Rachel's #936: Casualties of Nuclear Power

[Guest guest]

At 09:25 AM 12/6/07, you wrote:

>peter

>Rachel's #936: Casualties of Nuclear Power

>rachel

>

>

>Having trouble viewing this email? You can read it as a web page.

>.

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Rachel's Democracy & Health News #936

> " Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

>Thursday, December 6, 2007..............Printer-friendly version

>www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>

>Featured stories in this issue...

>

>Atomic Balm: Nuclear Revival Ignores Casualties

> In the U.S., atomic bombs are no longer being tested. However, 104

> nuclear power reactors still operate here, producing the same

> radioactive elements found in bomb test fallout, and people living

> downwind are routinely exposed to low levels of radioactivity.

>The Story of Stuff

> " The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard " is a smart, funny new short

> film that explains the " materials economy " in 20 minutes. And it's

> available on the web now. You won't want to miss it.

>Editorial: Toxic Dilemmas

> " After all these years of environmental regulation, the laws and

> rules regarding the introduction of toxic chemicals into consumer

> products and the environment are still ineffectual. " --Donald Kennedy,

> editor-in-chief, Science Magazine

>Group Says Infant Formula Cans Pose Health Risk

> Tests by both the Environmental Working Group and the Food and Drug

> Administration show " 1 of every 16 infants fed [liquid] formula would

> be exposed to the [bisphenol A] at doses exceeding those that caused

> harm in laboratory studies, " the report says. The chemical is in every

> brand of liquid formula in varying amounts, it says.

>Warning: The Chemical Bisphenol A... Is in You

> The chemical bisphenol A has been known to pose severe health

> risks to laboratory animals. And the chemical is in many products you

> use, and is in you.

>Coal's Dirty Little Secrets

> The coal industry has created a front group called Americans for

> Balanced Energy Choices with a budget of $30 million per year

> dedicated to spreading one simple falsehood: that " clean coal " exists.

>New Studies Discredit Ocean Fertilization 'Fix' for Global Warming

> " There are too many scientific uncertainties relating both to the

> efficacy of ocean fertilization and its possible environmental side

> effects that need to be resolved before even larger experiments should

> be considered, let alone the process commercialized. "

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Rachel's Democracy & Health News #936, Dec. 6, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>ATOMIC BALM: NUCLEAR REVIVAL IGNORES CASUALTIES

>

>By Joseph J. Mangano

>

>Nuclear power plants employ a controlled atomic fission reaction,

>splitting uranium atoms to create heat to boil water to make steam to

>turn a turbine to generate electricity. Because nuclear power is so

>complex, it is accident-prone and unforgiving -- small errors can have

>large consequences. Because of these important disadvantages, for the

>past three decades it has looked as if nuclear power were a dying

>industry.

>

>But now the nuclear industry has seized on global warming to promote

>atomic power plants once again as necessary and safe. From politicians

>to corporate executives and conservative pundits, we hear that

>reactors are " clean " or " emission free " -- with no evidence offered to

>support the claims. Unfortunately, this baseless promotion emanates

>from a long-standing culture of deception that has plagued the

>industry since its beginnings. Earlier this year the British

>magazine, the Economist, characterized the U.S. nuclear industry as

> " a byword for mendacity, secrecy and profligacy with taxpayers'

>money.

>

>Half a century ago, as America produced and exploded hundreds of

>atomic bombs (1054 nuclear tests in all, 331 in the atmosphere),

>public officials assured everyone that low-dose radiation exposures

>were harmless. But after the Cold War ended, barriers to the truth

>gave way. Government-funded research found that nuclear weapons

>workers and those exposed to fallout from atomic bomb tests in

>Nevada suffered from cancer in large numbers. The BEIR VII study.

>published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2005, ended the

>debate on this question: it is now firmly established that any

>amount of radioactive exposure carries some risk of harm. The

>only safe dose is zero.

>

>In the U.S., atomic bombs are no longer being tested. However, 104

>nuclear power reactors still operate here, producing the same

>radioactive elements found in bomb test fallout, and people living

>downwind are routinely exposed to low levels of radioactivity.

>Government regulators have established " permissible limits " for

>radioactive reactor emissions, declaring the resulting exposures

> " safe " -- contrary to the findings of the National Academy's BEIR VII

>study.

>

>The U.S. nuclear power industry stopped growing in the mid-1970s.

>Until this year, no new reactors have been ordered in the U.S. since

>1978, and several dozen reactors have been closed permanently.[1] But

>fears of global warming and an ardently pro-nuclear Administration in

>Washington have laid the groundwork for an industry revival.

>

>The industry's revival plan has four parts:

>

>1) Enlarging the capacity of existing reactors;

>

>2) Keeping old reactors running beyond their design lifetime;

>

>3) Operating old reactors more hours per year; and

>

>4) Building new reactors.

>

>To help promote the so-called nuclear renaissance, health risks from

>low-level radiation are once again being ignored or denied -- even

>though evidence of harm exists.

>

>1. Expanding Existing Reactors -- Vermont Yankee

>

>Since March 1993, utilities have submitted 99 requests to the U.S.

>Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for licenses to expand reactor

>capacity, and the NRC has approved all 99. The added capacity of 4400

>megawatts is the equivalent of four large reactors. The NRC is

>considering 12 more applications, totaling another 1100 megawatts.

>

>Most expansions have been small, but 10 of the 99 have raised capacity

>by 15 to 20%. Almost all sailed through with little public opposition.

>One exception was the Vermont Yankee reactor on the Connecticut River

>where Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire converge. It is the

>11th oldest of the U.S.'s 104 reactors, and at 510 megawatts

>electrical, the 5th smallest.

>

>Entergy Nuclear of Jackson, Miss. acquired Vermont Yankee in 2002 as

>part of its campaign to buy aging reactors to maximize their output

>and profit potential. Entergy wanted more than a 510 megawatt reactor,

>so it requested a 20% upgrade for Vermont Yankee -- the oldest U.S.

>reactor considered for an upgrade. The estimated cost was $60

>million.[2]

>

>Since 1972, when Vermont Yankee first generated power, Vermont has

>become an increasingly liberal state, especially on environmental

>issues. Hundreds of local residents opposed the expansion by packing

>auditoriums at several public meetings, making their fury known. Ira

>Helfand, a local emergency room physician, spoke up at one of them:

>

> " My emergency room cannot deal with the casualties that would be

>produced by an accident at this plant... Now Entergy wants to make

>this plant even more dangerous by upgrading its production beyond what

>it was supposed to tolerate?.. . This plant should not be uprated. It

>shouldn't be allowed to operate. It should be shut down. " [3]

>

>Residents of Windham County, Vt., where the reactor is located, are

>well educated. The county poverty rate is low, and the mostly rural

>county of 44,000 has few polluting industries. Along with world class

>medical care in nearby Boston, these factors suggest that no unusually

>high rates of disease should exist. However, from 1979-2004 the county

>death rate was 7.2% below the U.S. -- except for cancer, which was

>1.6% higher. These figures are age-adjusted, so the excess cancers are

>not attributable to an aging population. And the anomaly in Windham

>appears to be growing; most recently (1999-2004), the cancer death

>rate in Windham county has risen to 5.7% above the national

>average.[4]

>

>The NRC refused to consider that radioactive emissions from Vermont

>Yankee might be contributing to the rise in cancer deaths in Windham

>county. In March 2006, the NRC approved the expansion, and an appeal

>by the New England Coalition Against Nuclear Power was turned down by

>the state Supreme Court in September 2007. Entergy is now operating an

>expanded Vermont Yankee reactor.

>

>2. Keeping Old Reactors Running -- Oyster Creek, New Jersey

>

>With Wall Street refusing to finance new reactors after the accident

>at Three Mile Island, utilities decided to increase profits by

>operating old reactors longer than originally planned. The NRC eased

>regulations and in this decade has approved 47 of 47 applications to

>allow reactors to operate past the initial 40-year design period up to

>a total of 60 years.[1] Dozens more applications are expected.

>

>One exception to the federal rubber-stamping of license extensions is

>the Oyster Creek reactor in Lacey, New Jersey, about 60 miles from

>both Philadelphia and New York City. Oyster Creek is the oldest of the

>104 U.S. reactors and one of the smallest (636 megawatts electrical).

>In the 1990s, the New Jersey-based GPU Corporation planned to close

>the reactor. This changed when AmerGen (a subsidiary of Exelon, the

>largest U.S. reactor operator) bought Oyster Creek and requested a

>license extension in 2005.[1]

>

>The fight is going on now. Public hearings have been well attended by

>supporters and opponents of license extension. Local media has taken

>an interest; the Asbury Park Press, the most widely read newspaper in

>central New Jersey, has published numerous editorials opposing re-

>licensing. Governors James McGreevey and Jon Corzine have both

>publicly opposed re-licensing, as have many state and local elected

>officials. Governments in 19 local towns have passed resolutions of

>opposition. Legal interventions allowed by the NRC were filed by a

>coalition of citizen groups and by the state Department of

>Environmental Protection.

>

>Information on radioactive contamination and local health became part

>of the Oyster Creek dialogue. A well publicized study (partly funded

>by the state legislature) of more than 300 baby teeth of New Jersey

>children, many living near Oyster Creek, found that average levels of

>radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) had doubled from the late 1980s to

>the late 1990s.[5] More importantly, increases in Sr-90 near Oyster

>Creek were followed by similar increases in childhood cancer rates

>several years later.[6]

>

>Ocean County, where the reactor is situated, has a population of

>nearly 600,000, up from 108,000 in 1960. Its residents are relatively

>well off, and have access to good medical care locally and in nearby

>major cities. But the low death rate for all causes other than cancer

>from 1979-2004 (8.4% below the U.S.) has been offset by an

>unexpectedly high cancer death rate (8.8% above the U.S. average).[4]

>With 39,000 county residents dying in the past quarter century, the

>number of " excess cancer deaths " exceeds 6,000.

>

>The fate of Oyster Creek remains uncertain. In July, Exelon funded a

>group led by heavy-duty New Jersey lobbyists to ensure the application

>is pushed through. Local activist Janet Tauro reacted to the new

>group's formation by declaring,

>

> " Exelon is putting its money into creating a bogus environmental group

>designed to lure the public's attention away from safety issues and

>scare us into believing that Oyster Creek's closure would hurt the

>region economically. " [7]

>

>3. Operating Old Reactors More Often -- Indian Point, New York

>

>As recently as the late 1980s, U.S. reactors only ran at 63% of

>capacity; they were shut down 37% of the time for maintenance and

>repair. But larger corporations buying old reactors in the 1990s made

>it their mission to boost productivity, and now U.S. reactors run 90%

>of the time.[8] This is good news for the balance sheet, but running

>old reactors more hours per year raises safety and health concerns.

>

>The two reactors at Indian Point, 35 miles north of New York City,

>represent a good example of this change. Until the mid-1990s, they

>only operated 57% of the time. But after Entergy Nuclear bought Indian

>Point, it raised the current productivity rate to 95%.[1]

>

>Indian Point is in Westchester County, a wealthy area with a

>population of nearly one million. In the period 1979-2004, the cancer

>death rate in the county was just slightly below the national average

>(-1.8%), but well below the U.S. average for all other causes

>(-12.9%). If the cancer death rate in Westchester had been as far

>below the national average as deaths from all other causes (-12.9%),

>there would have been about 6,000 fewer cancer deaths in Westchester

>during the period.

>

>Unlike reactor upgrades, license extensions, and new reactor orders,

>there are no mandated public hearings when a nuclear utility simply

>raises productivity. Thus, this issue has largely been ignored, at

>Indian Point and elsewhere.

>

>4. Ordering New Reactors -- Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.

>

>In 2005 the Bush Administration convinced Congress to enact billions

>in loan guarantees for new reactor construction because of continued

>disinterest from Wall Street; billions more in federal subsidies are

>currently under discussion now on Capitol Hill. With the loan

>guarantees put in place in 2005, utilities got serious about ordering

>new reactors. Over 30 have been discussed, and the dry spell of no

>orders since 1978 ended on July 31, 2007 when Unistar Nuclear

>submitted an application to the NRC for a new reactor at Calvert

>Cliffs, Md.

>

>Unistar was formed when Constellation Energy of Baltimore failed to

>secure funds from Wall Street financiers for its new Calvert Cliffs

>reactor. The 2005 federal guarantees would only back 90% of costs, and

>private bankers have flatly refused to put up the other 10%.

>Constellation teamed up with the French company Areva to form Unistar.

>Areva put up $350 million in cash, promising to up the ante to $625

>million. With financing secured, the new reactor was ordered.[9]

>

>Unistar proposes to build a $4 billion, 1600 megawatt reactor at

>Calvert Cliffs. There is no precedent for a reactor this size; the

>average for the current U.S. reactors is about 1000 megawatts, with

>the largest being 1250. At the very earliest, assuming a fast, smooth

>regulatory review, rapid construction, and no legal holdups, the

>reactor would begin operating in 2014.

>

>The Calvert Cliffs plant is on the west bank of the Chesapeake Bay, 45

>miles southeast of Washington. Since the mid-1970s, two reactors have

>operated at the site. Until recently, the area was sparsely populated;

>but the Calvert County population has swelled from 16,000 to 90,000

>since 1960. The county enjoys a high living standard, with a low

>poverty rate and good access to medical care in Washington.

>

>Calvert County is a healthy place -- with the exception of cancer.

> From 1979-2004, the death rate was 9.2% above the U.S. for cancer, but

>3.0% below the nation for other causes. Most recently (1999-2004), the

>cancer rate rose to 13.8% above the national average.

>

>All local leaders support the new nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs.

>Wilson Parran, the chair of the Calvert Board of Commissioners,

>sounded the clarion call that the promise of economic gain trumps any

>possible health hazards:

>

> " From a national perspective, nuclear energy is our largest source of

>clean energy and a critical piece of our nation's energy strategy. It

>is imperative to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and

>Calvert County stands ready to share in our nation's responsibility to

>provide resources that produce energy. " [9]

>

>Putting Health First is Essential in Energy Policy

>

>Unusually high cancer rates in counties like Windham, Ocean, Calvert,

>and Westchester should be taken seriously; they are not what you would

>expect among relatively well-off populations.[10] Even if a large

>scale reactor accident never occurs in this country, nuclear plants

>will still continuously emit about 100 different radioactive

>chemicals. The number of casualties is difficult to estimate, but it

>may well be in the thousands. And any expansion of nuclear power would

>only increase radioactive emissions.

>

>Furthermore, threats to human health are not the only problem

>associated with the nuclear power industry. As we know from the recent

>history of India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea, and

>Syria, a nation that aims to build an atomic bomb begins by building a

>nuclear power plant. This is where they develop the expertise, the

>techniques, and the experience needed to build a bomb. The only sure

>way to minimize the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be to shut

>down the nuclear power industry world-wide. So long as the civilian

>nuclear power industry exists, there will be a well-worn path from

>nuclear power to nuclear weapons, accompanied by a growing threat of

>terrorist attack beyond anything we have yet imagined.

>

>Fortunately, we do not need nuclear power at all. There are many

>alternatives readily available. Many of these were discussed recently

>in Arjun Makhijani's thorough study, " Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free:

>A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. " Nuclear power is simply too dirty,

>too dangerous, and too unnecessary to warrant further support.

>

>==============

>

>Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA is Executive Director of the Radiation and

>Public Health Project, a research and educational organization based

>in New York.

>

>References

>

>[1] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov.

>

>[2] Matthew L. Wald. Safety of Adding to Nuclear Plants' Capacity is

>Questioned. New York Times, January 26, 2004.

>

>[3] Eesha Williams, Hundreds Attend Hearing on Vermont Yankee.

>Transcript of New Hampshire Public Radio broadcast, April 1, 2004.

>

>[4] National Center for Health Statistics, Mortality -- underlying

>cause of death. Includes ICD-9 cancer codes 140.0-239.9 (1979-1998)

>and ICD-10 cancer codes C00-D48.9 (1999-2004).

>http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.html

>

>[5] Mangano J.J. and others. An unexpected rise in Strontium-90 in US

>deciduous teeth in the 1990s. The Science of the Total Environment

>Vol. 317 (2003), pgs. 37-51.

>

>[6] Mangano J.J. A short latency between radiation exposure from

>nuclear plants and cancer in young children. International Journal of

>Health Services Vol. 36, No. 1 (2006), pgs. 113-135.

>

>[7] Janet Tauro, But Safety Issues at Oyster Creek Can't Be Ignored.

>Asbury Park Press, September 9, 2007.

>

>[8] Division of Planning, Budget, and Analysis. Information Digest.

>NUREG-1350. Washington DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, annual

>volumes.

>

>[9] Dan Morse. Agency Describes Process to License Calvert Cliffs

>Plant. Washington Post, August 15, 2007.

>

>[10] U.S. Bureau of the census, 2000 census, state and county quick

>facts. The national average of U.S. residents living below the poverty

>levels was 12.7%, which is higher than the average for Windham County,

>Vt. (9.0%), Ocean County, N.J. (7.6%), Westchester County, N.Y.

>(8.9%), and Calvert County, Md. (5.4%). The national average percent

>of residents over age 25 who graduated from high school was 80.4%, but

>was higher for Windham County, Vt. (87.3%), Ocean County, N.J.

>(83.0%), Westchester County, N.Y. (83.6%), and Calvert County, Md.

>(86.9%). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Multinational Monitor, Dec. 5, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>THE STORY OF STUFF

>

>By Robert Weissman

>

>Right now, representatives of the governments of the world are meeting

>in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate international agreements to forestall

>climate change.

>

>Necessarily, these negotiations will revolve around technical, arcane

>matters. What targets should be set for reduced greenhouse gas

>emissions? Which countries should adhere to which targets? Should

>there be emissions rights trading, and if so, how should trading

>systems work? What financing mechanisms will be established to help

>developing countries transition to cleaner production methods and

>leapfrog over polluting technologies? Will there be special mechanisms

>established to protect forests? How should global trading rules be

>altered? And on and on.

>

>The world desperately needs these negotiations to succeed, for

>science-based emission targets to be set, and for principles of social

>justice to shape the allocation of rights, duties and financial

>obligations needed to avert climate catastrophe. And whatever progress

>can be achieved in Bali, the better.

>

>But we also need something else, which will almost surely precede

>global agreements and serious commitments to undertake the massive

>economic and social reorganization that the threat of global warming

>-- and other pending ecological catastrophes -- commands.

>

>That something else is a broad public understanding of how the system

>all fits together. Not just how important it is to change from

>incandescent to compact fluorescent light bulbs or the value of

>recycling -- though these things are vital -- but how the present

>system of making, transporting, selling, buying, using and disposing

>of things is trashing the planet. If we're going to save ourselves

>from global warming, we're going to have to do things differently.

>

>That's where The Story of Stuff comes in.

>

> " The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard " is an engaging new short film

>that explains the " materials economy " in 20 fun-filled minutes.

>

>Yes, fun-filled.

>

>Produced by Free Range Studios, which developed " The Meatrix " -- an

>animated short about factory farming that ranks among the cleverest

>uses of Internet technologies to deliver a politically progressive

>message -- The Story of Stuff features the wonderful Annie Leonard,

>amusing graphics, lots of humor, and a complicated analysis presented

>in an easy-to-understand conversational tone.

>

>You can watch the whole thing at http://www.storyofstuff.com. You'll

>have to watch the film to enjoy the humor -- there's no easy way to

>convey the playful cartooning with serious purpose. But I guarantee

>chuckles even for the most austere.

>

>The core themes of the Story of Stuff are:

>

>1. The world is running up against resource limits.

>

> " We're running out of resources. We are using too much stuff. Now I

>know this can be hard to hear, but it's the truth and we've got to

>deal with it. In the past three decades alone, one-third of the

>planet's natural resources base have been consumed. Gone. We are

>cutting and mining and hauling and trashing the place so fast that

>we're undermining the planet's very ability for people to live here. "

>

>2. Corporate globalization is premised on externalizing costs --

>making someone other than the companies that make things pay for the

>environmental and human costs of production.

>

> " I was thinking about this the other day. I was walking to work and I

>wanted to listen to the news so I popped into this Radio Shack to buy

>a radio. I found this cute little green radio for 4 dollars and 99

>cents. I was standing there in line to buy this radio and I was

>wondering how $4.99 could possibly capture the costs of making this

>radio and getting it to my hands. The metal was probably mined in

>South Africa, the petroleum was probably drilled in Iraq, the plastics

>were probably produced in China, and maybe the whole thing was

>assembled by some 15 year old in a maquiladora in Mexico. $4.99

>wouldn't even pay the rent for the shelf space it occupied until I

>came along, let alone part of the staff guy's salary that helped me

>pick it out, or the multiple ocean cruises and truck rides pieces of

>this radio went on. That's how I realized, I didn't pay for the

>radio. "

>

>Who did? The people who lost their natural resource base, factory

>workers, those who are made sick from factory pollution, and retail

>workers without health insurance.

>

>3. The corporate economy rests on the artificial creation of need --

> " the golden arrow of consumption. "

>

> " Have you ever wondered why women's shoe heels go from fat one year to

>skinny the next to fat to skinny? It is not because there is some

>debate about which heel structure is the most healthy for women's

>feet. It's because wearing fat heels in a skinny heel year shows

>everyone that you haven't contributed to that arrow recently so you're

>not as valuable as that skinny heeled person next to you or, more

>likely, in some ad. It's to keep buying new shoes. "

>

>4. Things can be different. And they must be made to be different.

>

> " What we really need to chuck is this old-school throw-away mindset.

>There's a new school of thinking on this stuff and it's based on

>sustainability and equity: Green Chemistry, Zero Waste, Closed Loop

>Production, Renewable Energy, Local Living Economies. Some people say

>it's unrealistic, idealistic, that it can't happen. But I say the ones

>who are unrealistic are those that want to continue on the old path.

>That's dreaming. Remember that old way didn't just happen by itself.

>It's not like gravity that we just gotta live with. People created it.

>And we're people too. So let's create something new. "

>

>If you worry these claims are too broad, go to the website,

>StoryofStuff.com. It has supporting evidence and links to a vast

>array of additional resources and materials.

>

>Is The Story of Stuff just preaching to the converted? No. (Though

>note, as a friend says, that there's a reason and rationale for the

>clergy to preach to the congregation every week -- it reinforces,

>deepens and sustains commitment and understanding.)

>

>The Story of Stuff is something you can show to anyone (or ask anyone

>to view online). It's persuasive but not a sermon. It's sophisticated

>but not esoteric. Its tone is light but its content is serious. It's

>narrated by the irrepressible Annie Leonard with passion but no

>pretense.

>

>Annie, who is a former colleague and good friend, casually mentions at

>the start of The Story of Stuff that she spent 10 years traveling the

>world to explore how stuff is made and discarded. This doesn't begin

>to explain her first-hand experience. There aren't many people who

>race from international airports to visit trash dumps. Annie does. In

>travels to three dozen countries, she has visited garbage dumps,

>infiltrated toxic factories, worked with ragpickers and received death

>threats for her investigative work. Her understanding of the

>externalized violence of the corporate consumer economy comes from

>direct observation and experience.

>

>The Story of Stuff is a short film about the big picture. Give it a

>look, and encourage others to check it out.

>

>If negotiations like those in Bali are ultimately going to succeed, we

>need lots more people to internalize the message of The Story of

>Stuff, and mobilize, as Annie says, to create something new.

>

>Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational

>Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

>

>Copyright Robert Weissman

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Science Magazine, Nov. 23, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>EDITORIAL: TOXIC DILEMMAS

>

>By Donald Kennedy

>

>After all these years of environmental regulation, the laws and rules

>regarding the introduction of toxic chemicals into consumer products

>and the environment are still ineffectual. After an earlier lifetime

>in which I worried about lead, polybrominated biphenyls in plastics,

>and the like, I got reacquainted with toxic dilemmas. It happened

>because of a reunion with an old friend who has a long familiarity

>with the use of toxic substances as fire retardants in consumer

>products. Here's the story.

>

>In the early 1970s when I first got to know Arlene Blum, she was

>working with Bruce Ames at the University of California, Berkeley.

>

>They were applying the Ames test for mutagenicity to various lipid-

>soluble [fat-soluble] chlorinated and brominated compounds that are

>double trouble because they concentrate in food chains and wind up in

>people, and aren't biodegradable. They discovered widespread use of a

>compound called tris(2,3-ibromopropyl) phosphate as a fire retardant

>in children's sleepwear. A mutagen and putative human carcinogen, it

>leeched into children's bodies. After a 1977 paper by Blum and Ames in

>Science, that use was banned. Well, the alert chemical industry

>quickly substituted a dichlorinated tris, which Ames and Blum also

>found to be mutagenic and was subsequently removed from sleepwear.

>

>The history of residential fire risk is an interesting one, because it

>involves the tobacco industry. Remember them? They designed cigarettes

>that when dropped or put down, would smolder long enough to start a

>fire. For years, cigarette-lit fires were the greatest cause of fire-

>related deaths in the United States.

>

>After three decades of opposition from tobacco lobbyists, 22 states

>and Canada finally passed laws requiring that cigarettes be made self-

>extinguishing. With fewer people smoking and better enforcement of

>building codes, fire-related deaths are decreasing.

>

>I had missed this important development, having lost track of the

>topic. Arlene, a high-profile international mountaineer, was off

>leading expeditions in the Himalayas and elsewhere and writing a

>memoir about it. Meanwhile, I had left the U.S. Food and Drug

>Administration and was back at Stanford. I hadn't seen Arlene for 25

>years or so, but a few months ago, she turned up with an extraordinary

>sequel to the tris story, which she tells of in a recent Letter in

>Science. Fire retardants are now widely used in furniture foam, and

>the second most-used compound is none other than chlorinated tris! In

>less than three decades, this highly toxic mutagen has moved from your

>child's nightgown to your sofa.

>

>Arlene is scientific adviser for a bill in the California legislature

>called AB 706, which would ban the use of the most toxic fire

>retardants from furniture and bedding unless the manufacturers can

>show safety. It has a good chance of passage next year; even the

>firefighters support it. Not surprisingly, chemical manufacturers have

>launched a fear campaign in opposition, claiming that their products

>have dramatically reduced fire deaths in California, although the rate

>of decrease is about the same as that in states that do not regulate

>furniture flammability.

>

>But the problem is a national one. The Consumer Product Safety

>Commission (CPSC) Reform Act (S 2045) toyed with a provision that

>would rush us into a national furniture flammability standard. That's

>premature, because it leaves no time to develop a safe way to reduce

>furniture flammability and puts potentially persistent toxic chemicals

>into U.S. homes. Congress should forget that approach. The real

>problem is that the U.S. regulatory system for toxic industrial

>chemicals is not effective and is a threat to public health.

>

>In Europe, the chemical industry is required to establish safety

>before a product can continue to be marketed. The U.S. Toxic

>Substances Control Act (TOSCA) originally grandfathered existing

>chemicals, but none have been reexamined since the 1980s. Congress

>should abandon its attempt to attach a flammability standard to the

>CPSC, and instead turn to the real task of reforming TOSCA by

>introducing a real proof-of-safety provision. That would stop the

>chemical industry from continuing to make consumer protection look

>like a game of whack-a-mole.

>

>Donald Kennedy is the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine.

>

>Copyright 2007 American Association for the Advancement of Science

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>E & ENews PM, Dec. 5, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>GROUP SAYS INFANT FORMULA CANS POSE HEALTH RISK

>

>By Russell J. Dinnage, E & ENews PM reporter

>

>Major U.S. manufacturers of infant formula line their packages with

>material that contains unsafe levels of a chemical linked to

>reproductive problems, an advocacy group said in a report released

>today.

>

>The Environmental Working Group said Nestle, Ross-Abbot, MeadJohnson

>and PBM admitted using the chemical, bisphenol A, as an epoxy resin to

>line cans of popular brands Good Start (Nestle), Similac (Ross-Abbot)

>and Enfamil (MeadJohnson).

>

>And Ross-Abbot, MeadJohnson, PBM and Hain-Celestial use bisphenol A-

>based linings on metal portions of their powdered formula cans, the

>group said. Nestle did not provide the Washington-based group with

>information on whether the chemical is used to line packages of its

>powdered formula brands.

>

>The companies provided information about their use of bisphenol A in a

>recent survey conducted by the environmental group. The survey asked

>the companies about whether they use the chemical in packaging for

>both liquid and powdered formula products. Among the questions: " Do

>you use bisphenol A in cans of liquid and powdered formula? " And " Do

>you test for bisphenol A in your products? "

>

>The report advises parents who use formula to choose the powdered

>version because bisphenol A is more easily absorbed from the container

>into liquid formula. Tests by both the EWG and Food and Drug

>Administration show " 1 of every 16 infants fed [liquid] formula would

>be exposed to the [bisphenol A] at doses exceeding those that caused

>harm in laboratory studies, " the report says. The chemical is in every

>brand of liquid formula in varying amounts, it says.

>

>The report also advises parents to buy formula in plastic containers

>because non-metal packaging contains lower levels of leachable

>bisphenol A. Also, parents should use formulas that require dilution

>because adding water reduces the amount of the chemical entering a

>baby's body.

>

>Bisphenol A is used in water and food containers, shatter-resistant

>baby bottles and dental fillings. There is particular concern about

>the chemical's effect on very young children. San Francisco passed a

>ban on bisphenol A in toys last year over concerns about its potential

>to harm reproductive systems.

>

>Scientists generally agree that bisphenol A, which is used in the

>manufacturing of polycarbonate plastics, can cause reproductive

>problems by blocking testosterone and mimicking estrogen.

>

>But the Food and Drug Administration maintains that small doses of the

>chemical via food are not harmful to human health.

>

>The EWG findings follow past group studies that found that bisphenol A

>is present in plastic baby bottles and that parents can best protect

>their infant's health by using glass bottles.

>

> " Many parents have switched to [bisphenol A]-free bottles for their

>infants. They certainly should have access to [bisphenol A]-free

>formula as well, " EWG analyst Sonya Lunder said. " U.S. manufacturers

>of infant formula and baby bottles can and should do the right thing

>and remove this harmful chemical from their products. "

>

>Copyright 1996-2007 E & E Publishing

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, Wisc.), Dec. 2, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>WARNING: THE CHEMICAL BISPHENOL A... IS IN YOU

>

>WARNING: The chemical bisphenol A has been known to pose severe health

>risks to laboratory animals. AND THE CHEMICAL IS IN YOU.

>

>It's in baby bottles, soda cans and 93% of us. It causes breast

>cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes and hyperactivity in lab animals,

>according to 80% of studies analyzed by the Journal Sentinel. But U.S.

>regulators side with the chemical-makers and say it's safe.

>

>By Susanne Rust, Meg Kissinger and Cary Spivak

>

>srust

>

>For more than a decade, the federal government and chemical-makers

>have assured the public that a hormone-mimicking compound found in

>baby bottles, aluminum cans and hundreds of other household products

>is safe.

>

>But a Journal Sentinel investigation found that these promises are

>based on outdated, incomplete government studies and research heavily

>funded by the chemical industry.

>

>In the first analysis of its kind by a newspaper, the Journal Sentinel

>reviewed 258 scientific studies of the chemical bisphenol A, a

>compound detected in the urine of 93% of Americans recently tested. An

>overwhelming majority of these studies show that the chemical is

>harmful -- causing breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes,

>hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and a host of

>other reproductive failures in laboratory animals.

>

>Studies paid for by the chemical industry are much less likely to find

>damaging effects or disease.

>

>U.S. regulators so far have sided with industry by minimizing concern

>about the compound's safety.

>

>========================================================

>

>Sidebar: Chemical Fallout: Bisphenol A

>

>Key Findings

>

>A Journal Sentinel investigation found:

>

>The federal government's assurances that bisphenol A is a safe

>chemical are based on outdated and incomplete government studies and

>science mostly funded by the chemical industry.

>

>About 80% of academically and government-funded research found that

>bisphenol A is harmful in laboratory animals. Most of the industry-

>funded studies found there was no harm.

>

>A federal panel that advises the government issued a report last week

>downplaying the effects of bisphenol A. The panel gave more weight to

>industry-funded scientists and industry-funded studies.

>

>ALSO: Part 1 (published Nov. 25)

>

>Common Uses

>

>Related Coverage

>

>Main story: U.S., chemical makers say it's safe

>

>Our analysis: 20 years of research studied

>

>What can you do?: Minimize your chemical exposure

>

>Bisphenol A panels: Members and staff members

>

>PART 1, Nov. 25: Congress ordered the federal government in 1996 to

>begin testing and regulating certain chemicals suspected of causing

>cancer and a host of developmental problems. Eleven years later, not a

>single compound has been put to that test.

>

>PART 2, Dec. 2: The federal government's assurances that a common

>chemical is safe are based on outdated U.S. government studies and

>research heavily funded by the chemical industry.

>

>Reports on Bisphenol A

>

>PDF: Chapel Hill Bisphenol A Expert Panel Consensus Statement

>

>PDF: Report on the reproductive and development toxicity of

>Bisphenol A

>

>========================================================

>

>Last week, a panel commissioned by the National Toxicology Program

>released a report finding bisphenol A to be of some concern for

>fetuses and small children. It found that adults have almost nothing

>to worry about.

>

>Its recommendations could be used by the U.S. Environmental Protection

>Agency and other regulators to assess federal policies on how much

>bisphenol A is safe and may have huge ramifications for the

>multibillion-dollar chemical industry.

>

>The panel said it considered more than 700 studies by university

>scientists, government researchers and industry-funded chemists. It

>picked the work it felt was best and threw out the rest.

>

>The Journal Sentinel found that panel members gave more weight to

>industry-funded studies and more leeway to industry-funded

>researchers.

>

>** The panel rejected academic studies that found harm -- citing

>inadequate methods. But the panel accepted industry-funded studies

>using the same methods that concluded the chemical does not pose

>risks.

>

>** The panel missed dozens of studies publicly available that the

>Journal Sentinel found online using a medical research Internet search

>engine. The studies the panel considered were chosen, in part, by a

>consultant with links to firms that made bisphenol A.

>

>** More and more university researchers and foreign governments are

>finding that bisphenol A can do serious damage in small doses. But the

>panel rejected studies mostly submitted by university and

>international government scientists that looked at the impact at these

>levels.

>

>** The panel accepted a Korean study translated by the chemical

>industry's trade group that found bisphenol A to be safe. It also

>accepted two studies that were not subjected to any peer review -- the

>gold standard of scientific credibility. Both studies were funded by

>General Electric Co., which made bisphenol A until it sold its

>plastics division earlier this year.

>

> " This undermines the government's authority, " said David Rosner,

>professor of history and public health at Columbia University. " It

>makes you think twice about accepting their conclusions. "

>

>Panel chairman Robert Chapin, a toxicologist who works for Pfizer

>Inc., the pharmaceutical giant, defended his group's work.

>

> " We didn't flippin' care who does the study, " said Chapin, who worked

>as a government scientist for 18 years before joining Pfizer.

>

>If the studies followed good laboratory practices and were backed with

>strong data, they were accepted, Chapin said.

>

>Created to act as hormone

>Bisphenol A was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen. It came

>into widespread use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be

>used to make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food

>and beverage cans.

>

>With the advent of plastic products such as dental sealants and baby

>bottles, the use of bisphenol A has skyrocketed. The chemical is used

>to make reusable water bottles, CDs, DVDs and eyeglasses. More than 6

>billion pounds are produced each year in the United States.

>

>In recent decades, increases in the number of boys born with genital

>deformities, girls experiencing early puberty and adults with low

>sperm counts, uterine cysts and infertility prompted some researchers

>to wonder whether the prevalence of bisphenol A could be interfering

>with human development and reproduction.

>

>Scientists began looking for a link between bisphenol A and spikes in

>cancer, obesity and hyperactivity. Others, such as Patricia Hunt,

>simply stumbled onto it.

>

>Hunt, a scientist at Case Western Reserve University, was

>investigating the connection between maternal age and Down syndrome in

>1998 when all of her laboratory mice, including those not treated in

>any way, began exhibiting chromosomal abnormalities.

>

>Her investigation revealed that bisphenol A was leaching from the

>animals' polycarbonate cages, and it was the chemical that had caused

>the problems.

>

>Ana Soto, a researcher at Tufts University, began noticing that her

>lab mice treated with bisphenol A were a lot fatter than her other

>mice.

>

>More alarming still was the work scientists found in their breast and

>prostate cancer research. They injected cancer cells in test tubes of

>bisphenol A and watched as the cells grew rapidly, even at doses lower

>than what people are normally exposed to. Reports such as these

>sparked fear that bisphenol A could become the new lead or asbestos.

>

>As scientists' suspicions grew, regulators repeatedly reassured the

>public that the chemical was safe. The Food and Drug Administration

>and the EPA routinely pointed to studies by government regulators in

>the 1980s that found no serious effects.

>

>In 1998, the National Toxicology Program formed the Center for the

>Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction to look at why so many

>people were unable to conceive or carry their babies to term.

>Scientists were suspicious of the environmental impact from chemicals,

>including hormone-mimicking chemicals such as bisphenol A.

>

>Last year, two groups of scientists were appointed by the federal

>government to gauge bisphenol A's risks.

>

>One panel was purely academic, made up of 38 international experts in

>bisphenol A who work for universities or governments. In an August

>report, they found a strong cause for concern.

>

>Levels of bisphenol A in people were higher than the levels found to

>cause harm in lab animals, the panel said. The average level found was

>above what the EPA considered safe.

>

>The other group, led by Chapin, included 12 scientists. The members

>were chosen because of their lack of detailed knowledge about

>bisphenol A. The idea was that the group would serve as an impartial

>jury, Chapin said.

>

>It considered 742 studies conducted over the past 30 years.

>

>The non-expert panel was less alarmed about bisphenol A's effects.

>

>The non-expert panel's report was posted Monday on the center's Web

>site without a press release or fanfare. When the panel released an

>earlier draft, critics assailed it as arbitrary, biased and

>incomplete.

>

>The sharpest response came from bisphenol A experts, many of whom had

>their work rejected by the non-expert panel. Even those whose work was

>accepted were critical of the findings.

>

> " When panels that are sponsored by the government come out with

>reports and say that there is not convincing evidence yet, that gives

>me great concern, knowing what I do about some studies showing that

>there are effects, " said Gail Prins, professor of physiology at the

>University of Illinois at Chicago and an expert in bisphenol A.

>

>The federal government will now weigh the reports of both the expert

>and non-expert panels before assessing safe levels of bisphenol A.

>

>Studies found widespread effects

>Before reviewing the panel's reports, the Journal Sentinel analyzed

>258 studies spanning two decades. All studies involved live animals

>with spines -- those species scientists consider most relevant to

>people. The studies were found on PubMed, an online search engine used

>by researchers.

>

>Four out of five studies found that bisphenol A caused problems in the

>lab animals tested, ranging from allergies to reproductive

>deformities. The vast majority of these studies were funded by

>government agencies and universities.

>

>One federally funded study found that rats exposed to bisphenol A

>before birth were at increased risk of developing precancerous

>prostate lesions. Another study, funded by the U.S. and Argentine

>governments, found that the chemical increased the likelihood of rats

>developing mammary tumors.

>

>Just 12% of the studies found that bisphenol A had no ill effects.

>Most of those studies were paid for or partially written by scientists

>hired by the chemical industry.

>

>A study funded by the Society of the Plastic Industry found that

>bisphenol A did not pose harm to developing rats. Another study

>discounted any reproductive effects on exposed rats. The authors

>included scientists affiliated with Shell Chemicals, Dow Chemical Co.

>and General Electric -- all then makers of bisphenol A.

>

>Two studies actually determined that bisphenol A may be beneficial.

>One funded by drug-maker Eli Lilly & Co. said it could lower

>cholesterol in rats. The other study said the chemical might prevent

>or cure breast cancer in rats.

>

>Industry scientists dispute any claims that bisphenol A is harmful to

>humans.

>

> " Our view is consistent with what has been concluded by government and

>scientific bodies around the world, which is that bisphenol A is not a

>risk to human health based on the weight of scientific evidence, " said

>Steven G. Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry

>Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. Hentges called the

>newspaper's review superficial.

>

>Norman Fost, founder and director of the medical ethics program at the

>University of Wisconsin-Madison, said industry and academic studies

>come to radically different conclusions all the time. Fost would not

>comment directly on the panel's work because he hadn't studied it. But

>he said the universe of scientific research is replete with studies

>conducted by organizations with a vested interest.

>

> " It's up to us to be skeptical, cautious and critical when we consider

>how much of their work to believe, " said Fost, who is chairman of an

>FDA committee looking at the ethics of pediatric studies.

>

>Human safety levels

>Bisphenol A is just about everywhere. But trying to get a handle on

>how much of the chemical a person can tolerate is not easy.

>

>The government established a safety level for bisphenol A about 20

>years ago -- well before most scientific studies on the chemical had

>been conducted. The government considers a safe daily level of

>bisphenol A to be 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. For a

>200-pound person, that would be the equivalent of no more than one

>drop of the chemical every five days.

>

>The American Chemistry Council says an average adult would have to

>ingest more than 500 pounds of canned food and beverages every day for

>an entire lifetime to be at risk. The chemical industry based those

>conclusions on its own research.

>

>Others say there is no way to know how much bisphenol A one is exposed

>to when microwaving dinner in a plastic container, eating tuna from a

>can or drinking from a reusable plastic water bottle.

>

> " Even if you go out of your way to avoid products, you don't know all

>of your exposures, " said Soto, the bisphenol A expert from Tufts. " At

>the end of the day, you may have cut your exposure by 5 percent or by

>95 percent. We just don't know. "

>

>Because bisphenol A is so ever-present in the environment, there are

>many ways to be exposed to it. But the biggest risk comes from those

>products that people put in their mouths or that come directly into

>contact with food, scientists say.

>

>A number of studies looked at how bisphenol A affects lab animals at

>low doses. Bisphenol A experts say that the chemical works like a

>hormone and, therefore, needs to be tested at low doses where much

>damage can be done.

>

> " This is basic endocrinology, " said Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at

>the University of Missouri who has been studying bisphenol A for more

>than a decade. " You learn this in any introductory class. Hormones

>work on an extremely sensitive system. "

>

>For instance, it only takes 40 parts per billion of the hormone MIS to

>produce male sexual organs in the human embryo. That's about one drop

>in 15 bathtubs of water.

>

>Two groups of scientists -- from the National Academy of Sciences and

>the National Toxicology Program -- have called for the U.S. government

>to radically overhaul the way it tests chemicals to include these low

>doses. But the government has yet to do so. Instead, it continues to

>cite the government studies from the early 1980s that focused only on

>high doses.

>

>Of the 258 studies reviewed by the Journal Sentinel, 168 studies

>looked at low-dose effects of bisphenol A.

>

>The vast majority -- 132 studies- found health problems at low doses,

>including hyperactivity, diabetes and genital deformities. All but one

>of those studies were conducted by non-industry scientists. Nearly

>three-fourthsof the studies that found the chemical had no harmful

>effects were funded by industry.

>

>But Chapin's panel did not accept any studies that found an effect at

>low doses in its review of 742 studies.

>

>Once the panel weeded out studies it believed had been done poorly, no

>studies remained that showed effects from low doses, Chapin said.

>

> " There's a lot of bad science out there, " he said.

>

>Most of the low-dose studies the Journal Sentinel reviewed --

>including

>some the panel rejected -- were published in reputable scientific

>journals.

>

>Prins, the bisphenol A expert from the University of Illinois at

>Chicago, said she was a late convert to the idea that the chemical

>causes harm at low doses. She changed her mind after reading repeated

>studies.

>

>Then she saw it in her lab.

>

> " We gave very small doses to male rats and saw cancerous lesions form

>on their prostates, " Prins said.

>

>For the panel to dismiss low-dose effects is a fatal flaw, she said.

>

>Chapin conceded that the panel did not give equal weight to studies

>that considered low-dose effects, the levels that most people are

>exposed to every day.

>

> " I'll admit it. We may be off in like totally uncharted territory, "

>Chapin said.

>

>The chemical industry defended the panel's choice of studies, noting

>that their scientists have been unable to replicate the work of some

>university scientists.

>

> " Replication is a hallmark of science, and studies that cannot be

>replicated cannot be accepted as valid, " said Hentges of the chemistry

>council.

>

>Panel's work studied

>The Journal Sentinel reviewed the work that the panel did, comparing

>each of its two drafts and the final report, together totaling more

>than 1,000 pages.

>

>Two of the panel's four chapters considered the same kind of studies

>the newspaper reviewed -- looking at the effects of bisphenol A on

>live

>animals. In one of those chapters, focusing on reproductive

>toxicology, 20 studies by either government or academia were tossed.

>No study that disclosed it had been funded by industry was rejected.

>

>Chapin said they gave greater weight to studies that used more

>animals. Critics say only the chemical-makers can afford to conduct

>studies with more animals.

>

>The panel failed to apply consistent standards, the newspaper's review

>found.

>

>Not all studies recorded the kind of feed, caging, bedding or specific

>type of animal used. Those factors can influence the studies' results.

>

>Chemical industry researchers used the same methodology in studies the

>panel accepted that caused other studies to be rejected. They included

>studies that used a single high dose and injected rats with bisphenol

>A rather than having the chemical administered orally. Chapin's panel

>rejected some studies, including those conducted by Soto, because they

>used an oil called DMSO to administer bisphenol A to rats.

>

> " That just helps compounds waltz into cells, " Chapin said.

>

>But Chapin's panel accepted another study that used DMSO, never citing

>that oil as a limitation or concern.

>

>The panel also accepted a study by Shell Chemical, Dow Chemical and

>General Electric that found no effects from bisphenol A. The same

>study also found no effects when rats were exposed to the powerful

>chemical diethylstilbestrol, or DES -- a compound known to cause

>reproductive harm.

>

>The rats' resistance to DES should have been an immediate red flag,

>critics said. But the panel accepted the research.

>

>Consulting firm fired

>Chapin's group has been dogged by controversy from the beginning. Last

>year, conflict-of-interest concerns were raised regarding the panel's

>use of Sciences International. The Virginia-based consulting firm had

>been hired to choose and summarize research for panel members.

>However, it had not been revealed that Sciences International had

>clients that included bisphenol A producers.

>

>The company was fired in April, and the National Institutes of Health

>audited the firm's report. It found no conflict, and the company is

>credited in the final report.

>

>Chapin dismissed criticisms against the panel.

>

> " I'm tired of having my credibility as a scientist questioned when the

>panel bent over backwards to apply standards of good scientific

>conduct... evenly across the board, " Chapin said. " My accusers have

>a great deal more bias than I do.

>

> " They are not unbiased, " Chapin added, " even though they keep holding

>themselves up as the white hats, the pure, the only holders of the cup

>of scientific chastity. "

>

>The newspaper found dozens of studies of bisphenol A that were not

>brought to the panel's attention.

>

>Among them was a 2005 study that determined the chemical disrupted

>brain development in rats at very low levels. The panel also missed a

>study last year by Yale University researchers that found the chemical

>altered reproductive tract development in female mice exposed in the

>womb. Again, the researchers found these effects at low levels --

>below

>what the EPA considers safe.

>

> " I'm surprised because my understanding was after all the hoo-ha was

>raised about Sciences International, the NTP went out and did its own

>search, " Chapin said. " That's weird. "

>

>In one study accepted by Chapin's panel, the work was translated into

>English by the American Plastics Council, a division of the American

>Chemistry Council. The Korean study found that the sperm density and

>the reproductive systems of male rats were not harmed by bisphenol A.

>

>Rosner, the public health professor, said that practice " immediately

>raises eyebrows. "

>

> " You have to have a neutral party doing the translations, " he said.

> " It's the only way to really trust the accuracy. "

>

>Michael Shelby, director of the government agency that selected the

>panel to evaluate bisphenol A, acknowledged that the translation could

>be called into question. However, he denied any conflict.

>

>Chapin said panel members agreed that they wanted to see any data they

>could, regardless of how they got it.

>

> " I hear what you're saying about the perception, " Chapin said. " Too

>bad. "

>

>Two studies, both funded by industry, were not peer reviewed, the

>newspaper found. Peer review is considered the foundation of

>scientific credibility. Most scientific journals will not publish a

>study unless it is peer reviewed.

>

>The studies found no effects from bisphenol A, and were funded by

>General Electric in 1976 and 1978. They were accepted despite concerns

>similar to those that led the panel to disqualify academic and

>government studies. They included a small sample size of animals, the

>use of high doses and questions about the statistical methodology.

>

>The panel also accepted at least a dozen studies that had not been

>published in any scientific journal -- another check and balance in

>the

>scientific community to maintain high standards.

>

>Shelby said the panel considered studies that were not peer reviewed

>if they included sufficient details.

>

>Even scientists on the panel who agreed with the findings say they are

>uneasy about broad claims that bisphenol A is safe.

>

>Jane Adams, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, doesn't

>allow her teenage son to get dental sealants because of her worries

>about bisphenol A.

>

> " I am concerned about this chemical, " she said. " Much more research

>needs to be done. "

>

>Simon Hayward, another panelist, agrees.

>

> " Where there's smoke, there's fire, " said Hayward, professor of

>prostate biology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. " There is

>definitely enough smoke to be worried. "

>

>Rosner, the public health historian, says bisphenol A's potential for

>danger is too great to allow its widespread use without being certain

>of its safety. Consider what happened with lead and tobacco, he said.

>

> " The government needs to work with caution, " he said, noting that we

>have lived well for thousands of years without this chemical. " Until

>we know that it is safe, it is more prudent to avoid it. "

>

>Copyright 2005-2007, Journal Sentinel Inc.

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>The Progress Report, Dec. 3, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>COAL'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS

>

>By F. Shakir, A. Terkel, S. Khanna, M. Corley, and A. Frick

>

>Viewers tuning into Wednesday's CNN/YouTube Republican debate probably

>saw commercials for " clean coal. " They may have also seen an ad for

>the debate in that morning's Washington Post, with a note at the

>bottom reading: " Sponsored by Clean Coal, America's Power. "

>

>These initiatives were funded by the group " Americans For Balanced

>Energy Choices " (ABEC), which receives its financing from coal

>companies and " their allies in the utility and railroad sectors. "

>They are part of a multi-million dollar campaign aimed at generating

>public support " for the beleaguered coal-producing industry at a time

>when plans for new coal-fired power plants are being scrapped "

>nationwide. The Center for American Progress has released a

>Progressive Growth economic strategy based on building a low-carbon

>energy infrastructure, based on clean, renewable energy sources,

>efficiency, and greenhouse gas emission performance standards for coal

>that could " fuel the creation of good jobs and good prospects for

>workers at all skill levels. "

>

>DIRTY AGENDA: ABEC is a nonprofit coalition of the top coal

>companies in America, including Peabody Energy, the world's largest

>private-sector coal company. Top energy executives recently quadrupled

>the budget for this coal front group, bringing ABEC's annual

>allocation to more than $30 million. ABEC insists that the coal

>industry has a " clean " agenda. But one of its top priorities is to

>expand coal production through the promotion of government-funded

> " coal to liquid " technology to convert coal to vehicle fuels. This

>policy would produce twice as much global warming pollution as

>ordinary gasoline production, while consuming huge amounts of water.

>Since its establishment in 2000, ABEC has received support from the

>Center for Energy and Economic Development, whose website -- even in

>late 2004 -- said that the group rejects the " theory of catastrophic

>global climate change. " Perhaps not surprisingly, part of ABEC's

>agenda is to delay and weaken any limits on carbon dioxide pollution

>for as long as possible and convince Congress to give coal plants free

> " allowances " to emit greenhouse gases under any future " cap and

>trade " global warming plan.

>

>DIRTY ADS: In order to sell its agenda to the American public,

>ABEC has launched a $7-million, three-month national advertising

>drive. National Journal notes, " The first set of ads underscore that

>coal is the energy source for about half the nation's electricity

>output. A second round will tout so-called clean-coal technologies. "

>Since January, ABEC executive director Joe Lucas has written at

>least eight " letters to the editor " in newspapers nationwide, pushing

>for more coal plants. ABEC has specifically targeted the 2008

>election, recognizing that it needs an industry-friendly president to

>advance its agenda and block global warming reform. In 2000, for

>example, the coal industry donated more than $108,000 to George W.

>Bush's campaign, compared to just $16,450 for Al Gore. Similarly, in

>2004, Bush raked in more than $250,000 from the coal industry; Sen.

>John Kerry (D-MA) received approximately $6,000. On Nov. 9, ABEC put

>out a press release announcing that it was kicking off " its public

>campaign urging Iowa caucus-goers to challenge Presidential candidates

>to invest in clean coal technology and support coal as part of a

>sensible and affordable energy mix. "

>

>DIRTY POLITICAL TARGETING: ABEC also sponsored both the CNN

>Democratic debate in Nevada earlier this month, as well as the

>CNN/YouTube Republican debate in Florida earlier this week. These

>sponsorships were targeted to pressure not only the presidential

>candidates and CNN (not a single question on global warming was

>asked in either debate), but also anti-coal politicians in those

>states. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), for example, has

>stood firmly against the construction of three proposed major coal-

>fired power plants in his home state. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist ®

>is leading a " crusade against coal. " Crist has unveiled a plan to

>reduce his state's carbon dioxide emissions by replacing coal plants

>with solar thermal power plants. He has also canceled plans to build

>new coal plants that were pushed by his predecessor, Jeb Bush. " I am

>not a fan of coal, " proclaimed Crist in October, applauding the news

>that Tampa Electric shelved plans to build a $2-billion power plant.

>The tide is steadily turning against coal. In the past 18 months,

> " about a dozen states including Texas, Florida and Oklahoma also have

>rejected plans for 22 new coal-fired power plants. " This week,

>Google also announced that it plans to invest " hundreds of millions

>of dollars " to " develop electricity from renewable energy sources

>that will be cheaper than electricity produced from coal. "

>

>DIRTY LIES: The state of Kansas has been a particular focus in

>the coal industry's campaign. On Oct. 18, the Kansas Department of

>Health and Environment denied air quality permits for two 700-

>megawatt coal-burning power generators near Holcomb, KS, " citing

>health and environmental concerns associated with carbon dioxide

>emissions. " The decision was " the first time a coal plant air permit

>application " had " ever been denied on the basis of CO2 emissions. "

>Less than a month later, newspapers across Kansas ran an ad by

>Kansans for Affordable Energy attacking the decision. It featured

>the smiling faces of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan

>President Hugo Chavez, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

>asking " why are these men smiling? " (See the ad here.) The answer,

>according to the ad, was Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D): " Because the

>recent decision by the Sebelius Administration means Kansas will

>import more natural gas from countries like Russia, Venezuela and

>Iran. " Kansans for Affordable Energy is partially funded by not only

>by Peabody, but also Sunflower Electric Power Corp, the company whose

>permits were rejected by Sebelius's administration. Additionally,

>not only does Kansas " currently export natural gas to other states, "

>but the United States doesn't even " import natural gas from Russia,

>Venezuela or Iran. "

>

>Copyright Center for American Progress Action Fund

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::

>

>ScienceDaily, Nov. 30, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>NEW STUDIES DISCREDIT OCEAN FERTILIZATION 'FIX' FOR GLOBAL WARMING

>

>Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron or other nutrients to

>the ocean to cause large algal blooms, has been proposed as a possible

>solution to global warming because the growing algae absorb carbon

>dioxide as they grow.

>

>Now research performed at Stanford and Oregon State Universities

>suggests that ocean fertilization may not be an effective method of

>reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a major contributor to

>global warming.

>

>However, this process, which is analogous to adding fertilizer to a

>lawn to help the grass grow, only reduces carbon dioxide in the

>atmosphere if the carbon incorporated into the algae sinks to deeper

>waters. This process, which scientists call the " Biological Pump " , has

>been thought to be dependent on the abundance of algae in the top

>layers of the ocean. The more algae in a bloom, the more carbon is

>transported, or " pumped, " from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

>

>To test this theory, researchers compared the abundance of algae in

>the surface waters of the world's oceans with the amount of carbon

>actually sinking to deep water. They found clear seasonal patterns in

>both algal abundance and carbon sinking rates. However, the

>relationship between the two was surprising: less carbon was

>transported to deep water during a summertime bloom than during the

>rest of the year. This analysis has never been done before and

>required designing specialized mathematical algorithms.

>

> " By jumping a mathematical hurdle we found a new globally synchronous

>signal, " said Dr. lead author Dr. Michael Lutz.

>

> " This discovery is very surprising " , said Dr. Lutz, now at the

>University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric

>Science. " If, during natural plankton blooms, less carbon actually

>sinks to deep water than during the rest of the year, then it suggests

>that the Biological Pump leaks.

>

>More material is recycled in shallow water and less sinks to depth,

>which makes sense if you consider how this ecosystem has evolved in a

>way to minimize loss " , said Lutz. " Ocean fertilization schemes, which

>resemble an artificial summer, may not remove as much carbon dioxide

>from the atmosphere as has been suggested because they ignore the

>natural processes revealed by this research. "

>

>This study closely follows a September Ocean Iron Fertilization

>symposium at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) attended

>by leading scientists, international lawyers, policy makers, and

>concerned representatives from government, business, academia and

>environmental organizations.

>

>Topics discussed included potential environmental dangers, economic

>implications, and the uncertain effectiveness of ocean fertilization.

>

>To date none of the major ocean fertilization experiments have

>verified that a significant amount of deep ocean carbon sequestration

>occurs. Some scientists have suggested that verification may require

>more massive and more permanent experiments. Together with commercial

>operators they plan to go ahead with large-scale and more permanent

>ocean fertilization experiments and note that potential negative

>environmental consequences must be balanced against the harm expected

>due to ignoring climate change.

>

>During the Ocean Iron Fertilization meeting Dr. Hauke Kite-Powell, of

>the Marine Policy Center at WHOI, estimated the possible future value

>of ocean fertilization at $100 billion of the emerging international

>carbon trading market, which has the goal of mitigating global

>warming. However, according to Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, an expert

>in International Law and the Law of the Sea at the University of New

>South Wales, Australia, who also attended the Woods Hole meeting,

>ocean fertilization projects are not currently approved under any

>carbon credit regulatory scheme and the sale of offsets or credits

>from ocean fertilization on the unregulated voluntary markets is

>basically nothing short of fraudulent.

>

>'There are too many scientific uncertainties relating both to the

>efficacy of ocean fertilization and its possible environmental side

>effects that need to be resolved before even larger experiments should

>be considered, let alone the process commercialized,' Rayfuse says.

>'All States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine

>environment and to ensure that all activities carried out under their

>jurisdiction and control, including marine scientific research and

>commercial ocean fertilization activities do not cause pollution.

>

>Ocean fertilization is 'dumping' which is essentially prohibited under

>the law of the sea. There is no point trying to ameliorate the effects

>of climate change by destroying the oceans -- the very cradle of life

>on earth. Simply doing more and bigger of that which has already been

>demonstrated to be ineffective and potentially more harmful than good

>is counter-intuitive at best.'

>

>Indeed, the global study of Dr. Lutz and colleagues suggests that

>greatly enhanced carbon sequestration should not be expected no matter

>the location or duration of proposed large-scale ocean fertilization

>experiments.

>

>According to Dr Lutz " The limited duration of previous ocean

>fertilization experiments may not be why carbon sequestration wasn't

>found during those artificial blooms. This apparent puzzle could

>actually reflect how marine ecosystems naturally handle blooms and

>agrees with our findings. A bloom is like ringing the marine ecosystem

>dinner bell. The microbial and food web dinner guests appear and

>consume most of the fresh algal food. "

>

> " Our study highlights the need to understand natural ecosystem

>processes, especially in a world where change is occurring so

>rapidly, " concluded Dr. Lutz.

>

>The findings of Dr. Lutz and colleagues coincide with and affirm this

>month's decision of the London Convention (the International Maritime

>Organization body that oversees the dumping of wastes and other matter

>at sea) to regulate controversial commercial ocean fertilization

>schemes. This gathering of international maritime parties advised that

>such schemes are currently not scientifically justified.

>

>Strategies to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the

>enhancement of biological sinks through processes such as ocean

>fertilization, will be considered by international governmental

>representatives during the thirteenth United Nations Framework

>Convention on Climate Change conference in Bali next month.

>

>This research was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical

>Research.

>

>Adapted from materials provided by University of Miami Rosenstiel

>School of Marine & Atmospheric Science.

>

>Return to Table of Contents

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

> Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

> Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

> often considered separately or not at all.

>

> The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

> because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

> bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

> health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

> rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

> workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

> intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

> therefore ruled by the few.

>

> In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

> gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

> might be done about it? "

>

> As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

> please Email them to us at dhn.

>

> Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

> necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

> subject.

>

> Editors:

> Peter Montague - peter

> Tim Montague - tim

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

> To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

> & Health News send any Email to: rachel-.

>

> In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

> you want to .

>

> To , send any Email to: rachel-.

>

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

>Environmental Research Foundation

>P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

>dhn

>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

:::::::::::::::::::::

>

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05