SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)12/29/2002 1:44:30 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
White House budget office thwarts EPA warning on asbestos-laced insulation

stltoday.com

BY ANDREW SCHNEIDER
Of the Post-Dispatch
© 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
12/27/2002 01:18 PM

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency was on the
verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls
might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last
minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been
issued.


The agency's refusal to share its knowledge of what is believed to be
a widespread health risk has been criticized by a former EPA
administrator under two Republican presidents, a Democratic U.S.
senator and physicians and scientists who have treated victims of
the contamination.

The announcement to warn the public was expected in April. It was
to accompany a declaration by the EPA of a public health emergency
in Libby, Mont. In that town near the Canadian border, ore from a
vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos
fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners
and their families.


Ore from the Libby mine was
shipped across the nation and
around the world, ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was
used in millions of homes, businesses and schools across America.


A public health emergency declaration had never been issued by
any agency. It would have authorized the removal of the
disease-causing insulation from homes in Libby and also provided
long-term medical care for those made sick. Additionally, it would
have triggered notification of property owners elsewhere who might
be exposed to the contaminated insulation.


Zonolite insulation was sold throughout North America from the
1940s through the 1990s. Almost all of the vermiculite used in the
insulation came from the Libby mine, last owned by W.R. Grace &
Co.

In a meeting in mid-March, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman
and Marianne Horinko, head of the Superfund program, met with Paul
Peronard, the EPA coordinator of the Libby cleanup and his team of
health specialists. Whitman and Horinko asked tough questions, and
apparently got the answers they needed. They agreed they had to move ahead on a declaration, said a
participant in the meeting.

By early April, the declaration was ready to go. News releases had been written and rewritten. Lists of
governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. Internal e-mail shows that discussions had
even been held on whether Whitman would go to Libby for the announcement.

But the declaration was never made.

Derailed by White House


Interviews and documents show that just days before the EPA was set to make the declaration, the
plan was thwarted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which had been told of the
proposal months earlier.

Both the budget office and the EPA acknowledge that the White House agency was actively involved,
but neither agency would discuss how or why.

The EPA's chief spokesman Joe Martyak said, "Contact OMB for the details."

Budget office spokesperson Amy Call said, "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA."

Call said the budget office provided wording for the EPA to use, but she declined to say why the White
House opposed the declaration and the public notification.

"These are part of our internal discussions with EPA, and we don't discuss predecisional deliberations,"
Call said.

Both agencies refused Freedom of Information Act requests for documents to and from the White
House Office of Management and Budget.

The budget office was created in 1970 to evaluate all budget, policy, legislative, regulatory, procurement
and management issues on behalf of the president.

Office interfered before

Former EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, who worked for Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald
Reagan, called the decision not to notify homeowners of the dangers posed by Zonolite insulation "the
wrong thing to do."


"When the government comes across this kind of information and doesn't tell people about it, I just think
it's wrong, unconscionable, not to do that," he said. "Your first obligation is to tell the people living in
these homes of the possible danger.

They need the information so they can decide what actions are best for their family. What right does the
government have to conceal these dangers? It just doesn't make sense."

But, he added, pressure on the EPA from the budget office or the White House is not unprecedented.

Ruckelshaus, who became the EPA's first administrator when the agency was created by Nixon in
1970, said he never was called by the president directly to discuss agency decisions. He said the same
held true when he was called back to lead the EPA by Reagan after Anne Gorsuch Burford's
scandal-plagued tenure.

Calls from a White House staff member or the Office of Management and Budget were another matter.

"The pressure could come from industry pressuring OMB or if someone could find a friendly ear in the
White House to get them to intervene," Ruckelshaus said. "These issues like asbestos are so technical,
often so convoluted, that industry's best chance to stop us or modify what we wanted to do would
come from OMB."

The question about what to do about Zonolite insulation was not the only asbestos-related issue in
which the White House intervened.

In January, in an internal EPA report on problems with the agency's much-criticized response to the
terrorist attacks in New York City, a section on "lessons learned" said there was a need to release
public health and emergency information without having it reviewed and delayed by the White House.


"We cannot delay releasing important public health information," said the report. "The political
consequences of delaying information are greater than the benefit of centralized information
management."

It was the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that derailed the
Libby declaration. The regulatory affairs office is headed by John Graham, who formerly ran the
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

His appointment last year was denounced by environmental, health and public advocacy groups, who
claimed his ties to industry were too strong. Graham passes judgment over all major national health,
safety and environmental standards.


Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., urged colleagues to vote against Graham's appointment, saying Graham would
have to recuse himself from reviewing many rules because affected industries donated to the Harvard
University Center.

Thirty physicians, 10 of them from Harvard, according to The Washington Post, wrote the committee
asking that Graham not be confirmed because of "a persistent pattern of conflict of interest, of
obscuring and minimizing dangers to human health with questionable cost-benefit analyses, and of
hostility to governmental regulation in general."


Repeated requests for interviews with Graham or anyone else involved in the White House budget
office decision were denied.

"It was like a gut shot"

Whitman, Horinko and some members of their top staff were said to have been outraged at the White
House intervention.

"It was like a gut shot," said one of those senior staffers involved in the decision. "It wasn't that they
ordered us not to make the declaration, they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really
strongly. There was no choice left."

She and other staff members said Whitman was personally interested in Libby and the national
problems spawned by its asbestos-tainted ore. The EPA's inspector general had reported that the
agency hadn't taken action more than two decades earlier when it had proof that the people of Libby
and those using asbestos-tainted Zonolite products were in danger.

Whitman went to Libby in early September 2001 and promised the people it would never happen again.

"We want everyone who comes in contact with vermiculite — from homeowners to handymen — to
have the information to protect themselves and their families," Whitman promised.

Suits, bankruptcies grow

Political pragmatists in the agency knew the administration was angered that a flood of lawsuits had
caused more than a dozen major corporations — including W.R. Grace — to file for bankruptcy
protection. The suits sought billions of dollars on behalf of people injured or killed from exposure to
asbestos in their products or workplaces.

Republicans on Capitol Hill crafted legislation — expected to be introduced next month — to stem the
flow of these suits.

Nevertheless, Whitman told her people to move forward with the emergency declaration. Those in the
EPA who respect their boss fear that Whitman may quit.

She has taken heat for other White House decisions such as a controversial decision on levels of
arsenic in drinking water, easing regulations to allow 50-year-old power plants to operate without
implementing modern pollution controls and a dozen other actions which environmentalists say favor
industry over health.

Newspapers in her home state of New Jersey ran front page stories this month saying Whitman had
told Bush she wanted to leave the agency.


Spokesman Martyak said his boss is staying on the job.

EPA was poised to act

In October, the EPA complied with a Freedom of Information Act request and gave the Post-Dispatch
access to thousands of documents — in nine large file boxes. There were hundreds of e-mails, scores
of "action memos" describing the declaration and piles of "communication strategies" for how the
announcement would be made.

The documents illustrated the internal and external battle over getting the declaration and announcement
released.

One of the most contentious concerns was the anticipated national backlash from the Libby declaration.
EPA officials knew that if the agency announced that the insulation in Montana was so dangerous that
an emergency had to be declared, people elsewhere whose homes contained the same contaminated
Zonolite would want answers or perhaps demand to have their homes cleaned.

The language of the declaration was molded to stress how unique Libby was and to play down the
national problem.

But many in the agency's headquarters and regional offices didn't buy it.

In a Feb. 22 memo, the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics said "the national ramifications
are enormous" and estimated that if only 1 million homes have Zonolite "(are) we not put in a position to
remove their (insulation) at a national cost of over $10 billion?"

The memo also questioned the agency's claim that the age of Libby's homes and severe winter
conditions in Montana required a higher level of maintenance, which in turn meant increased
disturbance of the insulation in the homes there.

It's "a shallow argument," the memo said. "There are older homes which exist in harsh or harsher
conditions across the country. Residents in Maine and Michigan might find this argument flawed."

No one knows precisely how many dwellings are insulated with Zonolite. Memos from the EPA and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry repeatedly cite an estimate of between 15 million
and 35 million homes.

A government analysis of shipping records from W.R. Grace show that at least 15.6 billion pounds of
vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North America.

Between a third and half of that ore was popped into insulation and usually sold in 3-foot-high kraft
paper bags.

Government extrapolations and interviews with former W.R. Grace Zonolite salesmen indicate that
Illinois may have as many as 800,000 homes with Zonolite, Michigan as many as 700,000. Missouri is
likely to have Zonolite in 380,000 homes.

With four processing plants in St. Louis, it is estimated that more than 60,000 homes, offices and
schools were insulated with Zonolite in the St. Louis area alone.

Eventually, the internal documents show, acceptance grew that the agency should declare a public
health emergency.

In a confidential memo dated March 28, an EPA official said the declaration was tentatively set for April
5.
But the declaration never came.

Instead, Superfund boss Horinko on May 9 quietly ordered that asbestos be removed from contaminated
homes in Libby. There was no national warning of potential dangers from Zonolite. And there was no
promise of long-term medical care for Libby's ill and dying. The presence of the White House budget
office is noted throughout the documents. The press announcement of the watered-down decision was
rewritten five times the day before it was released to accommodate budget office wording changes
that played down the dangers.

Dangers of Zonolite


The asbestos in Zonolite, like all asbestos products, is believed to be either a minimal risk or no risk if it is
not disturbed. The asbestos fibers must be airborne to be inhaled. The fibers then become trapped in
the lungs, where they may cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a fast-moving cancer of
the lung's lining.

The EPA's files are filled with studies documenting the toxicity of tremolite, how even minor disruptions
of the material by moving boxes, sweeping the floor or doing repairs in attics can generate asbestos
fibers.

This also has been confirmed by simulations W.R. Grace ran in Weedsport, N.Y., in July 1977; by 1997
studies by the Canadian Department of National Defense; and by the U.S. Public Health Service, which
reported in 2000, that "even minimal handling by workers or residents poses a substantial health risk."

Last December, a study by Christopher Weis, the EPA's senior toxicologist supporting the Libby project,
reported that "the concentrations of asbestos fibers that occur in air following disturbance of
(insulation) may reach levels of potential human health concerns."

Most of those who have studied the needle-sharp tremolite fibers in the Libby ore consider them far
more dangerous than other asbestos fibers.

In October, the EPA team leading the cleanup of lower Manhattan after the attacks of Sept. 11 went to
Libby to meet with Peronard and his crew. The EPA had reversed an early decision and announced that
it would be cleaning asbestos from city apartments.

Libby has been a laboratory for doing just that.

Peronard told the visitors from New York just how dangerous tremolite is. He talked about the hands-on
research in Libby of Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a pulmonologist who had worked for NASA and the Air Force
on earlier projects before moving to Spokane, Wash.

"Whitehouse's research on the people here gave us our first solid lead of how bad this tremolite is,"
Peronard said.

Whitehouse has not only treated 500 people from Libby who are sick and dying from exposure to
tremolite. The chest specialist also has almost 300 patients from Washington shipyards and the Hanford,
Wash., nuclear facility who are suffering health effects from exposure to the more prevalent chrysotile
asbestos.

Comparing the two groups, Whitehouse has demonstrated that the tremolite from Libby is 10 times as
carcinogenic as chrysotile and probably 100 times more likely to produce mesothelioma than chrysotile.

W.R. Grace has maintained that its insulation is safe. On April 3 of this year, the company wrote a letter
to Whitman again insisting its product was safe and that no public health declaration or nationwide
warning was warranted.

Dr. Brad Black, who runs the asbestos clinic in Libby and acts as health officer for Montana's Lincoln
County, says "people have a right to be warned of the potential danger they may face if they disturb
that stuff."

Martyak, chief EPA spokesman, argues that the agency has informed the public of the potential dangers.
"It's on our Web site," he said.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is sponsoring legislation to ban asbestos in the United States.
She said the
Web site warning is a joke.

"EPA's answer that people have been warned because it's on their Web site is ridiculous," she said. "If
you have a computer, and you just happened to think about what's in your attic, and you happen to be
on EPA's Web page, then you get to know. This is not the way the safety of the public is handled.

"We, the government, the EPA, the administration have a responsibility to at least let people know the
information so they can protect themselves if they go into those attics," she said.


What you should know about asbestos dangers


Zonolite insulation has been produced and sold for home and business use for more than half a
century. The featherweight, silverish-brown pieces of popcornlike vermiculite are usually the size of a
nickel or dime, but some firms have sold pea-size vermiculite.

Here's what government experts say you should do:

If you're a homeowner: Stay away from Zonolite insulation, and leave it alone.


Asbestos is dangerous only when the material is disturbed and the fibers become airborne and can be
drawn into the lungs.

If you must work in the attic: "If you're a do-it-yourselfer or someone who's in attics every day — like
electricians, telephone people, cable installers, the heating and cooling people — get and wear the
proper respirator and change your clothes before you go home," says Paul Peronard of the
Environmental Protection Agency.

If you don't know whether you have Zonolite but think you might: Do not let children play in the area. Do
not sweep the Zonolite or use a normal vacuum cleaner. This will just recirculate the dangerous fibers,
which could linger in the air for days. There are vacuum cleaners on the market that come with highly
sensitive HEPA filters that will capture the fibers.

If you want to find out about the material in your attic: There are asbestos testing laboratories in or near
most communities.

If you want Zonolite removed: For do-it-yourselfers, the EPA and many state and local health
departments can tell you the safest way to get rid of the insulation.

Professional cleanup help is available, but hiring a professional asbestos remover can be costly. To
avoid potential conflicts of interest, have the insulation tested by one firm and removed by another.
State and local agencies have the names and numbers of people trained, equipped and licensed to do
this work.

Carefully check out the credentials of those you hire. An untrained or sloppy crew can spread
asbestos throughout your house or office.

For more information:


U.S. EPA — National Asbestos Hot Line: 1-800-368-5888
U.S. EPA Region 7 (Missouri): 1-800-223-0425
U.S. EPA Region 5 (Illinois): 1-800-621-8431
EPA Web site: www.epa.gov (search for vermiculite)
Missouri — Office of Environmental Health and Air Pollution Control: 1-800-392-7245
St. Louis County Health Department, Air Pollution Control: 314-615-8923 or 8924
St. Louis, Division of Air Pollution Control: 314-613-7300
Illinois: The health departments in Madison, St. Clair, Monroe and Clinton counties say they refer all calls
involving asbestos to the Illinois Department of Public Health: 1-217-782-5830

Reporter Andrew Schneider:
E-mail: aschneider@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8101

[back]
E-mail this Story to a friend
Printer Friendly



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)12/29/2002 2:08:19 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 

When you can't afford to eat

Posted on Sun, Dec. 29, 2002
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

dfw.com

The only president we've got went down to the Capitol Area Food Bank
in Washington the other day for a photo op with people who can't afford to eat.
"I hope people around this country realize that agencies such
as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contribution are down.
They shouldn't be down in a time of need," said GeeDubya Bush.

Right away, we notice real progress.


When Bush was running for the presidency in 2000, the feds released
their annual report on hunger in America, and Texas was once again
in its perennial spot at the top of the list, No. 1 in Hunger.
Bush thought it was some dastardly scheme by the Clinton
administration to make Texas, and hence Bush, look bad. He said,
"You'd think the governor would know if there are pockets of
hunger in Texas."


Yeah, you would. But look on the bright side:

So he didn't know there's hunger in Texas after several years in office;
after only two years in Washington, he's discovered the problem.
Sort of. Here's what he has done about it:


o Number of seniors who will be cut off meal programs because of Bush budget: 36,000.
o Number of families who will be cut off of heating assistance because of the Bush budget: 532,000.
o Number of homeless kids who will be cut from education programs because of Bush budget: 8,000.
o Number of kids who will be cut off of after-school programs because of the Bush budget: 50,000.
o Number of kids who will be cut off of child care because of Bush budget: 33,000.

Members of Congress have promised to rush back to the Capitol after the
holidays to fix the unemployment insurance cut-off problem -- about
a million people were to have lost benefits Saturday -- so with any luck
those folks will have only a bad couple of weeks.
However, those who have already exhausted their benefits
or who will see their eligibility expire in coming months really
are out of luck unless the Democrats' plan to reauthorize and
expand the benefits is endorsed by Bush.

Happy New Year to the 2.5 million out-of-work people who depend on this lifeline.

Question: Which news got more attention from the
media -- Bush's photo op at the food bank or the facts in his budget?

It's commendable of the prez to urge us to contribute to food banks,
but since his No. 1 domestic priority is to enrich the rich while leaving
the poor to charity, we are stuck with a quandary he noted himself:
Need is up, and contributions are down. And as the charities themselves
have been screaming for years, they cannot possibly replace government programs.

On the theory that the world will be saved not by irony but by empathy,
I'd like to quote the end of an article in The New York Times Magazine
about adopting Ethiopian AIDS orphans. This beautifully written account
about saving a handful of the millions of African AIDS orphans was
written by Melissa Fay Greene, the adoptive mother of one of the orphans.

She reports of her new daughter:
"One day not long ago, she collapsed in my arms to cry about
her late mother. I held her as she writhed, wailing, 'Why she had to die?'
A few moments later, she said, amid tears: 'I know why she died.
Because she was very sick, and we didn't have the medicine.'
"'I know,' I said. 'It's true. I'm so sorry. I wish I had known you then.
I wish I could have sent her the medicine.'
"'But we didn't have a phone,' she cried, 'and I couldn't call you.'"

Pretend that they have phones -- the AIDS orphans and the homeless
kids and the hungry families. Pretend that they can call you
and tell you how desperate their needs are.
And if you can only save one orphan or help
one homeless kid or feed one hungry family once -- well, that's something, isn't it?



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)12/30/2002 7:19:15 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bush is the Grinch who steals from the poor to make the rich, richer!


To pay back his corporate donors, Bush and rich Dick Cheney,
AKA the whining miser, intervene to keep prescription medications away from the poor.
(Maybe, the American people should make Tricky Dick and Bush, AKA the
President for the rich, pay for their own medical treatment.)

The US was the only country out of 144 that would AGAINST relaxing patent rules
on drugs!

See Guardian story



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)12/30/2002 7:22:12 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bush's bitter medicine :The poor need cheap drugs, not cheap talk

" In reality, George Bush is not remotely interested in helping
poorer countries on their terms or on those negotiated in a
multilateral arena "


Leader
Monday December 30, 2002
The Guardian

When pushed to do so, the Bush administration will feign
concern for the world's poor. But its actions speak louder than
its words. The intervention by vice-president Dick Cheney last
week to torpedo a deal to get cheap drugs into poor countries
whose populaces have been consumed by epidemics was a
cold-hearted piece of realpolitik.


Forget the honey-coated
pledges of support for development and warm declarations that
global prosperity must be shared. The United States was the
only country out of 144 to oppose an agreement that would have
relaxed global patent rules on treatments.
The richest nation on
the earth backed the arguments of the drug lobby over the cries
of the weak and wasted. In doing so the US has emptied the
current round of trade talks of a meaningful and substantial proof
that globalisation could help the poor.

The White House does not want developing nations to be able to
get hold of cheap drugs in a self-declared public health
emergency. It acknowledges the big three killers - Aids, malaria
and tuberculosis - are serious enough pandemics that copyright
could be suspended. But it does not want other deadly
diseases, such as diabetes or asthma, to infringe corporate
patents.
While the rest of the world had conceded this point,
recognising the moral imperative to help those who cannot help
themselves, the US would not. Fearful that America's trade
representatives would save too many lives at the expense of
corporate profits, Mr Cheney stepped in to block any agreement.


Big Pharma helps bankroll the Bush White House, and what it
wants, it gets.
The US drug companies demanded protection
from their rivals in Brazil, India and Thailand, which can churn
out copies of their treatments at a fraction of the cost. This,
claims the Bush administration, would undermine the patent
system and discourage drug development, which relies on big
profits. Worse still, if generic drug-makers based in
industrialising nations were able to manufacture and then export
drugs to treat a wide range of diseases, they would soon be
selling many medicines for which affluent consumers pay rather
a lot. The US argument is seriously undermined by the fact that
no other country agrees with it enough to wreck a deal for
affordable medicines.

In reality, George Bush is not remotely interested in helping
poorer countries on their terms or on those negotiated in a
multilateral arena. The extreme unilateralist position in this case
has been taken to induce other countries to align more closely
with US interests. This should be resisted, strongly. There are
plenty of reasons to doubt whether the leader of the most
powerful nation in the world has benign ambitions for the world.
There is little sign the president will make serious efforts to cut
poverty, tackle disease or face the environmental challenges of
the future. Not content with scuppering a deal on cheap drugs,
Washington has also refused to contribute its fair share to a
United Nations global fund to fight Aids, TB and malaria. If proof
were required of the United States' priorities, it might be found in
the fact that America could meet its goal of raising foreign
assistance to 0.7% of GNP, but the $60bn required to do so has
been directed to the military. Denying impoverished countries
access to life-saving medicines fits a pattern. What Columbia
University's Jeffrey Sachs calls the weapons of mass salvation
will not be deployed by Mr Bush. By declining this
responsibility, America will ensure that peace and stability in the
world are harder to attain than chaos and disorder.


guardian.co.uk



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)1/2/2003 3:37:56 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Statement from Senator Kerry:

Message 18393622



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)1/5/2003 9:11:31 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
A book by Mary Graham of the Brookings Institution think-tank
in Washington, Democracy by Disclosure, reveals how after 11
September officials went about dismantling government
websites, and tinkered with those advising residents about the
dangers of nearby chemical or toxic plants.


The process dovetailed with what the chemical and energy
industries, for decades allied to the Bush family and political
machine in Texas, had argued for, insisting that disclosure was
unnecessary.


Article: Bush accused of civil rights clampdown
Author: Ed Vulliamy in New York
Source: The Observer
Sunday January 5, 2003
observer.co.uk

SI Reference: Message 18404544



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)1/9/2003 5:25:58 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Debate Erupts Over Testing Pesticides on Humans
The New York Times

"….environmental and health advocates said the pesticide
makers really wanted to create studies that would help them
lower the standards in the Food Quality Protection Act. "


January 9, 2003

By DENISE GRADY

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - Pesticide makers sparred with health
and environmental advocates here today over a contentious subject, whether
the Environmental Protection Agency should accept figures from studies
in which researchers have had people drink pesticides or other
chemicals to determine toxicity.


Such studies have been conducted in the United States and overseas
with volunteers who are paid from a few hundred dollars to more than
$1,000. The studies are not common, a spokesman for the E.P.A. said,
noting that in the last four years 15 had been submitted to the agency.

In 1998, citing ethical and scientific concerns, the agency
declared a moratorium on using such information. In December 2001, it asked the
National Academy of Sciences to convene an expert panel to provide advice.
The panel, which met today at the academy headquarters to hear public
comments, is to issue its report in December. An earlier advisory panel,
not from the academy, struggled with the same subject but did not reach a
consensus.


Dr. Lynn Goldman, a former E.P.A. official who is a professor
at Johns Hopkins University and the chairwoman of the board of the Children's
Environmental Health Network, said pesticide makers
had renewed their interest in human studies.
Dr. Goldman
said such studies had been used in the past but declined in the 1980's,
probably because it became more difficult to obtain ethicists' approval.

One reason pesticide makers want the studies, Dr. Goldman
and other participants said, is the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The law
sharply reduced the levels of many pesticides allowed in food, to protect
younger children. The levels permitted vary among substances, depending
on toxicity tests in animals.

Pesticide makers say although animal studies are often valid,
they can be misleading, because animals may be much
more or much less sensitive
than humans to certain chemicals.
In some cases, companies say,
human studies are indispensable.


CropLife, a trade group for pesticide manufacturers and distributors,
sued in federal court last year to require the E.P.A. to consider information
from toxicity studies in humans. The senior vice president and general
counsel, Douglas T. Nelson, said the agency's refusal to use the studies
violated several laws, including a statute that compels it to consider all
relevant and reliable data.

At the meeting today, scientists and consultants who work for
pesticide and chemical companies said that their human studies were carried out
with high scientific and ethical standards and that subjects were not harmed.
A spokesman for CropLife likened pesticide studies to
pharmaceutical studies and referred to the pesticide tests as clinical trials,
the name given to medical experiments on people.

Asked by a panel member whether they knew of any cases with
adverse effects that were not reported, four researchers who had just described
chemical tests in humans said no.

But environmental and health advocates said the pesticide makers
really wanted to create studies that would help them lower the standards in
the Food Quality Protection Act.

Dr. Alan H. Lockwood, a professor of neurology and nuclear medicine
at the State University at Buffalo, spoke on behalf of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, a 23,000-member group that opposes using people to study
the toxicity of pesticides or other chemicals. One basis for the objection,
Dr. Lockwood said, is the position that the studies violate the doctor's
oath to "do no harm."


He quoted a consent form for participants in a study of a pesticide, chlorpyrifos,
that said, "Low doses of these agents have been shown to improve
performance on numerous tests of mental function."

Dr. Lockwood said, "This makes it sound like chlorpyrifos
is good for you and may make you smarter, a clear deception."


Dr. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources
Defense Council, said industry studies often included too few subjects to be
scientifically reliable, stated conclusions that did not match the data and
often went unpublished.

Industry representatives disputed her comments. A statistician
working for pesticide makers said the studies being questioned were sound.

nytimes.com Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)1/10/2003 5:33:08 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 

Wetlands Left High and Dry in Bush Plan

" Goodbye, Year of Clean Water. Hello, Years of Living
Dangerously"

January 10, 2003

E-mail story


Print
latimes.com

COMMENTARY
By Osha Gray Davidson, Osha Gray Davidson is author of "Fire in
the Turtle House: The Green Turtle and the Fate of the Ocean"
(2002, PublicAffairs).


Just three months after proclaiming this "the year of
clean water," the Bush administration is proposing new
regulations that are the most serious threat to the Clean
Water Act since it was passed by Congress 30 years
ago.


Goodbye, Year of Clean Water. Hello, Years of Living
Dangerously.

At issue is whether the government will protect
wetlands or abandon many of them to the not-so-tender
mercies of developers.

The stakes are tremendously high. Wetlands are rain
forests' less glamorous cousins: the bogs, marshes,
meadows and swamps that filter out pollutants, provide
natural flood control and are home to hundreds of
species of plants and animals -- many of them already in
danger of extinction.


To step or paddle into a wetland is to travel back in
time. In many parts of the country, wetlands are the last
magnificent vestiges of wild America. There you can
still find creatures like the black-crowned night heron
and the silvery salamander. You can thrill to the sight of
delicate flowers like the white lady's slipper. If you're
lucky you might even catch a glimpse of a mink.

All of these creatures and countless others were common just 100 years ago. But
with 50% of our nation's wetlands already paved over or plowed under, relatively
few of the animals survive. Today you have to go to great lengths to find them.
With the new regulations in place, the odds that your children or grandchildren will
be able to see them at all 50 years from now are slim.

The new rules were crafted to allow developers to get their hands on a class of
wetland previously denied them, so-called "isolated wetlands." They're isolated only
in the sense that you can't travel between them in a boat.

Millions of migratory birds, however, have no trouble getting from one isolated
wetland to another as they head north or south each year.

Under the new rules, isolated wetlands, which have been protected under the
Clean Water Act since 1972, will no longer be afforded federal safeguards. The
problem that the Bush administration is so assiduously ignoring is that nearly
one-third of the nation's remaining wetlands fall under the heading of "isolated."

The president's father implemented a policy in 1989 promising no net loss of the
nation's remaining wetlands. Bush the younger has sworn allegiance to his father's
policy. But he's found a nifty way around this promise -- redefining a third of
America's wetlands out of existence. Figuratively, of course. Developers can take
it from there.

Environmental organizations are predictably appalled that the government would
allow the destruction of these important ecosystems. But Bush, who would be
likely to throw open Yosemite to oil exploration if a drop of sweet crude were
found beneath Half Dome, doesn't court environmentalists.

The administration, however, may face opposition from an unexpected quarter:
hunters, who will be outraged over a plan to remove federal protection from a high
percentage of the breeding grounds for North American waterfowl.

The combined forces of environmentalists and hunters probably won't be enough to
get the Bush administration to reconsider its disastrous course. The groups lack the
deep pockets of those who look at our last remaining wetlands and see not our
stunning ecological heritage but a landscape of investment opportunities -- strip
malls, tract homes and expanded mining and logging operations.

I'm planning on visiting some favorite wetlands soon. I want to say goodbye while
there's time.



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)1/10/2003 8:55:33 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Cold hearts deny global warming

"Because of our selfishness and our refusal to admit what
we all know now to be true, our children and grandchildren
will live on a much-diminished planet"


accessatlanta.com

Whenever I hear a utility, energy or automotive executive deny
the existence of global warming, I get a mental picture of those
tobacco company executives sitting in front of a congressional
committee a few years ago, swearing under oath and without
conscience that cigarettes have nothing to do with cancer.


It's enough to make you wonder if those same guys are working
now for Exxon-Mobil or the Southern Co.

For whatever reason -- institutional loyalty, personal greed, the
human propensity for rationalizing our own misbehavior -- energy
executives and those who depend on them continue to deny the obvious truth about
global warming.

And unfortunately, while the cancer caused by tobacco is truly tragic, the
consequences of our duplicity about global warming will be far more profound.
Because of our selfishness and our refusal to admit what we all know now to be
true, our children and grandchildren will live on a much-diminished planet.

The evidence exists in many different forms.


If you prefer facts on the ground, for example, they certainly exist. Mountain
snowcaps and glaciers are disappearing. Coral reefs and the rich, colorful variety of
life they support are dying as we watch. Entire ecosystems are breaking up as
individual species struggle to adapt, some less successfully than others.

If you're a numbers person, try these:

Spring arrives on average 15 days earlier than it did 30 years ago. Last year was the
second warmest on record. The warmest 10 years on record have all occurred since
1987. The predicted cycle of longer droughts, followed by more intense rain and
flooding, has already begun to establish itself.

Yet still the deniers and apologists say the science on global warming is too unclear
to justify action. I swear, if these people thought they could save their companies
money by denying that Neil Armstrong ever set foot on the moon, they'd be showing
us doctored photographs of guys in space suits bouncing around the Utah desert.

Again, I'm drawn to that image of the tobacco execs. For years, their companies
pretended that the science linking cancer to smoking was inconclusive; for years
the rest of us pretended to believe them. It was a beautiful thing, a marriage of
willing deceiver and the willingly deceived.

Finally, when the pretense became too ridiculous to maintain, we turned on those
companies with a vengeance, professing shock and outrage that they hadn't told us
a truth that in our hearts we had known all along. We turned them into our
scapegoats, dumping on them all the guilt we felt for our own willingness to be
duped.

A similar day is coming on global warming, and perhaps coming soon. But by then,
the excuse for inaction will be different. We'll be told then that gee, now it's too late
to do anything about global warming, so we might as well lay back and enjoy it.
Already you can hear suggestions of that approach from certain politicians.

In some ways adaptation will be possible if expensive. In the little town of Rankin
Inlet, way up North on Hudson Bay in Canada's Northwest Territories, the hockey
season used to run from September through May. These days, according to Jim
McDonald, president of Rankin Inlet Minor Hockey, they're lucky if the ice freezes
by Christmas, and it's gone by March. So more and more towns in the once-frozen
North are building indoor rinks to replace what nature once provided.

Other things, though, are beyond our capacity to replace.

The pine forests and coastal marshes of Georgia, the alpine meadows of Colorado,
the redwoods of California and the Douglas firs of the Pacific Northwest all evolved to
fill a specific and rather narrow climate range that will shrink and in a few decades
disappear. With them will go much of the beauty and awe this planet once provided.

And when our grandchildren ask us why we let such a terrible thing happen, we can
probably tell them that we just didn't know any better. But of course, we'll be lying to
them just as the utility and oil execs are lying to us.


Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Thursdays.



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)3/9/2003 12:20:44 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 


Give children diverse programming


" Existing media consolidation already has resulted in
diminishing the number of producers creating
programming for children, as well as adults. In 1970, 20
studios or production houses supplied 68 percent of all
prime time programming. By 2002, just 10 studios
programmed 88 percent of prime time, according to a
recent study conducted by the FCC."


seattlepi.nwsource.com

March 7, 2003

By MICHAEL REISCH
CHILDREN'S ADVOCATE

The Federal Communications Commission is in the midst of
an unprecedented review of our country's TV and radio
ownership laws, with one of the only public hearings on the
issue taking place today at the University of Washington.

While FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell has called this
review "comprehensive," the unique needs of our nation's
children have so far remained on the periphery of the
debate. Powell has described the current landscape as one
"overflowing" with programming choices. This flood of
entertainment and news programming, however, turns to a
mere trickle as it winds its way toward our children.

It is clear that we must adjust our media policies to the
changing technological and economic realities of the 21st
century. If these policies are to be socially responsible, we
must not only consider the implications for media
corporations, broadcasters and adult viewers but for
children as well.

Research shows that broadcast television is overwhelmingly
the primary media source for children. Surveys conducted
by Children Now have found that children want
programming that reflects the diverse world in which they
live. Other research demonstrates the effect the media have
on kids' healthy development. Therefore, any media policy
designed to address competition, diversity or localism must
be examined in relation to how it will impact the child
audience.

Media ownership rules must preserve vigorous competition
to ensure that children have access to different sources of
programming. Otherwise, innovative children's
programming will be stifled while commercialism in
programming design and content, which polls show greatly
concerns parents, likely will increase.

Existing media consolidation already has resulted in
diminishing the number of producers creating
programming for children, as well as adults. In 1970, 20
studios or production houses supplied 68 percent of all
prime time programming. By 2002, just 10 studios
programmed 88 percent of prime time, according to a
recent study conducted by the FCC.

In addition, the growing practice of broadcast stations
repeating children's programming that first airs on cable,
and vice versa, has already significantly diminished the
diversity of programs available to kids.


Once cable and broadcast networks produced original
children's programs. Now, the same programming often is
shared among networks, especially by those owned by the
same corporation. For example, Nickelodeon programming
repeats on corporate sibling CBS; ABC airs shows from
other Disney-owned channels; and the Cartoon Network
borrows programs from Kids WB, both owned by AOL Time
Warner.

FCC Chairman Powell claims
that viewers have more
choices and control than ever. But much of this "overflow"
is in fact the same programming repeated multiple times.

A troubling development in traditional Saturday morning
kids' programming is the sub-leasing of those hours by
companies not licensed to serve the public interest. For
example, Fox's four-year, $100 million deal with 4 Kids
Entertainment raises particular concerns because the latter
is a toy licensing company that has the right to retain all
revenue from network advertising sales. Such trends could
ultimately undermine broadcasters' compliance with the
Children's Television Act, which mandates that
broadcasters air a minimum three hours per week of
"informational/educational" children's programs, among
other requirements.

Media consolidation also has limited the amount of local
programming available for and about children. Media
ownership rules are necessary to preserve and promote
more local news and public affairs programs that report on
children and the important issues that affect their lives,
such as stories on unique educational, health, economic
and cultural issues within their communities.

Research by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg
School and others indicates that locally produced, quality
children's and public affairs programming is a vital
component of expanding children's civic education and
participation. Quality children's educational programming
requires extra effort and resources.

Commercial broadcasters have historically neglected the
needs of children unless required to do so by law. In other
words, when broadcasters are left to their own devices, kids
lose out. (Remember when broadcasters claimed "The
Jetsons" and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" were
"educational" programs?)

Instead, the production of children's television should be
driven by the same public interest that broadcasters have
promised to uphold in exchange for access to our valuable
publicly owned airwaves. Close monitoring and
enforcement of these public interest obligations by the FCC
is required.

The media ownership rules that the FCC is reviewing
determine the extent to which the marketplace will foster
or impede the development of programs containing
community-specific content, innovation in educational
programs and diversity in the flow of ideas to future
generations of children. The FCC must ensure that
broadcasters provide children with innovative and diverse
content, as well as locally appropriate programming.

In January this year, Children Now submitted extensive
comments to the FCC detailing the special needs and
interests of children. In coalition with public health, media
and parents' organizations, we asked that the FCC
continue to uphold its historical duty to protect the child
audience. Before relaxing or eliminating existing media
ownership rules, the commission must consider the
implications of such sweeping changes on children's
programming.

Michael Reisch is president of Children Now, a child research and
action organization based in Oakland, Calif. Comments can be made to
the FCC and members of Congress at www.childrennow.org


seattlepi.nwsource.com


E-mail this story



To: Mephisto who wrote (5686)7/17/2003 10:04:49 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bush doublespeak

Ruth Rosen

Monday, July 14, 2003
sfgate.com

I'M RE-READING George Orwell's classic dystopian
novel, "1984," so I may be a bit sensitive to official
language that masks what's really going on. In the
bleak world of "1984," as you may remember, the
Ministry of Truth publishes lies, the Ministry of Love
tortures people and the Ministry of Peace wages
perpetual war.

I'm hardly the first to notice that the Bush
administration has excelled at using language to say
one thing and mean its opposite -- now popularly
known as doublespeak. The "Healthy Forests"
program, for example, allows increased logging of
protected wilderness. The "Clear Skies" initiative
permits greater industrial air pollution.


Last week, the president employed doublespeak
again. In the name of "improving" Head Start -- the
federally funded preschool program that provides
early educational, health and nutrition services to 1
million impoverished children -- he pressed Congress
to pass legislation that would allow states to "opt in"
and to match block grants to participate in the
program.

"Opt in." Sounds generous and inclusive, doesn't it?
But what it really means is shifting responsibility for
Head Start to the states, most of which are crushed
by budget deficits and don't have the money to fund
the quality programs that prepare poor children to
arrive at school ready to learn. The result? The
quality of Head Start program would vary widely, with
cuts decided by individual states.

Shifting funds to California, according to Amy
Dominguez-Arms, vice president of Oakland's
Children Now, "could undo a comprehensive
preschool program with proven positive results for
children. What we're worried about is that it would
lower quality standards and that the state would use
the funds for other purposes."

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's
Defense Fund, sees Bush's legislative proposal as an
attempt to dismantle Head Start and as "part of a
bold plan to break the sacred covenant between
people and their federal government. If it ain't broke,
don't fix it," says Edelman. "More importantly, if it
ain't broke, don't break it."

She's right. Head Start enjoys the highest customer
satisfaction score of any federal agency. Even the
Bush administration's own Family and Child
Experiences Survey (FACES) concedes that Head
Start provides our poorest children a quality early
childhood education.

So why is the president willing to dismantle Head
Start? "Management flexibility," he says. More
doublespeak. The president's real agenda is to starve
and shrink federal programs and get out of the
business of providing services to the poor. The
problem is, the poor can't afford to pay for the private
services that might replace public ones.


Since it began in 1965 as part of Lyndon B.
Johnson's war on poverty, Head Start has benefited
20 million at-risk kids and families. Studies have
shown that kids who participate in Head Start
commit fewer juvenile crimes, need less special
education, are more likely to graduate from high
school, and that every dollar invested during the first
seven years of a child's life saves $2 to $4 of federal
dollars later on.

"Leave no child behind," Bush promised during his
campaign, stealing the decades-old slogan of the
Children's Defense Fund. Well, right now, Head Start
serves 3 out of 5 eligible children. Yet it would only
cost $2 billion a year to give all eligible kids the
chance to participate in Head Start.

What does it say about the values of our society that
we are willing to spend $4 billion dollars a month
waging war in Iraq and give huge tax breaks to
millionaires, but don't have enough money to give
American children the benefit of early education that
prepares them for learning in school?


Doublespeak is dangerous: Bush's "opt in" proposal
is designed to dismantle Head Start, hardly what the
American people expect from a president who calls
himself a compassionate conservative, devoted to
improving children's education.