodiversity park for which the Art of Living should bear the cost ! (Slow claps !) Wait, I am not yet done !In order to build this dream park, the Expert Committee has submitted a ‘Budget’ for building this park. The budget lists ‘Salaries and Consultancies’ as a cost component to monitor and supervise the construction. This cost component totals up to 7 CRORE RUPEES ! Here is their estimations !That’s not all friends. The NGT Expert Committee even goes on record to state that “rehabilitation” will take a period of 10 years and the expert committee members have nominated themselves to undertake this project as “Consultants”(Indeed a very sly way of pocketing the 7 crore!)In the final analysis,the expert committee members in their final report state that they are unable to differentiate the activities required to restore the floodplain and the activities to undo the alleged damage due to the event. That is a very clever way of saying that they cannot differentiate the damage done to the floodplain before the event and the damage done by the event.As this article says,“The Art of Living case will go down as a test for environment activism in the country. The nation expects the NGT will gather enough courage to call the bluff of the committee and go by the merits of the case”.References:http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/55a9380047b2199a9155d5bdc775c0fb/Final_Report_NGT-Yamuna_Restoration%2B(11-4-2014).pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-287594179https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.2709.pdfhttp://www.cpcb.nic.in/newitems/11.pdfDelhi Development AuthorityTextbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation EngineeringGoogle Earth – Google EarthNational Green TribunalHomepage | Ramsarflood plainCentral Pollution Control Board :::https://www.artofliving.org/in-en/newsroom/press-statement/independent-environmentalist-statement-ngt-reporthttp://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol3d.pdfWill NGT call the Yamuna expert panel's bluff?Written by:Soham D’SouzaBachelors in Chemical Technology-Institute of Chemical Technology (former UDCT) , MumbaiMumbai

I think its can help youBlasting air at up to 185 mph, leaf blowers can whip up hazardous particles and contaminants from the ground at speeds greater than a Category 5 hurricane, sending them long distances.Epidemiological studies have long recognized the harm these particles — including hydrocarbons from gasoline, animal droppings, spores, fungi, pollens, pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers, brake-lining dust and tire residue and heavy metals — cause to people's respiratory systems, according to Bay Area Air Quality Management District reports.Exposure to particulate matter is rarely, if ever, cited as the cause of death in a coroner's report when someone dies of a heart attack or stroke or lung disease, a 2012 district study noted. "However, epidemiological studies indicate that exposure to particulate matter is an important contributing factor in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths in the Bay Area each year."The district has called particulate matter "the air pollutant that poses by far the greatest health risk to Bay Area residents."The average adult inhales 450 cubic centimeters (roughly one pint) of air per breath, which includes 1 million to 10 million tiny particles with each breath."But that figure can spike to much higher levels in close proximity to high-volume roadways or other major outdoor emission sources," the district's "Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan" noted.The contribution of leaf blowers to air pollution isn't to be underestimated. About 5 pounds of particulate matter per leaf blower per hour are swept into the air and take hours to settle, according to a widely cited leaf-blower pollution report by the Orange County, California grand jury in 1999.An Air District program aimed at replacing up to 50,000 leaf blowers and 10,000 lawn mowers by 2020 would reduce the most dangerous small-particle emissions (sized 2.5 and 10 microns) by 0.12 tons (240 pounds) per day, according to the 2010 Clean Air Plan.Fine particles measuring 2.5 microns and coarser material measuring 10 microns are more readily absorbed into the lungs. The smaller 2.5-micron particles are associated with hazardous organic compounds and heavy metals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). Particles measuring 10 microns are typically composed of smoke, dirt, dust, mold, spores and pollen.Particulates in the 2.5-micron range can migrate many hundreds of miles and stay the air for days or weeks; 10-micron particles can travel up to 30 miles and stay aloft for hours, according the U.S. E.P.A.Besides what they kick up off the ground, gas-powered leaf blowers themselves emit specific pollutants the State of California has identified as of concern: hydrocarbons from both burned and unburned fuel, which combine with other gases to form ozone; carbon monoxide; and toxic contaminants such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, according to a widely quoted 2000 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board report.The Air Quality District in 2010 estimated there were approximately 258,000 two-stroke leaf blowers in the Bay Area, which generate significantly more air pollution than four-stroke engines.Testing in 2011 by the vehicle reviewer New Cars, Used Cars, Car Reviews and Pricing | Edmunds showed just how dirty leaf blowers remain, even 11 years after new emission standards for blowers went into effect.Pitting leaf blowers against a Ford F-150 SVT Raptor crew cab, the leaf blowers were the big dogs when it came to spewing non-methane hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide — the three pollutants that the EPA and the California Air Resources Board find most concerning.The two-stroke blower generated 23 times the carbon monoxide and nearly 300 times more non-methane hydrocarbons as the truck."To equate the hydrocarbon emissions of about a half-hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska," the article noted.Officials from local lung-health organizations said the contribution of leaf blowers to pollution can't be ignored."It should be of great concern," said Lynn Smith, interim executive director of Breathe California of the Bay Area, also noting the huge discrepancy between leaf blower and car emissions.Various arguments have been made by some environmental groups that blowers should be entirely banned in favor of a return to old-fashioned brooms and rakes.A 1999 study by the University of California Riverside and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, the first of its kind, attempted to quantify the differences. Leaf blowers produced about 30 milligrams per square meter of 2.5-micron-sized particulates and 80 mg per square meter of 10-micron particles.The results were similar for push brooms used on a concrete surface, probably because of the smoother surface, the researchers found. But using a push broom on asphalt produced no 2.5-micron particles and only 20 mg in the 10-micron range.And raking on either surface produced no particulates in either range, the study found.The California Landscape Contractors Association, however, disputes the allegations of the air pollution caused by leaf blowers, calling concerns over air emissions "spurious," according to a 1999 letter from its board of directors that was confirmed as current on July 20."Properly used leaf blowers do not raise inordinate amounts of dust. Rule 403 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District states that 'a person shall not cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source.' Blower users can and should follow this rule," the letter states.In addition to arguing that emissions standards from the California Air Resources Board implemented in 2000 would significantly reduce emissions from handheld equipment, the association pointed to the intermittent use of blowers."Portable lawn and garden equipment contributes only 0.8 percent of all U.S. VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions, 0.6 percent of carbon monoxide emissions, and no nitrogen oxide emissions."Debates over air pollution aside, there's also noise — perhaps the most evident pollution caused by leaf blowers. The City of Palo Alto requires leaf blowers to emit no more than 65 decibels, when measured from 50 feet away.The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that decibel levels above 85 cause permanent hearing loss. The World Health Organization recommends a general outdoor noise level of 55 decibels or less and 45 or less for sleeping restfully.Excessive noise has been implicated in higher heart-attack rates, gastrointestinal disturbances, sleep problems, social discord and psychological problems, according to the U.S. E.P.A.Ironically, metal rakes aren't much quieter, though the sound is less constant: The City of Palo Alto noted in a 2005 report that metal rakes used on concrete can generate 58-60 decibels at 50 feet.When it comes to encouraging gardeners to forego their gas-powered machines, one air quality district in southern California has had significant success with its leaf blower exchange. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers Orange County, urban Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside, has held a leaf blower buy-back program since 2006 for professional gardeners. In that time, the district has put more than 12,000 reduced-noise and lower-emissions leaf blowers in the hands of professional gardeners.The agency distributes about 1,500 new leaf blowers annually, said spokesman Sam Atwood."According to the E.P.A., a commercial blower emits 93 pounds per year of air pollutants. Multiplied out times 12,000, the units we have distributed have reduced 500 tons of pollutants since 2006," he said.So far, the district has distributed cleaner blowers manufactured by the company Stihl. The company has supplied trainings at the exchanges. Operators learn to use the blower like a broom, rolling the debris from one area to another where it can be collected, rather than blasting it in a cloud of dust, he said.The district helped support the development of backpack electric leaf blowers, which are just now becoming commercially available, he said. Atwood said the district hopes that it will get at least one proposal this year for a truly zero-emission, battery-powered leaf blower as part of its request for proposals."In demos, they seem to work very well, equal at least to a gas-powered blower. But it's a little premature to say how they will compare in the field to their gasoline counterparts," he said.For its part, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is running a program to fund the purchase of new, battery-powered, zero-emission electric lawn and garden equipment in exchange for gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment. The program is currently only operating in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, however.2nd PART:yes,its harmfulThe use of leaf blowers is harmful to our community as they emit a disturbing sound, pose multiple hazards to the health of the individuals in our community, and are harmful to the environment. They are an unnecessary tool as the same task can be completed with a broom and rake with no adverse effects to the community. Leaf blowers use fossil fuel in place of human effort and muscle, at the expense of our environment. Leaf blowers should be banned within the limits of Monrovia to protect the health and wellbeing of our community.The narrow frequency bandwidth of the noise emitted by leaf blowers, the whine, the pitch, is a particularly disturbing sound. The sounds these machines make regularly provoke people to rage. The constant use and over-use of leaf blowers reduces the productivity of our citizens (many people work at home), disturb sleeping infants and children, and they cause rise in blood pressure, adrenaline, heart rate and nervous stress.The World Health Organization recommends noise levels of 55 decibels or less, 45 decibels to meet sleep criteria. A leaf blower generally measures at least 70-75 decibels at 50 feel away and far higher at close range.The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that noise levels over 75 decibels can cause hearing loss and are harmful to human health.According to the California Air Resources Board the types of air pollutants emitted when using a gasoline-powered leaf blower for half an hour are equivalent to those emitted from 440 miles of automobile travel at 30mph average speed. Compared to an average large car, one hour of operation of a leaf blower emits 498 times as much hydrocarbons, 49 times as much particulate matter and 26 times as much carbon monoxide.A Grand Jury convened on the subject of leaf blowers in San Luis Obispo County, CA concluded that:"Considering the evidence... the health hazards citizens are exposed to from two-cycle leaf blowers outweigh the possible benefit they provide." The Grand Jury went on to recommend that all cities within that county initiate a phase out of leaf blowers.Dr Barry Boyd, an oncologist at our own Greenwich Hospital, testified to the Town of Greenwich Board of Health in 2005 that:Air pollution connected with leaf blowers worries him. He believes gasoline powered engines are the reason CT is the number one state in the country in incidences of breast cancer. He stated that one leaf blower, in one hour, pollutes the same amount as 40 cars idling on a lawn. "Connecticut has one of the highest rates of cancer," he said. "It is critical that we eliminate pollution from gasoline-powered engines where we can. Summertime is when Connecticut air is most polluted. A summertime ban on leaf blowers makes sense to me," he told the members.Every doctor affiliated with the Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center in New York City signed a letter submitted on April 22, 2010 by the Mt. Sinai Hospital supporting proposed restrictions on leaf blowers in Eastchester, NY. The Mt. Sinai team of doctors stated that:"Leaf blowers pose multiple hazards to human health. Children are the most susceptible members of our population to these hazards because they breathe more air per pound of body weight per day than adults and thus inhale more of any pollutants that are thrown into the air by this equipment. Children's vulnerability to the health effects of this equipment is further magnified by the fact that they are passing through the stages of early development, and thus their lungs, ears, eyes, and other organ systems are inherently more sensitive to environmental hazards than the organs of adults."The doctors went on to elaborate in great detail the specific hazards associated with leaf blowers, emphasizing the categories of: airborne pollutants, noise, and eye hazards.The American Lung Association of New York State submitted a letter in 2008 which "commends the towns and villages across the Lower Hudson Valley that took a positive step to protect lung health by passing leaf blower ordinances."June Kaminski, MSN, PhD candidate, studied leaf blowers and published an article entitled "Leaf Blowers Threaten Health." Dr Kaminiski discovered that: "theparticulates spewn into the air by leaf blowers contribute to and aggravate respiratory and allergy problems, as well as add a significant amount of pollution. They also dry and destroy the fragile top soil, hurting the environment." She found that "if landscape contractors [operating leaf blowers] are not protecting their ears with earplugs or earmuffs, they are routinely exosing their ears to sounds above 85 decibels--the level experts agree may threaten hearing over a period of time."Steve Zien, a professional landscaper and Executive Director of Biological Urban Gardening Services (BUGS), an international membership organization of primarily professional landscapers, states:BUGS has opposed the use of leaf blowers for many years for a variety of reasons. There are many hidden costs when utilizing blowers regularly. The leaf blower is perhaps the most over-used and inappropriately used landscape tool. Autumn's tremendous amout of organic debris that requires collection might be considered appropriate use of this tool. However, the weekly routine of blowing abuses the soil and damages landscape plants while the noise creates ill will from neighbors and clients alike.The landscape maintenance industry should join BUGS and take a positive approach to blower bans. Old fahsioned leaf raking can be a renewed service that their business could provide. It could be used as a selling point: no noise and environmentally sound too! Approach it right and they could charge the client an appropriate fee for this service, especially if blowers are banned. This could even become a major selling point for some companies. It could lead to business growth and the hiring of more personnel to mee the demand. Environmentally sound landscapers should be able to turn this kind of legislation into a positive for their businesses, making it work to their benefit.Noise and auditory damageGasoline powered leaf blowers create noise levels of 90-100 decibels at close range, and exceed the EPA's recommended maximum noise level of 80 decibels even at 50 feet. Many Santa Rosa residents in the high density neighborhoods regularly endure the noise of neighbors leaf blowers from less than 50 feet away! Repeated and/or sustained exposure to high noise levels damages the nerve endings in the ears and contributes to loss of hearing and deafness. Children are particularly vulnerable. Doctors at the Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center have documented the harmful health impact of leaf blowers on children, and have written letters in support of the leaf blower ban we are seeking.The World Health Organization recommends ambient noise levels of 55 decibels or less (Environmental Health Criteria 12: WHO).Noise and mental/emotional distressThe narrow frequency bandwidth of the noise emitted by leaf blowers, the whine, the pitch, is a particularly disturbing sound. The sounds these machines make regularly provoke people to rage. The constant use and over-use of leaf blowers reduces the productivity of our citizens (many people work at home), disturb sleeping infants and children, and they cause rise in blood pressure, adrenaline, heart rate and nervous stress. To put it mildly, they drive people crazy.Noise also degrades our quality of life. It reduces communication. It interferes with our ability to enjoy being outdoors, or taking walks, or working or playing in our own backyards. It is an uncivil and selfish act to subject one's neighbors to a half hour or hour of deafening noise every week in order to have a pristine lawn area.Worker safety and OSHAThe noise levels experienced by the operators of leaf blowers, are dangerous to their ears and can cause permanent hearing loss. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) requires hearing protection for any workers using equipment that generates noise over 85 dB. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) "there is an increasing predictable risk" of hearing damage from noise above 75 dB. According to the American Academy of Otolaryngology, half the wearers of hearing protectors do not get the expected benefit, due to improper fit or failure to wear them continuously. And many workers do not even wear protection at all. Not surprisingly, there is evidence of unusually high levels of hearing loss in landscape workers. Using leaf blowers commercially may violate OSHA.Breathing the particulate matter stirred up by and the emissions from the leaf blowers is also detrimental to worker health. Many landscape workers in Greenwich are operating leaf blowers a large part of every day, with undeniable adverse effect on their hearing and their lungs.Air pollution and emissions: carcinogensLeaf blowers contribute to smog and ozone pollution, a problem particularly in the warm months (which is the season we are seeking to ban their use). The inefficient two stroke engine on a leaf blower often releases as much as 25% of its raw, unburned gasoline in its exhaust, according to studies by the Air Resources Board of the CA EPA. The exhaust contains unacceptable levels of harmful hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, both pollutants which contribute to smog and other health problems.Reducing the use of leaf blowers helps reduce levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter as regulated by the Clean Air Act. When the City of Los Angeles reduced the number of leaf blowers operating in the LA area by 1,500 it was estimated to eliminate up to 14 tons of harmful emissions annually.Among the substances blown into the air and respired are heavy metals, pesticides, and other carcinogenic substances. In addition, the exhaust from the two stroke engine also contains benzene and other carcinogens.Dr. Barry Boyd, a Greenwich Hospital oncologist has informed the member of the Greenwich Board of Health that:Air pollution connected with leaf blowers worries him. He believes gasoline powered engines are the reason CT is the number one state in the country in incidences of breast cancer. He stated that one leaf blower, in one hour, pollutes the same amount as 40 cars idling on a lawn. "Connecticut has one of the highest rates of cancer," he said. "It is critical that we eliminate pollution from gasoline-powered engines where we can. Summertime is when Connecticut air is most polluted. A summertime ban on leaf blowers makes sense to me," he told the members.Particulate matterLeaf blowers are a large contributor to particulate matter in our air, especially in summer, when particulate pollution is at its worst. The high velocity jets in leaf blowers blow into the air many unwanted and toxic elements. Various pollutants include dust, salt, lead, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides, rodentides, herbicides, fungi, dirt, ash, mold, spores and fecal matter. Approximately 5 pounds of particulate matter per leaf blower per hour are blown into the air and can take hours and even days to settle. These particulates aggravate allergies. They also contribute to cardiac conditions such as arrhythimia and can cause heart attacks. Moreover, they contribute to pulmonary diseases such as bronchitis. Please visit EPA's web site about the health impacts of particulate matter: www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution.A Grand Jury in the Superior Court of California issued findings about the toxicity of leaf blowers and the health hazards associated with them. Contact us for a link to this study.Spread of pulmonary disease, asthma, and allergiesThe dust, pollen, spores and other particulate matter spread by leaf blowers exacerbates asthma, emphysema, and allergies. Children and the elderly are the most vulnerable segments of the population and are particularly impacted by the use, and abuse, of leaf blowers in our community. Nine doctors from the Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center wrote a letter supporting other town's restrictions on leaf blowers because of these and other health concerns. Contact us for a link to this study.Among the particulates thrown into the air by leaf blowers are dried fertilizers, and fecal and urinary matter of animals, including mice and other rodents. These substances have been linked to the spread of various respiratory diseases.Destruction of gardens and landscapes through compaction, dessication and loss of topsoilLeaf blowers blow a concentrated stream of hot air onto plants at 200 mph--higher speed and force than a hurricane. As professional landscaper Steve Zien says: "wind speeds in excess of 180 mph are currently blasting landscapes throughout [the country]. Leaves are ripped from branches, new growth and developing flowers are damaged and precious topsoil is blown away. Nurseries and Extension Agents are receiving more plant samples from gardeners indicating a tornado or hurricane devastated their landscape plants."Winds stress the fragile living material of plants, causing dehydration, burned leaves, and the suspension of photosynthesis and other natural plant functions. Overall growth is also slowed. Natural openings in the leaves that allow for the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide are sealed shut. Disease spores laying dormant on the soil or fallen debris are blown back onto plants where a little moisture can renew their cycle of infestation and damage. Blowers effectively distribute disease spores, weed seeds and insect eggs through the landscape and onto neighboring landscapes.Blowers create a disposal problem. Most landscapers do not compost their debris; they put it into sanitary landfill which are being rapidly filled to capacity. The organic material is a gardeners best friend and should remain on site to be recycled back into the landscape.Another hidden cost of leaf blowers is that they deprive flowers, shrubs, and trees of live-giving mulch. Without this natural blanket, erosion, water evaporation and the spread of disease all become problems. Mulch, when not blown away, creates a favorable growing environment for plants and beneficial organisms both above and below ground while adding nutrients to the plants' root zone. When mulch is removed to the compost and renewed annually many soil borne diseases are kept to a minimum.Disturbance of small mammals, birds, and insects, and their habitatNoise, toxic fumes, and hot air blown at hurricane force are all taking a toll on animals and birds in our landscapes. Even beneficial insects like earthworms and bees are being damaged by the assault of the leaf blowers most yards in Greenwich are subjected to. Nests and other habitat are disturbed; animals and birds are driven away by noise. Pollen, sap, and other natural plant substances are desiccated or simply sent airborne. Every living creature in the range of a leaf blower is harmfully impacted.Non-point source water pollutionAnother problem is the common practice of many landscapers to blow debris into the street, or into a neighboring property. When it is pushed into the street it often clogs storm drains and gutters, contributing to inefficient functioning of these drains and to increased flooding and erosion. At other times, the debris enters the drains and moves toxins and other unwanted material into our creeks, rivers and ultimately Long Island Sound, creating a significant new source of non-point source water pollution.The City of Santa Monica, CA forbids the use of leaf blowers because it recognizes the link between the toxic substances, including heavy metals and chemicals, which are pushed into gutters by leaf blowers and which end up in the already polluted Pacific Ocean and the rivers and bays that connect with it in the Santa Monica area.Overall carbon footprint and energy usageLeaf blowers accomplish collection of material inefficiently. They use fossil fuel in place of human effort and muscle, at the expense of our environment. Their two stroke engines use gasoline exceptionally inefficiently, spewing 25% of it unburned into the air through their emissions. Why use an engine to do what your arms can do more efficiently and with no harmful effects to humans, animals, or the environment? Americans are increasing in obesity and becoming more and more sedentary, in part because we no longer do even the simple and rewarding tasks, or tending our own gardens, cutting our grass ourselves, or raking autumn leaves.A University study showed that Americans spill 17 million gallons of gasoline per year refilling lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chain saws and other lawn and garden equipment. That's more than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Every time a leaf blower is refilled, toxic fumes called Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) can be released into the air. Spilling and overfilling equipment can also result in the release of VOCs. When VOCs react with the sun, ground-level ozone or smog is produced. Ozone can affect not only the lungs, but many other organs and systems of the body. Children, the elderly, and people with chronic illness are the most susceptible. Gasoline spilt on lawns can seep into the groundwater and waterways, affecting drinking water and polluting rivers, lakes, and oceans.