Friday, May 27, 2011
Chernobyl Times Ten!
Chernobyl Times Ten
http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman05262011.html
Fukushima and the Radioactive Sea - May 26, 2011 - By HARVEY WASSERMAN
New readings show levels of radioisotopes found up to 30 kilometers offshore from the on-going crisis at Fukushima are ten times higher than those measured in the Baltic and Black Seas during Chernobyl.
"When it comes to the oceans, says Ken Buesseler, a chemical oceonographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "the impact of Fukushima exceeds Chernobyl."
The news comes amidst a tsunami of devastating revelations about the Fukushima disaster and the crumbling future of atomic power, along with a critical Senate funding vote today:
Fukushima's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, has confirmed that fuel at Unit One melted BEFORE the arrival of the March 11 tsunami.
This critical revelation confirms that the early stages of that melt-down were set in motion by the earthquake that sent tremors into Japan from a relatively far distance out to sea.
Virtually all of Japan's 55 reactors sit on or near earthquake faults. A 2007 earthquake forced seven reactors to shut at Kashiwazaki. Japan has ordered shut at least two more at Hamaoka because of their seismic vulnerability.
Numerous reactors in the United States sit on or near major earthquake faults. Two each at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, California, are within three miles of major fault lines. So is Indian Point, less than 40 miles from Manhattan. Millions of people live within 50 miles of both San Onofre and Indian Point.
On January 31, 1986, the Perry reactor, 35 miles east of Cleveland on Lake Erie, was damaged by an earthquake rated between 5.0 and 5.5 on the Richter Scale---orders of magnitude weaker than the one that struck Fukushima, and that could hit the sites in California, New York and elsewhere around the globe.
TEPCO has confirmed that at least three of the Fukushima reactors---Units One, Two and Three---have suffered at least partial fuel melts. In at least one case, the fuel has melted through part of the inner containment system, with molten radioactive metal melting through to the reactor floor. A wide range of sources confirm the likelihood that fission may still be proceeding in at least one Fukushima core. The danger level is disputed. But it clearly requires still more commitment to some kind of cooling regime that will send vast quantities of water into ocean.
At least one spent fuel pool---in Unit Four---may have been entirely exposed to air and caught fire. Reactor fuel cladding is made with a zirconium alloy that ignites when uncovered, emitting very large quantities of radiation. The high level radioactive waste pool in Unit Four may no longer be burning, though it may still be general. Some Fukushima fuel pools (like many in the United States) are perched high in the air, making their vulnerability remains a serious concern. But a new report by Robert Alvarez indicates the problem in the US may be more serious that generally believed.
Unit Four is tilting and may be sinking, with potentially devastating consequences. At least three explosions at the site have weakened critical structures there. Massive leakages may have softened the earth and undermined some of the buildings' foundations. Further explosions or aftershocks---or a fresh earthquake---could bring on structural collapses with catastrophic fallout.
TEPCO has now confirmed that there are numerous holes in the containment covering Unit Two, and at least one at Unit One. The global nuclear industry has long argued that containments are virtually impenetrable. The domes at Fukushima are of very similar design and strength as many in the US.
The health impacts on workers at Fukushima are certain to be devastating.
After Chernobyl, the Soviet government sent more than 800,000 draftees through the seething wreckage. Many stayed a matter of 90 seconds or less, running in to perform a menial task and then running out as quickly as possible.
Despite their brief exposure, these "liquidators" have suffered an epidemic of health effects, with an escalating death toll. Angry and embittered, they played a significant role in bringing down the Soviet Union that doomed them.
At Fukushima, a core of several hundred workers essentially sacrificed themselves in the early stages of the disaster. They courageously entered highly contaminated areas to perform tasks that almost certainly prevented an even worse catastrophe.
David Brenner, the director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, said of the workers: "Those are pretty brave people. There are going to be some martyrs among them'."
"I don't know of any other way to say it, but this is like suicide fighters in a war," said University of Tokyo radiology professor Keiichi Nakaga.
Unfortunately, the toll among Fukushima's workers is certain to escalate. As few as two in five being sent into the Fukushima complex are being monitored for radiation exposure. According the Mainichi Shimbun, just 1,400 workers at Fukushima had been given thorough checkups, with just 40 getting their results confirmed.
Even at that, Japanese officials have raised the allowable dosages for nuclear workers from 100 millisieverts to 250, five times what's allowed for US workers, and 125 times what reactor workers typically receive in a year.
Some 88% of Japan's reactor work force are part-timers, sparsely trained and often paid extra money to race into highly radioactive areas and then run out.
But Nobuaki Terasaka, head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, May 16 confirmed some 4,956 cases of internal exposure to radiation among workers at reactors around the country. Of those, 4,766 were originally from Fukushima and had moved to other sites, but had re-visited the prefecture after the 3/11 disaster.
Some of the stricken workers believe they were contaminated when they returned home for their families, even though they may have stayed only briefly.
Workers at Fukushima itself report spotty testing and dangerous facilities, including a leaky earthquake-resistant building where they took their breaks. "We had our meals there, so I think radioactive substances came into our bodies," says one male worker. "We just drink beer and wash them down."
A "dead zone" around Fukushima similar to the one surrounding Chernobyl is likely in the making. According to a report published in the Japan Times, levels of contamination in areas around Fukushima are at least comparable to some around Chernobyl.
But people outside the official evacuation zone are also vulnerable. Radiation detected in Tokyo, nearly 200 miles away, at one point prompted the Japanese government to recommend mothers not use tap water to mix formula for their infants.
Nonetheless children have been observed attending schools while bulldozers were removing the radioactive soil from their playgrounds outside. Amidst global protests, the Japanese government has weakened the limits of allowable radiation exposures to children.
In the midst of the disaster, the owners of the Indian Point reactors have announced their refusal to upgrade fire protection systems which New York Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman says are "."
More than 70% of the plant remains unprotected, he says, a "reckless" practice. Schneiderman accuses federal regulators as being too cozy with the plant's owners. Schneiderman and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo want the two IP reactors shut.
Over the weekend only four of Germany's seventeen reactors were operating, but the country suffered no apparent energy shortages. Prime Minister Angela Merkel has ordered seven older reactors shut, and the rest to be closed by 2011. But six of the newer ten closed for various technical reasons.
More than 20,000 Swiss citizens rallied to demand an end to plans to build new reactors there. The Swiss government has now confirmed it will not build new reactors, another major blow to the industry, this time resulting in the cancellation of plans for at least three projects.
Japan is standing by its decision to build no more reactors, while China has put some 28 proposed projects on hold. China's reaction to Fukushima will be crucial to the future of nuclear power, as it is by far the largest potential market for new reactors. Though prevailing winds head the other way, Fukushima is relatively close to China, and some fallout has been detected there.
The Obama Administration has still produced no comprehensive monitoring of radioactive fallout coming to the United States and has provided no guidance as to how American citizens can protect themselves, except to say not to worry. Polls now show more Americans opposing new reactors than favoring them, and grassroots opposition is fierce.
But the industry is pushing ahead with demands for $36 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors, with a preliminary vote expected soon in a House Appropriations Subcommittee. Nuclear opponents are asked to call the White House and Congress steadily through the 2012 budget process.
Also, today (May 26) may see a vote in a Senate committee on a CEDA plan that would provide still more money for new nukes. Safe energy advocates are urged to call their Senators asap.
The International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations, has announced it sees no health effects at Fukushima. The pronouncement comes as no surprise from an agency whose mandate is focused on promoting atomic energy.
The IAEA has consistently low-balled death toll estimates at Chernobyl and regularly ignores industry critics. The pronouncement comes as the agency begins a long-term study of Fukushima's health effects. Meanwhile, a French watchdog agency has urged that 70,000 more people be evacuated from the Fukushima area. Coming from France, among the world's pro-nuclear nations, the warning is a grim reminded of how deadly the contamination surrounding Fukushima must be.
But for all the focus on land-based contamination, the continuing flood of radioactive materials into the ocean at Fukushima could have the most problematic long-term impacts. Long-term studies of radiological impacts on the seas are few and far between. Though some heavy isotopes may drop to the sea bottom, others could travel long distances through their lengthy half-lives. Some also worry that those contaminants that do fall to the bottom could be washed back on land by future tsunamis.
Tokyo Electric has now admitted that on May 10-11, at least 250 tons of radioactive liquid leaked into the sea from a pit near the intake at Unit 3, whose fuel was spiked with plutonium. According to the Japanese government, the leak contained about 100 times the annual allowable contamination.
About 500 tons leaked from Unit 2 from April 1 to April 6. Other leaks have been steady and virtually impossible to trace. "After Chernobyl, fallout was measured," says Buesseler, "from as far afield as the north Pacific Ocean."
A quarter-century later the international community is still trying to install a massive, hugely expensive containment structure to suppress further radiation releases in the wake of Chernobyl's explosion.
Such a containment would be extremely difficult to sustain at seaside Fukushima, which is still vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. To be of any real use, all six reactors and all seven spent fuel pools would have to be covered.
But avenues to the sea would also have to be contained. Fukushima is much closer to the ocean than Chernobyl, so more intense contamination might be expected. But the high radiation levels being measured indicate Fukushima's most important impacts may be on marine life.
The US has ceased measuring contamination in Pacific seafood. But for centuries to come, at least some radioactive materials dumped into the sea at Fukushima will find their way into the creatures of the sea and the humans that depend on them.
----------------------------------------
Harvey Wasserman, a co-founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy, is editing the nukefree.org web site. He is the author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He can be reached at: Windhw@aol.com
__._,_.___
The Future of Food.
If you are at all interested in the dangers of "Frankenfoods" - please view this 1 hour and 28 minute documentary. This is why I am working so hard to produce truly organic food.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
New studies reveal evidence that cell phone radiation damages DNA, brain, and sperm
New studies reveal evidence that cell phone radiation damages DNA, brain, and sperm
May 24, 2011 by Editor
New independent studies offer proof that confirms findings from the Council of Europe: pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function, and lower sperm count, according to a statement by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT).
On May 23, a think-tank of experts organized by Gazi University and EHT convened at a workshop in Istanbul, Turkey, “Science Update: Cell Phones and Health,” to present the findings.
Prof. Nesrin Seyhan , WHO and NATO advisor and head and founder of the Biophysics Department and Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at Gazi University in Ankara and founder of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRP) Center, found that just four hours of exposure to RF-EMF disrupts the ability of human brain cells to repair damaged genes.
Other new work from Australia shows damage to human sperm.
“This work provides a warning signal to all of us. The evidence justifies precautionary measures to reduce the risks for every one of us,” says Prof. Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna, who has led European research teams that found that RF-EMF induces DNA breaks.
Two years after false accusations against scientists who described DNA breaks, recent results finally show that exposure-induced DNA breaks are real, according to these scientists.
Impact on reproductive health and cell death
Insect studies have demonstrated that acute exposure to GSM (Global System for Mobile) signals brings about DNA fragmentation in insects’ ovarian cells, and consequently a large reduction in the reproductive capacity of the insects. Further studies demonstrated that long exposures induced cell death to the insects in the study.
Dr. Adamantia Fragopoulou, leader of a team at the University of Athens, found effects on embryonic development taking place in the presence of a mild electromagnetic field. Throughout the gestation period, exposure to radiation for just six minutes a day affects the bone formation of fetuses. The team suggests that this is possibly caused by the interaction of cell phone radiation with crucial molecules and ions involved in embryogenesis.
Impacts on the young brain
Dr. Seyhan found that the increasing use of cell phones — and the increasing number of associated base stations — are becoming a widespread source of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. This work suggests that some biological effects are likely to occur even with low-level electromagnetic fields. The team concluded that 900 and 1,800 MHz radiation levels is related to an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in young adult male rats. The rat’s brains can be used to correspond to the brains of human teenagers.
Children are increasingly heavy users of cell phones; at higher frequencies, children absorb more energy from external radio frequency radiation than adults, because their tissue normally contains a larger number of ions and so has a higher conductivity. They conclude limiting cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.
In addition, research from a team at the University of Athens found that rats exposed to cell phone radiation were unable to remember the location of places previously familiar to them. This finding is of potentially critical importance for people who heavily rely on spatial memory for recording information about their environment and spatial orientation.
For more information: Safer Phone Zone
Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family
Topics: Biomed/Longevity | Internet/Telecom | Survival/Defense
http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-studies-reveal-evidence-that-cell-phone-radiation-damages-dna-brain-and-sperm?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=56a6468327-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email
May 24, 2011 by Editor
New independent studies offer proof that confirms findings from the Council of Europe: pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function, and lower sperm count, according to a statement by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT).
On May 23, a think-tank of experts organized by Gazi University and EHT convened at a workshop in Istanbul, Turkey, “Science Update: Cell Phones and Health,” to present the findings.
Prof. Nesrin Seyhan , WHO and NATO advisor and head and founder of the Biophysics Department and Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at Gazi University in Ankara and founder of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRP) Center, found that just four hours of exposure to RF-EMF disrupts the ability of human brain cells to repair damaged genes.
Other new work from Australia shows damage to human sperm.
“This work provides a warning signal to all of us. The evidence justifies precautionary measures to reduce the risks for every one of us,” says Prof. Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna, who has led European research teams that found that RF-EMF induces DNA breaks.
Two years after false accusations against scientists who described DNA breaks, recent results finally show that exposure-induced DNA breaks are real, according to these scientists.
Impact on reproductive health and cell death
Insect studies have demonstrated that acute exposure to GSM (Global System for Mobile) signals brings about DNA fragmentation in insects’ ovarian cells, and consequently a large reduction in the reproductive capacity of the insects. Further studies demonstrated that long exposures induced cell death to the insects in the study.
Dr. Adamantia Fragopoulou, leader of a team at the University of Athens, found effects on embryonic development taking place in the presence of a mild electromagnetic field. Throughout the gestation period, exposure to radiation for just six minutes a day affects the bone formation of fetuses. The team suggests that this is possibly caused by the interaction of cell phone radiation with crucial molecules and ions involved in embryogenesis.
Impacts on the young brain
Dr. Seyhan found that the increasing use of cell phones — and the increasing number of associated base stations — are becoming a widespread source of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. This work suggests that some biological effects are likely to occur even with low-level electromagnetic fields. The team concluded that 900 and 1,800 MHz radiation levels is related to an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in young adult male rats. The rat’s brains can be used to correspond to the brains of human teenagers.
Children are increasingly heavy users of cell phones; at higher frequencies, children absorb more energy from external radio frequency radiation than adults, because their tissue normally contains a larger number of ions and so has a higher conductivity. They conclude limiting cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.
In addition, research from a team at the University of Athens found that rats exposed to cell phone radiation were unable to remember the location of places previously familiar to them. This finding is of potentially critical importance for people who heavily rely on spatial memory for recording information about their environment and spatial orientation.
For more information: Safer Phone Zone
Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family
Topics: Biomed/Longevity | Internet/Telecom | Survival/Defense
http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-studies-reveal-evidence-that-cell-phone-radiation-damages-dna-brain-and-sperm?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=56a6468327-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity?
Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity?
Posted By Dr. Mercola written by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
"The ACS ... [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' ... Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated".
Source: http://www.preventcancer.com/documents/ACS.pdf
Posted By Dr. Mercola written by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
"The ACS ... [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' ... Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated".
Source: http://www.preventcancer.com/documents/ACS.pdf
Monday, May 23, 2011
Monsanto may soon be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/20/most-evil-company-on-planet-soon-allowed-to-police-itself.aspx
Monsanto may soon be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies. Currently, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops, but the agency plans to at least temporarily hand over environmental impact reporting responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops.
If this isn't the classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse I don't know what is.
The two-year pilot program will allow the companies to conduct their own environmental assessments, or alternately outsource the work to contractors. The USDA will retain the final say in determining the safety of crops.
According to Fast Company:
"The USDA won't actually admit that it's bad at performing its duties -- instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective ... [But if Monsanto] has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn't it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn't its hired contractors do the same?"
You might think that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) don't affect you. But in fact, up to 90 percent of all major U.S. grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed, and can be used in human and animal foods without any safety testing or labeling.
This includes GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets, which have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. grocery store items.
Monsanto may soon be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies. Currently, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops, but the agency plans to at least temporarily hand over environmental impact reporting responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops.
If this isn't the classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse I don't know what is.
The two-year pilot program will allow the companies to conduct their own environmental assessments, or alternately outsource the work to contractors. The USDA will retain the final say in determining the safety of crops.
According to Fast Company:
"The USDA won't actually admit that it's bad at performing its duties -- instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective ... [But if Monsanto] has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn't it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn't its hired contractors do the same?"
You might think that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) don't affect you. But in fact, up to 90 percent of all major U.S. grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed, and can be used in human and animal foods without any safety testing or labeling.
This includes GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets, which have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. grocery store items.
Experts suspect pest-control chemical caused tourists' deaths
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1640637.php/Experts-suspect-pest-control-chemical-caused-tourists-deaths
Experts suspect pest-control chemical caused tourists' deaths
May 22, 2011, 4:18 GMT
Bangkok - World Health Organization (WHO) experts suspect a pest-control chemical caused the death of a 23-year-old New Zealand woman while holidaying in Thailand this year, reports said Sunday.
A team of experts on Friday examined the Downtown Inn in Chiang Mai city, where Sarah Carter and three other foreigners died under mysterious circumstances in January and February.
They concluded that a 'pest-control chemical' was the likely cause of the deaths, the Bangkok Post reported.
Chiang Mai public health director Surasing Visaruthrat said the experts were still trying to identify the substance which he claimed was unlikely to be chlorpyrifos, as suggested by an investigation conducted by New Zealand's TVs's 60 Minutes programme this month.
'We are looking into a toxic substance other than chlorpyrifos,' he told the newspaper.
The WHO team will continue to investigate the case in bid to provide a transparent inquest into the deaths which have drawn much media attention.
Chiang Mai governor Panadda Disakul, who initially described the deaths as a 'coincidence,' said he hoped investigation would be concluded soon for 'the sake of the good image of Chiang Mai and Thailand.'
Carter was one of seven people who died under mysterious circumstances within six weeks in the popular resort city of Chiang Mai, 650 kilometres north of Bangkok. Four of the victims had been staying at the Downtown Inn.
Ron McDowall, a consultant to the United Nations who specializes in hazardous chemicals, told TV3's 60 Minutes that he suspected Carter's death was caused by a bug spray using toxin chlorpyrifos.
'I think she was killed by an overzealous sprayer, who has been acting on the instruction of the hotel owner to deal with bed bugs,' he told the TV programme.
Reporters for the programme, posed as tourists to gain access to the room in which Carter and two friends had stayed. Team took swabs to be tested.
McDowall said the fact that the swabs found traces of chlorpyrifos - a chemical used to kill bed bugs and cockroaches, but banned for indoor use in many countries - three months after her death suggested there would have been a high concentration in February.
Carter's father Richard set up a website called thailandtraveltragedies.com to highlight what he called the official cover-up over his daughter's death on February 6.
Experts suspect pest-control chemical caused tourists' deaths
May 22, 2011, 4:18 GMT
Bangkok - World Health Organization (WHO) experts suspect a pest-control chemical caused the death of a 23-year-old New Zealand woman while holidaying in Thailand this year, reports said Sunday.
A team of experts on Friday examined the Downtown Inn in Chiang Mai city, where Sarah Carter and three other foreigners died under mysterious circumstances in January and February.
They concluded that a 'pest-control chemical' was the likely cause of the deaths, the Bangkok Post reported.
Chiang Mai public health director Surasing Visaruthrat said the experts were still trying to identify the substance which he claimed was unlikely to be chlorpyrifos, as suggested by an investigation conducted by New Zealand's TVs's 60 Minutes programme this month.
'We are looking into a toxic substance other than chlorpyrifos,' he told the newspaper.
The WHO team will continue to investigate the case in bid to provide a transparent inquest into the deaths which have drawn much media attention.
Chiang Mai governor Panadda Disakul, who initially described the deaths as a 'coincidence,' said he hoped investigation would be concluded soon for 'the sake of the good image of Chiang Mai and Thailand.'
Carter was one of seven people who died under mysterious circumstances within six weeks in the popular resort city of Chiang Mai, 650 kilometres north of Bangkok. Four of the victims had been staying at the Downtown Inn.
Ron McDowall, a consultant to the United Nations who specializes in hazardous chemicals, told TV3's 60 Minutes that he suspected Carter's death was caused by a bug spray using toxin chlorpyrifos.
'I think she was killed by an overzealous sprayer, who has been acting on the instruction of the hotel owner to deal with bed bugs,' he told the TV programme.
Reporters for the programme, posed as tourists to gain access to the room in which Carter and two friends had stayed. Team took swabs to be tested.
McDowall said the fact that the swabs found traces of chlorpyrifos - a chemical used to kill bed bugs and cockroaches, but banned for indoor use in many countries - three months after her death suggested there would have been a high concentration in February.
Carter's father Richard set up a website called thailandtraveltragedies.com to highlight what he called the official cover-up over his daughter's death on February 6.
Monday, May 9, 2011
It will cost YOU more than $2,000 to clean up a broken curly light bulb.
It will cost YOU more than $2,000 to clean up a broken curly light bulb.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5044780_dangers-fluorescent-bulbs.html#ixzz1LhJ3f3ZA
Bridges' story - Brandy Bridges broke a recently purchased CFL bulb in her home and immediately contacted local safety officials, which led her up the public health ladder to the Maine Derpartment of Environmental Protection. In most areas of Bridges' home, DEP found mercury contamination well below the state's safe level of 300 nanograms per cubic meter. But at site of the bulb break, mercury levels jumped to more than 60 times the level considered safe. On her daughter's toys, the mercury level measured 556 ng/m3. She contacted an environmental cleanup company which told her it would cost more than $2,000 for the cleanup and her insurance company wouldn't pay for the replacement cost of the carpet, toys and furniture.
Dangerous stuff - According to the federal Department of Environmental Resources, mercury is categorized as "highly toxic" and harmful in both its liquid and vapor forms. Airborn mercury is highly toxic when inhaled. Outside, mercury presents little direct threat because it dissipates quickly. Indoors, mercury can reach dangerous levels from something as little as a broken thermometer or fluorescent light bulb.
Symptoms of mercury poisoning can include changes in personality, motor skills, vision and memory. Memory loss is particularly problematic because it may be permanent. In addition, short-term exposure to elemental mercury can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lung irritation, increased blood pressure, and skin and eye irritation............
With an estimated four billion light receptacles in the United States and assuming the entire United States goes fluorescent, it would require about 643 square miles of landfill, 23 miles deep, to safely dispose of all the mercury contained in those four billion bulbs.
Why the USA decided to use these dangerous imported bulbs rather than allow the continued safe USA manufactured bulbs is really the question. "Someone" must have been paid a lot of money to betray "we the people".
http://www.ehow.com/about_5044780_dangers-fluorescent-bulbs.html#ixzz1LhJ3f3ZA
Bridges' story - Brandy Bridges broke a recently purchased CFL bulb in her home and immediately contacted local safety officials, which led her up the public health ladder to the Maine Derpartment of Environmental Protection. In most areas of Bridges' home, DEP found mercury contamination well below the state's safe level of 300 nanograms per cubic meter. But at site of the bulb break, mercury levels jumped to more than 60 times the level considered safe. On her daughter's toys, the mercury level measured 556 ng/m3. She contacted an environmental cleanup company which told her it would cost more than $2,000 for the cleanup and her insurance company wouldn't pay for the replacement cost of the carpet, toys and furniture.
Dangerous stuff - According to the federal Department of Environmental Resources, mercury is categorized as "highly toxic" and harmful in both its liquid and vapor forms. Airborn mercury is highly toxic when inhaled. Outside, mercury presents little direct threat because it dissipates quickly. Indoors, mercury can reach dangerous levels from something as little as a broken thermometer or fluorescent light bulb.
Symptoms of mercury poisoning can include changes in personality, motor skills, vision and memory. Memory loss is particularly problematic because it may be permanent. In addition, short-term exposure to elemental mercury can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lung irritation, increased blood pressure, and skin and eye irritation............
With an estimated four billion light receptacles in the United States and assuming the entire United States goes fluorescent, it would require about 643 square miles of landfill, 23 miles deep, to safely dispose of all the mercury contained in those four billion bulbs.
Why the USA decided to use these dangerous imported bulbs rather than allow the continued safe USA manufactured bulbs is really the question. "Someone" must have been paid a lot of money to betray "we the people".
Friday, May 6, 2011
Environmental Illness in U.S. Kids Cost $76.6 Billion in One Year
Environmental Illness in U.S. Kids Cost $76.6 Billion in One Year
NEW YORK, New York, May 4, 2011 (ENS) - It cost a "staggering" $76.6 billion to cover the health expenses of American children who were sick because of exposure to toxic chemicals and air pollutants in 2008, according to new research by senior scientists at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Published in the May issue of the journal "Health Affairs," three new studies by Mount Sinai scientists reveal the economic impact of toxic chemicals and air pollutants in the environment, and propose new legislation to require testing of new chemicals as well as those already on the market.
In one of the studies, Leonardo Trasande, MD, associate professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and his team calculated the annual cost for direct medical care and the indirect costs, such as parents' lost work days, and lost economic productivity caring for their children, of these diseases in children.
"Our findings show that, despite previous efforts to curb their use, toxic chemicals have a major impact on health care costs and childhood morbidity," said Dr. Trasande.
Lead poisoning still costs the most at $50.9 billion a year, while autism is a distant second at $7.9 billion.
Intellectual disabilities cost $5.4 billion a year, exposure to mercury pollution costs $5.1 billion, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder costs $5 billion, asthma costs $2.2 billion, and childhood cancer costs $95 million.
"New policy mandates are necessary to reduce the burden of disease associated with environmental toxins," said Dr. Trasande. "The prevalence of chronic childhood conditions and costs associated with them may continue to rise if this issue is not addressed."
He advised reducing lead-based paint hazards and curbing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
"Given evidence that current ambient air quality standards remain insufficiently protective for children, ongoing efforts are needed to reduce outdoor air pollutant emissions and their consequences for children's breathing," he states in the study.
Obesity in children is also a result of toxic exposure, Dr. Trasande finds. "Emerging evidence, for example, is beginning to support the notion that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may contribute to the development of childhood obesity," he states. "Such chemicals are found in the environment, food, or consumer products and interfere with metabolism or normal hormone control or reproduction."
Dr. Trasande also reviewed an earlier study of 1997 data, which was conducted by Philip Landrigan, MD, and documented $54.9 billion in annual costs for childhood diseases associated with environmental toxins in the United States.
Dr. Landrigan is currently dean for global health, and professor and chair of preventive medicine, and professor of pediatrics, at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Reviewing this prior analysis, Dr. Trasande found that while exposure to lead and costs associated with asthma had diminished, new chemicals and new environmentally-induced diseases, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have increased the overall burden of disease.
In a related article, also in "Health Affairs," Dr. Landrigan and Lynn Goldman, MD, dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University, propose a three-pronged approach to reduce the burden of disease and rein in the effects of toxic chemicals in the environment.
Landrigan and Goldman say, "The linchpins of a new U.S. chemical policy will be:
first, a legally mandated requirement to test the toxicity of chemicals already in commerce, prioritizing chemicals in the widest use, and incorporating new assessment technologies
second, a tiered approach to premarket evaluation of new chemicals
third, epidemiologic monitoring and focused health studies of exposed populations."
"Implementing these proposals would have a significant impact in preventing childhood disease and reducing health costs," said Dr. Landrigan. "Scant legislation has been passed to reduce the risks associated with childhood exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment."
On April 14, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, introduced updated legislation to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and protect Americans from exposure to toxins.
Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, seeks to require, for the first time, that chemical manufacturers demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in everyday household products.
Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on or stay on the market.
Under current policy, the Environmental Protection Agency can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, the EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and just six have been banned.
"Even though only six chemicals have been banned, we have seen dramatic benefits from that action alone," Dr. Landrigan said. "The removal of lead from gasoline and paint is an example of the importance of this type of regulation."
In a separate article in the same journal, Perry Sheffield, MD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, evaluated the little-studied correlation between air pollution and infectious respiratory illness in children, and the resultant health care costs.
Dr. Sheffield and her team analyzed hospitalization data between 1999 and 2007 for children aged one month to one year who had bronchiolitis - a type of viral lung infection with symptoms similar to asthma - and monitored the air quality surrounding in the hospitals where the patients were treated.
They found a statistically significant association between levels of fine particulate matter pollutant surrounding the hospitals, and total charges and costs for infant bronchiolitis hospitalizations.
As the amount of air pollutants increased, infant bronchiolitis hospitalization costs increased by an average of $127 per patient.
They concluded that reducing the average level of fine particulate pollutant by just seven percent below the current annual standard could save $15 million annually in U.S. health care costs.
"While more research is required to understand the full effect of air pollutants on infectious disease severity and health care costs," said Dr. Sheffield, "our findings are indicative of the tremendous impact new legislation on air quality control standards could have on the health of our children."
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2011. All rights reserved.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-04-02.html
NEW YORK, New York, May 4, 2011 (ENS) - It cost a "staggering" $76.6 billion to cover the health expenses of American children who were sick because of exposure to toxic chemicals and air pollutants in 2008, according to new research by senior scientists at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Published in the May issue of the journal "Health Affairs," three new studies by Mount Sinai scientists reveal the economic impact of toxic chemicals and air pollutants in the environment, and propose new legislation to require testing of new chemicals as well as those already on the market.
In one of the studies, Leonardo Trasande, MD, associate professor of preventive medicine and pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and his team calculated the annual cost for direct medical care and the indirect costs, such as parents' lost work days, and lost economic productivity caring for their children, of these diseases in children.
"Our findings show that, despite previous efforts to curb their use, toxic chemicals have a major impact on health care costs and childhood morbidity," said Dr. Trasande.
Lead poisoning still costs the most at $50.9 billion a year, while autism is a distant second at $7.9 billion.
Intellectual disabilities cost $5.4 billion a year, exposure to mercury pollution costs $5.1 billion, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder costs $5 billion, asthma costs $2.2 billion, and childhood cancer costs $95 million.
"New policy mandates are necessary to reduce the burden of disease associated with environmental toxins," said Dr. Trasande. "The prevalence of chronic childhood conditions and costs associated with them may continue to rise if this issue is not addressed."
He advised reducing lead-based paint hazards and curbing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
"Given evidence that current ambient air quality standards remain insufficiently protective for children, ongoing efforts are needed to reduce outdoor air pollutant emissions and their consequences for children's breathing," he states in the study.
Obesity in children is also a result of toxic exposure, Dr. Trasande finds. "Emerging evidence, for example, is beginning to support the notion that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may contribute to the development of childhood obesity," he states. "Such chemicals are found in the environment, food, or consumer products and interfere with metabolism or normal hormone control or reproduction."
Dr. Trasande also reviewed an earlier study of 1997 data, which was conducted by Philip Landrigan, MD, and documented $54.9 billion in annual costs for childhood diseases associated with environmental toxins in the United States.
Dr. Landrigan is currently dean for global health, and professor and chair of preventive medicine, and professor of pediatrics, at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Reviewing this prior analysis, Dr. Trasande found that while exposure to lead and costs associated with asthma had diminished, new chemicals and new environmentally-induced diseases, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have increased the overall burden of disease.
In a related article, also in "Health Affairs," Dr. Landrigan and Lynn Goldman, MD, dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University, propose a three-pronged approach to reduce the burden of disease and rein in the effects of toxic chemicals in the environment.
Landrigan and Goldman say, "The linchpins of a new U.S. chemical policy will be:
first, a legally mandated requirement to test the toxicity of chemicals already in commerce, prioritizing chemicals in the widest use, and incorporating new assessment technologies
second, a tiered approach to premarket evaluation of new chemicals
third, epidemiologic monitoring and focused health studies of exposed populations."
"Implementing these proposals would have a significant impact in preventing childhood disease and reducing health costs," said Dr. Landrigan. "Scant legislation has been passed to reduce the risks associated with childhood exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment."
On April 14, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, introduced updated legislation to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and protect Americans from exposure to toxins.
Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, seeks to require, for the first time, that chemical manufacturers demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in everyday household products.
Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on or stay on the market.
Under current policy, the Environmental Protection Agency can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, the EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and just six have been banned.
"Even though only six chemicals have been banned, we have seen dramatic benefits from that action alone," Dr. Landrigan said. "The removal of lead from gasoline and paint is an example of the importance of this type of regulation."
In a separate article in the same journal, Perry Sheffield, MD, assistant professor of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, evaluated the little-studied correlation between air pollution and infectious respiratory illness in children, and the resultant health care costs.
Dr. Sheffield and her team analyzed hospitalization data between 1999 and 2007 for children aged one month to one year who had bronchiolitis - a type of viral lung infection with symptoms similar to asthma - and monitored the air quality surrounding in the hospitals where the patients were treated.
They found a statistically significant association between levels of fine particulate matter pollutant surrounding the hospitals, and total charges and costs for infant bronchiolitis hospitalizations.
As the amount of air pollutants increased, infant bronchiolitis hospitalization costs increased by an average of $127 per patient.
They concluded that reducing the average level of fine particulate pollutant by just seven percent below the current annual standard could save $15 million annually in U.S. health care costs.
"While more research is required to understand the full effect of air pollutants on infectious disease severity and health care costs," said Dr. Sheffield, "our findings are indicative of the tremendous impact new legislation on air quality control standards could have on the health of our children."
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2011. All rights reserved.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-04-02.html
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tell Hollywood It's Not Green to "Greenwash" Sewage Sludge with "Organic" School Gardens!
Tell Hollywood It's Not Green to "Greenwash" Sewage Sludge with "Organic" School Gardens!
Some of Hollywood's "green" celebrities—Rosario Dawson, Ed Begley, Jr., and a bevy of starlets—thought they were promoting organic school gardens for inner-city kids.
But the Environmental Media Association (EMA) teamed them up with a secretive corporation, Kellogg Garden Products, whose main business is selling Los Angeles sewage sludge products!
That company calls its Kellogg brand "quality organics" and deceptively labels bags sold at the garden store as "garden soil" made from "compost"—with no mention of which products are made from industrial and human waste which contains tens of thousands of contaminants such as dioxin, PCBs, medical waste, industrial solvents and chemicals, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, and flame retardants, among others. That's why federal law bars the use of sewage sludge-based products in organic gardens.
So, when news broke that Kellogg Garden Products provided sewage sludge products to EMA's "organic" school gardens—and its spokesperson even posed with sewage sludge-derived products at the gardens—you'd think EMA and its stars would cut all ties to the sludge industry.
But you'd be wrong. Instead of denouncing the contamination of the kids' gardens and the corporation's effort to "greenwash" its brand through associating with stars devoted to organic produce, EMA is sticking with its corporate donor. So far.
Help us tell Hollywood it's not green to partner with a company that put sewage sludge on school gardens and that sells this stuff without labeling it to say "This product is derived from sewage sludge."
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6699
We're also Outing the Sewage Sludge Industry's Latest PR Scam, "International Compost Awareness Week," which Should Be "Sludge Awareness Week". The U.S. Composting Council (USCC) is pitching its annual PR campaign this week, which it calls "International Compost Awareness Week."
The USCC describes itself as a national trade organization. USCC's members include Synagro, the largest processor of sewage sludge in the United States with revenues of over $300 million annually.
The "International Compost Awareness Week" is coordinated by Jeff Ziegenbein of the giant Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEAU) in Southern California. IEUA supplies the sewage sludge "compost" that is resold by companies like Kellogg Garden Products, which supplies the sewage sludge-based products to local Home Depot and Lowe's garden centers.
But you won't find the word "sewage sludge" on the bags of "soil" "soil amendment" "compost" or "fertilzer" that are made from the sludge. Instead, you may find the word "compost" in the ingredients and even the word "organic" or "organics" on the label. Unless the material has the OMRI certification, however, it is not a certified organic product. Organic produce cannot be grown in sewage sludge under federal law.
So, this week, in honor of what really should be called "International Sewage Sludge Awareness Week," let your friends know that they should beware of any garden product that uses the word "compost" or that has a "seal" from the U.S. Compost Council, because it might be from sludge.
We need you to help spread the word on the sludge industry's effort to market sludge as "compost."
You Can Help Fight the Sludge-to-Garden Scam!
Especially as spring unfurls its glorious green leaves in the northern hemisphere, we think you have a right to know if the "compost" or "soil" or "fertilizer" marketed via your garden store is actually made from sewage sludge--industrial and human waste.
We also think you have a right to know if the fruits and vegetables you buy to eat more healthily are actually being grown in sewage sludge.
But, we think you have more than a "right to know."
You have a right to demand a stop to this deceptive practice that exposes you and your familiy to contaminants.
Sewage sludge is not just being used on so-called "conventional" produce without telling you. Sewage sludge products are increasingly being sold as "compost" and greenwashed as "organic" by the industry and its allies.
Through our newly launched project, "The Food Rights Network," we are fighting this outrageous deceit! We need your help to blow the whistle on what may be the biggest toxic scam in the United States and beyond.
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/t/8176/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=6324
Some of Hollywood's "green" celebrities—Rosario Dawson, Ed Begley, Jr., and a bevy of starlets—thought they were promoting organic school gardens for inner-city kids.
But the Environmental Media Association (EMA) teamed them up with a secretive corporation, Kellogg Garden Products, whose main business is selling Los Angeles sewage sludge products!
That company calls its Kellogg brand "quality organics" and deceptively labels bags sold at the garden store as "garden soil" made from "compost"—with no mention of which products are made from industrial and human waste which contains tens of thousands of contaminants such as dioxin, PCBs, medical waste, industrial solvents and chemicals, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, and flame retardants, among others. That's why federal law bars the use of sewage sludge-based products in organic gardens.
So, when news broke that Kellogg Garden Products provided sewage sludge products to EMA's "organic" school gardens—and its spokesperson even posed with sewage sludge-derived products at the gardens—you'd think EMA and its stars would cut all ties to the sludge industry.
But you'd be wrong. Instead of denouncing the contamination of the kids' gardens and the corporation's effort to "greenwash" its brand through associating with stars devoted to organic produce, EMA is sticking with its corporate donor. So far.
Help us tell Hollywood it's not green to partner with a company that put sewage sludge on school gardens and that sells this stuff without labeling it to say "This product is derived from sewage sludge."
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6699
We're also Outing the Sewage Sludge Industry's Latest PR Scam, "International Compost Awareness Week," which Should Be "Sludge Awareness Week". The U.S. Composting Council (USCC) is pitching its annual PR campaign this week, which it calls "International Compost Awareness Week."
The USCC describes itself as a national trade organization. USCC's members include Synagro, the largest processor of sewage sludge in the United States with revenues of over $300 million annually.
The "International Compost Awareness Week" is coordinated by Jeff Ziegenbein of the giant Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEAU) in Southern California. IEUA supplies the sewage sludge "compost" that is resold by companies like Kellogg Garden Products, which supplies the sewage sludge-based products to local Home Depot and Lowe's garden centers.
But you won't find the word "sewage sludge" on the bags of "soil" "soil amendment" "compost" or "fertilzer" that are made from the sludge. Instead, you may find the word "compost" in the ingredients and even the word "organic" or "organics" on the label. Unless the material has the OMRI certification, however, it is not a certified organic product. Organic produce cannot be grown in sewage sludge under federal law.
So, this week, in honor of what really should be called "International Sewage Sludge Awareness Week," let your friends know that they should beware of any garden product that uses the word "compost" or that has a "seal" from the U.S. Compost Council, because it might be from sludge.
We need you to help spread the word on the sludge industry's effort to market sludge as "compost."
You Can Help Fight the Sludge-to-Garden Scam!
Especially as spring unfurls its glorious green leaves in the northern hemisphere, we think you have a right to know if the "compost" or "soil" or "fertilizer" marketed via your garden store is actually made from sewage sludge--industrial and human waste.
We also think you have a right to know if the fruits and vegetables you buy to eat more healthily are actually being grown in sewage sludge.
But, we think you have more than a "right to know."
You have a right to demand a stop to this deceptive practice that exposes you and your familiy to contaminants.
Sewage sludge is not just being used on so-called "conventional" produce without telling you. Sewage sludge products are increasingly being sold as "compost" and greenwashed as "organic" by the industry and its allies.
Through our newly launched project, "The Food Rights Network," we are fighting this outrageous deceit! We need your help to blow the whistle on what may be the biggest toxic scam in the United States and beyond.
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/t/8176/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=6324
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
KILLER PESTICIDE ENDOSULFAN TO BE PHASED OUT GLOBALLY
29 April, 2011
KILLER PESTICIDE ENDOSULFAN TO BE PHASED OUT GLOBALLY
GENEVA: Gathered in Geneva for the Fifth Conference of the Parties this week, the nations of the world agreed to add endosulfan, an antiquated persistent insecticide, to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. Environmental health and justice organizations from around the world who have been working towards a ban welcomed the decision.
The use of endosulfan has severely impacted the people of Kerala, India, where its use on cashew plantations has left thousands suffering from birth defects, mental retardation, and cancer. "This is the moment we have been dreaming of,” says Jayan Chelaton from Thanal, a public interest research group based in Kerala. “The tears of the mothers of the endosulfan victims cannot be remedied, but it will be a relief to them that there will not be any more people exposed to this toxic insecticide. It is good feeling for them. We are happy to note that this is also victory for poor farmers, as this proves people united from all over the world can get what they demand."
Because of its persistence, bioaccumulation, and mobility, endosulfan—like DDT—travels on wind and ocean currents to the Arctic where it contaminates the environment and traditional foods of the people who live there. “We are pleased with the decision of the global community today to phase out this dangerous chemical that has contaminated our traditional foods in the Arctic. Our people are some of the most contaminated on the planet." said Vi Waghiyi, a Yupik woman from St. Lawrence Island (Alaska) and the Environmental Health and Justice Program Director with Alaska Community Action on Toxics. "But until all manufacturing and uses of endosulfan are eliminated, this pesticide will continue to harm our peoples, so we urge all countries to rapidly implement safer alternatives and eliminate their last few uses of endosulfan."
For most uses the ban will take effect in a year, but use on a short list of crop-pest combinations will be phased out over a six-year period. “With a plethora of alternatives already available, we’d have preferred to see no exemptions included in the decision. But we were successful in restricting exemptions to specific combinations of crops and pests. This means that during the phase-out it can only be used in very specific situations,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist from Pesticide Action Network North America who attended the deliberations.
Endosulfan, a DDT-era pesticide, is one of the most toxic pesticides still in use today. Each year, it took the lives of dozens of African cotton farmers until recently being banned by most countries on the continent. Hundreds of farmers in the developing world still use it to commit suicide each year.
“The health of Indigenous Peoples around the world, including our Yaqui communities in Mexico, are directly and adversely impacted when these kinds of toxic chemicals are applied, usually without their knowledge or informed consent. This phase out is an important step forward for Indigenous Peoples adversely affected both at the source of application and in the Arctic where these toxics ultimately end up,” said Andrea Carmen, Executive Director of International Indian Treaty Council and coordinator of the Indigenous Peoples Global Caucus at the meeting.
According to Javier Souza, Coordinator of Pesticide Action Network Latin America, “This phase out of endosulfan provides an excellent opportunity for countries to implement non-chemical alternatives to pesticides and to strengthen and expand agroecological practices. National phase out efforts should be open to the participation of experts from academia, farmer organizations, and environmental groups with experience.”
Momentum for a global ban has been building for many years. “Endosulfan was first proposed for addition in the Convention in 2007. At that time about 50 countries had already banned it; today, more than 80 countries have banned it or announced phase-outs. NGOs have worked very hard to make this happen,” says Meriel Watts, senior science advisor, from Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. “But today’s decision is really a tribute to all those farmers, communities, and activists across the planet who have suffered from endosulfan and fought for this day. It is especially a tribute to the thousands in the state of Kerala, India, whose health has suffered so terribly from endosulfan, to the inspirational leadership of Kerala Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, and to the many other people there who have all fought for their rights and for a global ban on endosulfan.”
"We are delighted with this decision as it means agricultural workers, Indigenous Peoples and communities across the globe will finally be protected from this poisonous pollutant,” says Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, CoChair of IPEN - International POPs Elimination Network. “The UN’s own scientific body had clearly shown that endosulfan is a POP, despite the recent vocal claims by some. Endosulfan contaminates the Arctic food chain and Antarctic krill, poisons our farmers, and pollutes our breastmilk. It was clearly time for endosulfan to go and it now joins the same fate as old POPs pesticides like dieldrin and heptachlor, banned once and for all. It is essential that all POPs should be eliminated and this global ban will provide the much needed legal protection."
Available for Interviews:
· Karl Tupper, Pesticide Action NetworkNorth America, karl@panna.org, +1 415-981-1771 (USA)
· Dr. Mariann Lloyd-Smith, International POPS Elimination Network, biomap@oztoxics.org; +61 41-362-1557 (Australia)
· Dr. Meriel Watts, Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, merielwatts@xtra.co.nz; +64 21-1807830. (NewZealand)
· Vi Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, vi@akaction.net, +1 907-222-7714 (USA)
· Jayakumar Chelaton, Thanal, jayakumar.c@gmail.com
· Andrea Carmen, International Indian Treaties Council, andrea@treatycouncil.org
· Javier Souza, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar
KILLER PESTICIDE ENDOSULFAN TO BE PHASED OUT GLOBALLY
GENEVA: Gathered in Geneva for the Fifth Conference of the Parties this week, the nations of the world agreed to add endosulfan, an antiquated persistent insecticide, to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. Environmental health and justice organizations from around the world who have been working towards a ban welcomed the decision.
The use of endosulfan has severely impacted the people of Kerala, India, where its use on cashew plantations has left thousands suffering from birth defects, mental retardation, and cancer. "This is the moment we have been dreaming of,” says Jayan Chelaton from Thanal, a public interest research group based in Kerala. “The tears of the mothers of the endosulfan victims cannot be remedied, but it will be a relief to them that there will not be any more people exposed to this toxic insecticide. It is good feeling for them. We are happy to note that this is also victory for poor farmers, as this proves people united from all over the world can get what they demand."
Because of its persistence, bioaccumulation, and mobility, endosulfan—like DDT—travels on wind and ocean currents to the Arctic where it contaminates the environment and traditional foods of the people who live there. “We are pleased with the decision of the global community today to phase out this dangerous chemical that has contaminated our traditional foods in the Arctic. Our people are some of the most contaminated on the planet." said Vi Waghiyi, a Yupik woman from St. Lawrence Island (Alaska) and the Environmental Health and Justice Program Director with Alaska Community Action on Toxics. "But until all manufacturing and uses of endosulfan are eliminated, this pesticide will continue to harm our peoples, so we urge all countries to rapidly implement safer alternatives and eliminate their last few uses of endosulfan."
For most uses the ban will take effect in a year, but use on a short list of crop-pest combinations will be phased out over a six-year period. “With a plethora of alternatives already available, we’d have preferred to see no exemptions included in the decision. But we were successful in restricting exemptions to specific combinations of crops and pests. This means that during the phase-out it can only be used in very specific situations,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist from Pesticide Action Network North America who attended the deliberations.
Endosulfan, a DDT-era pesticide, is one of the most toxic pesticides still in use today. Each year, it took the lives of dozens of African cotton farmers until recently being banned by most countries on the continent. Hundreds of farmers in the developing world still use it to commit suicide each year.
“The health of Indigenous Peoples around the world, including our Yaqui communities in Mexico, are directly and adversely impacted when these kinds of toxic chemicals are applied, usually without their knowledge or informed consent. This phase out is an important step forward for Indigenous Peoples adversely affected both at the source of application and in the Arctic where these toxics ultimately end up,” said Andrea Carmen, Executive Director of International Indian Treaty Council and coordinator of the Indigenous Peoples Global Caucus at the meeting.
According to Javier Souza, Coordinator of Pesticide Action Network Latin America, “This phase out of endosulfan provides an excellent opportunity for countries to implement non-chemical alternatives to pesticides and to strengthen and expand agroecological practices. National phase out efforts should be open to the participation of experts from academia, farmer organizations, and environmental groups with experience.”
Momentum for a global ban has been building for many years. “Endosulfan was first proposed for addition in the Convention in 2007. At that time about 50 countries had already banned it; today, more than 80 countries have banned it or announced phase-outs. NGOs have worked very hard to make this happen,” says Meriel Watts, senior science advisor, from Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. “But today’s decision is really a tribute to all those farmers, communities, and activists across the planet who have suffered from endosulfan and fought for this day. It is especially a tribute to the thousands in the state of Kerala, India, whose health has suffered so terribly from endosulfan, to the inspirational leadership of Kerala Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, and to the many other people there who have all fought for their rights and for a global ban on endosulfan.”
"We are delighted with this decision as it means agricultural workers, Indigenous Peoples and communities across the globe will finally be protected from this poisonous pollutant,” says Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, CoChair of IPEN - International POPs Elimination Network. “The UN’s own scientific body had clearly shown that endosulfan is a POP, despite the recent vocal claims by some. Endosulfan contaminates the Arctic food chain and Antarctic krill, poisons our farmers, and pollutes our breastmilk. It was clearly time for endosulfan to go and it now joins the same fate as old POPs pesticides like dieldrin and heptachlor, banned once and for all. It is essential that all POPs should be eliminated and this global ban will provide the much needed legal protection."
Available for Interviews:
· Karl Tupper, Pesticide Action NetworkNorth America, karl@panna.org, +1 415-981-1771 (USA)
· Dr. Mariann Lloyd-Smith, International POPS Elimination Network, biomap@oztoxics.org; +61 41-362-1557 (Australia)
· Dr. Meriel Watts, Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, merielwatts@xtra.co.nz; +64 21-1807830. (NewZealand)
· Vi Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, vi@akaction.net, +1 907-222-7714 (USA)
· Jayakumar Chelaton, Thanal, jayakumar.c@gmail.com
· Andrea Carmen, International Indian Treaties Council, andrea@treatycouncil.org
· Javier Souza, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar
Monday, May 2, 2011
Why Is Damning New Evidence About Monsanto's Most Widely Used Herbicide Being Silenced?
Why Is Damning New Evidence About Monsanto's Most Widely Used
Herbicide Being Silenced?
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62905.shtml
By Jill Richardson
AlterNet
Saturday, Apr 30, 2011
Dr. Don Huber did not seek fame when he quietly penned a confidential
letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in January of this
year, warning Vilsack of preliminary evidence of a microscopic
organism that appears in high concentrations in genetically modified
Roundup Ready corn and soybeans and "appears to significantly impact
the health of plants, animals and probably human beings." Huber, a
retired Purdue University professor of plant pathology and U.S. Army
colonel, requested the USDA's help in researching the matter and
suggested Vilsack wait until the research was concluded before
deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. But about a month after it was
sent, the letter was leaked, soon becoming an internet phenomenon.
Huber was unavailable to respond to media inquiries in the weeks
following the leak, and thus unable to defend himself when several
colleagues from Purdue publicly claiming to refute his accusations
about Monsanto's widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) and
Roundup Ready crops. When his letter was finally acknowledged by the
mainstream media, it was with titles like "Scientists Question Claims
in Biotech Letter," noting that the letter's popularity on the
internet "has raised concern among scientists that the public will
believe his unsupported claim is true."
Now, Huber has finally spoken out, both in a second letter, sent to "a
wide number of individuals worldwide" to explain and back up his
claims from his first letter, and in interviews. While his first
letter described research that was not yet complete or published, his
second letter cited much more evidence about glyphosate and
genetically engineered crops based on studies that have already been
published in peer-reviewed journals.
The basis of both letters and much of the research is the herbicide
glyphosate. First commercialized in 1974, glyphosate is the most
widely used herbicide in the world and has been for some time.
Glyphosate has long been considered a relatively benign product,
because it was thought to break down quickly in the environment and
harm little other than the weeds it was supposed to kill.
According to the National Pesticide Information Center, glyphosate
prevents plants from making a certain enzyme. Without the enzyme, they
are unable to make three essential amino acids, and thus, unable to
survive. Once applied, glyphosate either binds to soil particles (and
is thus immobilized so it can no longer harm plants) or microorganisms
break it down into ammonium and carbon dioxide. Very little glyphosate
runs off into waterways. For these reasons, glyphosate has been
thought of as more or less harmless: you spray the weeds, they die,
the glyphosate goes away, and nothing else in the environment is
harmed.
But Huber says this is not true. First of all, he points out, evidence
began to emerge in the 1980s that "what glyphosate does is,
essentially, give a plant AIDS." Just like AIDS, which cripples a
human's immune system, glyphosate makes plants unable to mount a
defense against pathogens in the soil. Without its defense mechanisms
functioning, the plants succumb to pathogens in the soil and die.
Furthermore, glyphosate has an impact on microorganisms in the soil,
helping some and hurting others. This is potentially problematic for
farmers, as the last thing one would want is a buildup of pathogens in
the soil where they grow crops.
The fate of glyphosate in the environment is also not as benign as
once thought. It's true that glyphosate either binds to soil or is
broken down quickly by microbes. Glyphosate binds to any positively
charged ion in the soil, with the consequence of making many nutrients
(such as iron and manganese) less available to plants. Also,
glyphosate stays in the soil bound to particles for a long time and
can be released later by normal agricultural practices like phosphorus
fertilization. "It's not uncommon to find one to three pounds of
glyphosate per acre in agricultural soils in the Midwest," says Huber,
noting that this represents one to three times the typical amount of
glyphosate applied to a field in a year.
Huber says these facts about glyphosate are very well known
scientifically but rarely cited. When asked why, he replied that it
would be harder for a company to get glyphosate approved for
widespread use if it were known that the product could increase the
severity of diseases on normal crop plants as well as the weeds it was
intended to kill. Here in the U.S., many academic journals are not
even interested in publishing studies that suggest this about
glyphosate; a large number of the studies Huber cites were published
in the European Journal of Agronomy.
If Huber's claims are true, then it follows that there must be
problems with disease in crops where glyphosate is used. Huber's
second letter verifies this, saying, "we are experiencing a large
number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear
to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically
engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to
tolerate -- especially those related to glyphosate (the active
chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this
herbicide)."
He continues, saying, "We have witnessed a deterioration in the plant
health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops recently with
unexplained epidemics of sudden death syndrome of soybean (SDS), Goss'
wilt of corn, and take-all of small grain crops the last two years. At
the same time, there has been an increasing frequency of previously
unexplained animal (cattle, pig, horse, poultry) infertility and
[miscarriages]. These situations are threatening the economic
viability of both crop and animal producers."
Some of the crops Huber named, corn and soy, are genetically
engineered to survive being sprayed with glyphosate. Others, like
wheat and barley, are not. In those cases, a farmer would apply
glyphosate to kill weeds about a week before planting his or her crop,
but would not spray the crop itself. In the case of corn, as Huber
points out, most corn varieties in the U.S. are bred using
conventional breeding techniques to resist the disease Goss' wilt.
However, recent preliminary research showed that when GE corn is
sprayed with glyphosate, the corn becomes susceptible to Goss' wilt.
Huber says in his letter that "This disease was commonly observed in
many Midwestern U.S. fields planted to [Roundup Ready] corn in 2009
and 2010, while adjacent non-GMO corn had very light to no
infections." In 2010, Goss' wilt was a "major contributor" to an
estimated one billion bushels of corn lost in the U.S. "in spite of
generally good harvest conditions," says Huber.
The subject of Huber's initial letter is a newly identified organism
that appears to be the cause of infertility and miscarriages in
animals. Scientists have a process to verify whether an organism is
the cause of a disease: they isolate the organism, culture it, and
reintroduce it to the animal to verify that it reproduces the symptoms
of the disease, and then re-isolate the organism from the animal's
tissue. This has already been completed for the organism in question.
The organism appears in high concentrations in Roundup Ready crops.
However, more research is needed to understand what this organism is
and what its relationship is to glyphosate and/or Roundup Ready crops.
In order to secure the additional research needed, Huber wrote to
Secretary Vilsack. Huber says he wrote his initial letter to Secretary
Vilsack with the expectation that it would be forwarded to the
appropriate agency within the USDA for follow-up, which it was. When
the USDA contacted Huber for more information, he provided it, but he
does not know how they have followed up on that information. The
letter was "a private letter appealing for [the USDA's] personnel and
funding," says Huber. Given recent problems with plant disease and
livestock infertility and miscarriages, he says that "many producers
can't wait an additional three to 10 years for someone to find the
funds and neutral environment" to complete the research on this
organism.
If the link between the newly discovered organism and livestock
infertility and miscarriages proves true, it will be a major story.
But there is already a major story here: the lack of independent
research on GMOs, the reluctance of U.S. journals to publish studies
critical of glyphosate and GMOs, and the near total silence from the
media on Huber's leaked letter.
Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a
member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She
is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and
What We Can Do to Fix It..
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
Herbicide Being Silenced?
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62905.shtml
By Jill Richardson
AlterNet
Saturday, Apr 30, 2011
Dr. Don Huber did not seek fame when he quietly penned a confidential
letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in January of this
year, warning Vilsack of preliminary evidence of a microscopic
organism that appears in high concentrations in genetically modified
Roundup Ready corn and soybeans and "appears to significantly impact
the health of plants, animals and probably human beings." Huber, a
retired Purdue University professor of plant pathology and U.S. Army
colonel, requested the USDA's help in researching the matter and
suggested Vilsack wait until the research was concluded before
deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. But about a month after it was
sent, the letter was leaked, soon becoming an internet phenomenon.
Huber was unavailable to respond to media inquiries in the weeks
following the leak, and thus unable to defend himself when several
colleagues from Purdue publicly claiming to refute his accusations
about Monsanto's widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) and
Roundup Ready crops. When his letter was finally acknowledged by the
mainstream media, it was with titles like "Scientists Question Claims
in Biotech Letter," noting that the letter's popularity on the
internet "has raised concern among scientists that the public will
believe his unsupported claim is true."
Now, Huber has finally spoken out, both in a second letter, sent to "a
wide number of individuals worldwide" to explain and back up his
claims from his first letter, and in interviews. While his first
letter described research that was not yet complete or published, his
second letter cited much more evidence about glyphosate and
genetically engineered crops based on studies that have already been
published in peer-reviewed journals.
The basis of both letters and much of the research is the herbicide
glyphosate. First commercialized in 1974, glyphosate is the most
widely used herbicide in the world and has been for some time.
Glyphosate has long been considered a relatively benign product,
because it was thought to break down quickly in the environment and
harm little other than the weeds it was supposed to kill.
According to the National Pesticide Information Center, glyphosate
prevents plants from making a certain enzyme. Without the enzyme, they
are unable to make three essential amino acids, and thus, unable to
survive. Once applied, glyphosate either binds to soil particles (and
is thus immobilized so it can no longer harm plants) or microorganisms
break it down into ammonium and carbon dioxide. Very little glyphosate
runs off into waterways. For these reasons, glyphosate has been
thought of as more or less harmless: you spray the weeds, they die,
the glyphosate goes away, and nothing else in the environment is
harmed.
But Huber says this is not true. First of all, he points out, evidence
began to emerge in the 1980s that "what glyphosate does is,
essentially, give a plant AIDS." Just like AIDS, which cripples a
human's immune system, glyphosate makes plants unable to mount a
defense against pathogens in the soil. Without its defense mechanisms
functioning, the plants succumb to pathogens in the soil and die.
Furthermore, glyphosate has an impact on microorganisms in the soil,
helping some and hurting others. This is potentially problematic for
farmers, as the last thing one would want is a buildup of pathogens in
the soil where they grow crops.
The fate of glyphosate in the environment is also not as benign as
once thought. It's true that glyphosate either binds to soil or is
broken down quickly by microbes. Glyphosate binds to any positively
charged ion in the soil, with the consequence of making many nutrients
(such as iron and manganese) less available to plants. Also,
glyphosate stays in the soil bound to particles for a long time and
can be released later by normal agricultural practices like phosphorus
fertilization. "It's not uncommon to find one to three pounds of
glyphosate per acre in agricultural soils in the Midwest," says Huber,
noting that this represents one to three times the typical amount of
glyphosate applied to a field in a year.
Huber says these facts about glyphosate are very well known
scientifically but rarely cited. When asked why, he replied that it
would be harder for a company to get glyphosate approved for
widespread use if it were known that the product could increase the
severity of diseases on normal crop plants as well as the weeds it was
intended to kill. Here in the U.S., many academic journals are not
even interested in publishing studies that suggest this about
glyphosate; a large number of the studies Huber cites were published
in the European Journal of Agronomy.
If Huber's claims are true, then it follows that there must be
problems with disease in crops where glyphosate is used. Huber's
second letter verifies this, saying, "we are experiencing a large
number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear
to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically
engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to
tolerate -- especially those related to glyphosate (the active
chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this
herbicide)."
He continues, saying, "We have witnessed a deterioration in the plant
health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops recently with
unexplained epidemics of sudden death syndrome of soybean (SDS), Goss'
wilt of corn, and take-all of small grain crops the last two years. At
the same time, there has been an increasing frequency of previously
unexplained animal (cattle, pig, horse, poultry) infertility and
[miscarriages]. These situations are threatening the economic
viability of both crop and animal producers."
Some of the crops Huber named, corn and soy, are genetically
engineered to survive being sprayed with glyphosate. Others, like
wheat and barley, are not. In those cases, a farmer would apply
glyphosate to kill weeds about a week before planting his or her crop,
but would not spray the crop itself. In the case of corn, as Huber
points out, most corn varieties in the U.S. are bred using
conventional breeding techniques to resist the disease Goss' wilt.
However, recent preliminary research showed that when GE corn is
sprayed with glyphosate, the corn becomes susceptible to Goss' wilt.
Huber says in his letter that "This disease was commonly observed in
many Midwestern U.S. fields planted to [Roundup Ready] corn in 2009
and 2010, while adjacent non-GMO corn had very light to no
infections." In 2010, Goss' wilt was a "major contributor" to an
estimated one billion bushels of corn lost in the U.S. "in spite of
generally good harvest conditions," says Huber.
The subject of Huber's initial letter is a newly identified organism
that appears to be the cause of infertility and miscarriages in
animals. Scientists have a process to verify whether an organism is
the cause of a disease: they isolate the organism, culture it, and
reintroduce it to the animal to verify that it reproduces the symptoms
of the disease, and then re-isolate the organism from the animal's
tissue. This has already been completed for the organism in question.
The organism appears in high concentrations in Roundup Ready crops.
However, more research is needed to understand what this organism is
and what its relationship is to glyphosate and/or Roundup Ready crops.
In order to secure the additional research needed, Huber wrote to
Secretary Vilsack. Huber says he wrote his initial letter to Secretary
Vilsack with the expectation that it would be forwarded to the
appropriate agency within the USDA for follow-up, which it was. When
the USDA contacted Huber for more information, he provided it, but he
does not know how they have followed up on that information. The
letter was "a private letter appealing for [the USDA's] personnel and
funding," says Huber. Given recent problems with plant disease and
livestock infertility and miscarriages, he says that "many producers
can't wait an additional three to 10 years for someone to find the
funds and neutral environment" to complete the research on this
organism.
If the link between the newly discovered organism and livestock
infertility and miscarriages proves true, it will be a major story.
But there is already a major story here: the lack of independent
research on GMOs, the reluctance of U.S. journals to publish studies
critical of glyphosate and GMOs, and the near total silence from the
media on Huber's leaked letter.
Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a
member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She
is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and
What We Can Do to Fix It..
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)