WASHINGTON — It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.

The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.

The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies.

"It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value of life," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators. "Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death."

Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said: "It's hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation."

Agency officials say they were just following what the science told them.

The EPA figure is not based on people's earning capacity, or their potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family — some of the factors used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits.

Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks. Most of the data is drawn from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys. According to the EPA, people shouldn't think of the number as a price tag on a life.

The EPA made the changes in two steps. First, in 2004, the agency cut the estimated value of a life by 8 percent. Then, in a rule governing train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal adjustment for one year's inflation. Between the two changes, the value of a life fell 11 percent, based on today's dollar.

EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based on better economic studies. The reduction reflects consumer preferences, said Al McGartland, director of EPA's office of policy, economics and innovation.

"It's our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives," McGartland said.

But EPA's cut "doesn't make sense," said Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi. EPA partly based its reduction on his work. "As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well. It has to." Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks.

At the same time that EPA was trimming the value of life, the Department of Transportation twice raised its life value figure. But its number is still lower than the EPA's.

EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity to that figure among all departments.

Not all of EPA uses the reduced value. The agency's water division never adopted the change and in 2006 used $8.7 million in current dollars.

From 1996 to 2003, EPA kept the value of a statistical life generally around $7.8 million to $7.96 million in current dollars, according to reports analyzed by The AP. In 2004, for a major air pollution rule, the agency lowered the value to $7.15 million in current dollars.

Just how the EPA came up with that figure is complicated and involves two dueling analyses.

Viscusi wrote one of those big studies, coming up with a value of $8.8 million in current dollars. The other study put the number between $2 million and $3.3 million. The co-author of that study, Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.

EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference — a decision two of the agency's advisory boards faulted or questioned.

"This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology," said Granger Morgan, chairman of EPA's Science Advisory Board and an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "This is not a scientific issue."

Other, similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved politically explosive. In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70. After the move became public, the agency reversed itself.

The next time you look at yourself in the mirror know that you are not worthless - or precious! According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) you are worth $6.9 milllion dollars (equiv. KD 1.83 million). This does not take into account factors such as your wealth, age, education, or nationality.

In the movie, Hostel, the 'hunters' highly valued the Americans so im guessing that they retain their value in this situation. Since the dollar's value is dropping and Americans are in a dollar denominated economy, the value of an American will fall as the dollar's value crumples. In essence, it will be cheaper to 'value' an american in the future. So lets see if Hostel 3 prices in the FX changes.

Although the concept was developed to assess the cost/benefit of environmental regulations it could be adapted to any situation. It will explain the future cost/benefit of wars and whether it is economically feasible to send soldiers to war.

This chart shows the decline in the value of human life over the years:

More information

Bush administration decides to run out the clock on regulating greenhouse-gas emissions
The Bush administration made clear today that it doesn't intend to do anything about climate change in the final six months in office, announcing that instead of responding to the Supreme Court's mandate last year that the EPA determine the dangers posed to humankind by greenhouse-gas emissions they would simply request further public comment.

...snip...

The [Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] was supposed to be a response to the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that greenhouse-gas emissions could be regulated under the Clean Air Act if EPA determines they pose a threat to public health and welfare. But rather than coming forward with a response, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson today announced that they are seeking four months of further public comment on the matter -- pretty much running out the clock on the Bush presidency without any meaningful action.

From The Washington Independent:

Running Out the Clock on Plame Documents
Friday, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Attorney General Michael Mukasey to provide interviews special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had with George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney about Valerie Plame. That effort would appear to be in vain: Mukasey has told the House Oversight Committee, which two weeks ago requested via subpoena the exact same documents, that he won't cooperate.

...snip...

Mukasey hasn't publicly provided any legal basis for why the interviews shouldn't be released. Facing two separate Congressional subpoenas, can he keep doing nothing until January 2009?

From Dana Milbank at The Washington Post:

Karl Rove had never been so agreeable.

The former chief strategist to President Bush was the only witness listed on the agenda for yesterday's meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, and he proved to be uncharacteristically contained.

...snip...

There was good reason for The Architect's quiet: He was out of the country. He had no intention of appearing before Congress, and he had sent the panel the equivalent of a doctor's note -- from no less a medical authority than White House counsel Fred Fielding -- saying he did not have to respond to the congressional subpoena.

So lawmakers decided to pull out one of the most feared weapons in their arsenal: the empty-chair stunt. They printed up a name card for "Mr. Karl Rove" and displayed it on the witness table. They put out a glass of cold water with ice, and pointed the microphone toward an empty wooden armchair.

...snip...

Congress knows the White House can run out the clock on the various investigations into the Bush administration. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers have already been held in contempt of Congress -- but even if Bush's Justice Department decides to prosecute those cases, his administration will be out of office before they are resolved. A contempt citation for Rove, which could come as soon as next week, would face the same sort of delay.

White House in Climate Change ‘Cover Up’

by Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON - A leading U.S. Senate Democrat accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of a “cover-up” aimed at stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from tackling greenhouse emissions.

“This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

At issue is a preliminary finding by the EPA last December that “greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare,” according to Jason Burnett, the agency’s former associate deputy administrator who appeared at a news conference with Boxer.

Such a finding would be an early step toward government regulation aimed at protecting public health.

Boxer said that unless EPA documents were released, it was likely that within the next two weeks her committee would try to subpoena the material. She did not know whether Republicans on the panel would block the effort.

Burnett, who resigned on June 9, told Boxer’s committee the White House tried pressuring him to retract an e-mail in which he detailed the finding. Burnett said he refused.

Democrats say that since then, the EPA finding has been left “in limbo.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said many federal agencies, departments and offices normally review any initiatives being developed to check for “factual inaccuracies” or “discordant” policies.

Without getting into specifics, Fratto said “views are frequently discussed and worked out in ways that make sense.”

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, asked about the administration’s actions, said, “I don’t know if that is criminal. I doubt it. OK. But I know it is immoral.”

“The health of my grandchildren, my children and me are affected by this head-in-the-sand that global warming doesn’t exist,” Reid told reporters.

Boxer acknowledged she wanted to gather information so that the next administration could get a jump on global warming initiatives quickly after it takes office on January 20, 2009.

She has been trying since last October to obtain related documents to show that planned congressional testimony on global warming by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was censored by the Bush administration.

Boxer said Gerberding’s testimony would have detailed the direct impact of rising global temperatures on human health, including mortality and the spread of disease.

Burnett told the congressional committee the administration’s Council on Environmental Quality “and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony.” He refused to say who in Vice President Richard Cheney’s office was involved.

Responding to Burnett’s charges, Fratto said, “Jason Burnett is not the EPA administrator” and that it was up to EPA chief Stephen Johnson to oversee environmental policy.

Asked at Tuesday’s news conference about his support for Democratic candidates and whether he was trying to embarrass the Republican administration, Burnett said, “Following the law and responding to the Supreme Court is not a partisan issue.”

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In October, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Gerberding’s draft testimony to Congress “did not comport” with science contained in an International Panel on Climate Change report and that “a number of agencies had some concerns with the draft.”

On Tuesday, Boxer said Gerberding’s planned testimony, which has since been detailed in media reports, and the IPCC report “matched identically.”

© Thomson Reuters 2008

In the early days of the Bush presidency, Vice President Dick Cheney came under attack for drafting a national energy policy in secret. Now, as the Bush presidency winds down, Cheney is again coming under attack for his behind-the-scenes efforts to play down the threats of global warming in order to thwart regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Original DVD cover.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment Committee, leveled the attack today, accusing the vice president and other administration officials of "recklessly" seeking to censor testimony about the dangers of global warming and working behind the scenes to block new regulation.

"This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," she said.

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters)[...]
At issue is a preliminary finding by the EPA last December that "greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare," according to Jason Burnett, the agency's former associate deputy administrator who appeared at a news conference with Boxer.

Such a finding would be an early step toward government regulation aimed at protecting public health.

Burnett, who resigned on June 9, told Boxer's committee the White House tried pressuring him to retract an e-mail om which he detailed the finding. Burnett said he refused.

Boxer said that unless EPA documents were released, it was likely that within the next two weeks her committee would try to subpoena the material. She did not know whether Republicans on the panel would block the effort.

...snip...

She has been trying since last October to obtain related documents to show that planned congressional testimony on global warming by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was censored by the Bush administration.

Boxer said Gerberding's testimony would have detailed the direct impact of rising global temperatures on human health, including mortality and the spread of disease.

...snip...

Burnett told the congressional committee the administration's Council on Environmental Quality "and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony." He refused to say who in Vice President Richard Cheney's office was involved.

...snip...

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Last October, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Gerberding's draft testimony to Congress "did not comport" with science contained in an International Panel on Climate Change report and that "a number of agencies had some concerns with the draft."

On Tuesday, Boxer said that Gerberding's planned testimony, which has since been detailed in media reports, and the IPCC report "matched identically."

Does all this have the ring of deja vu? From the Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2008:

"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," Rep. Henry A. Waxman said yesterday after the Bush administration invoked executive privilege to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents in an investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards.

Kraft Foods sponsored the recent study by Keith Collins, Ph.D., former chief economist at the USDA. Chief among the study’s conclusion is that “Nearly all of the increase in total use of corn over the past two years has been due to use of corn by ethanol plants, thus most of the corn price increase has likely been due to ethanol.” However, the study contradicts other recent studies, including one that current USDA Chief Economist Joseph Glauber presented to Congress earlier this month.

On June 12, Glauber testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on biofuels’ impact on corn and food prices. Regarding corn, Glauber says, “We estimate that the percentage increase in the price of corn from April 2007 to April 2008 would have been 23 percent lower in the absence of any growth in biofuel production in the United States. Based on this analysis (see table below), we estimate that the price of corn would have increased by 47.5 percent assuming no growth in biofuel production in the United States, down from the actual increase of 61.7 percent, from April 2007 to April 2008.

And on the overall price of food, Glauber estimates,

“At this time, the expansion in biofuel production in the United States would appear to be a relatively modest contributor to food price inflation globally and in the United States. Assuming no expansion in biofuel production in the U.S., we estimate the IMF global food commodity price index would have increased by over 40 percent from April 2007 to April 2008, compared with the actual increase of 45 percent. In the U.S., the CPI for all food would have increased by 4.55- 4.60 percent during the first four months of 2008, compared with the actual increase of 4.8 percent, assuming no expansion in U.S. biofuel production.”

Collins’ analysis also claims that “The increase in corn demand due to ethanol is rising faster than growth in corn yields per acre.” He calculates that the year over year increase in ethanol production called for in the Renewable Fuel Standard will require an increase in production of corn by 330 million bushels each year. Last year, corn production in the United States rose to an average of 150 bushels per acre (from 145 in 2006). To gain the additional bushels on the same number of harvested acres (Collins cites 94 million acres) would require approximately a 2.5 percent increase in production.

Since 1996, corn production has increased over 30 percent, due in part to increased adoption of biotech seeds. Biotech companies are confident that the yield increases will continue, making the 2.5 percent annual increase that Collins dismisses out of hand appear quite achievable.

Interestingly, Collins also estimates that the increase in animals that consume grain – food animals including beef, chicken, pork, etc. – increased 5.3 percent between 2005 and 2007. To feed them, Collins notes, required an increase of 325 million bushels of corn, close to the amount estimated as needed for ethanol. However, Collins concludes that the increased grain consumption by these animals “would have a fairly small price effect.”

Part of the plan of the GMA and its allies is to promote state petitions to the Environmental Protection Agency for waivers from the Renewable Fuel Standard, such as the one filed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R). However, the study cited by Perry to support his petition for a waiver of the RFS clearly shows that a waiver will not provide the relief he seeks.

The study is by the Texas A&M University Agricultural and Food Policy Center, and it concludes that relaxing the RFS does not result in significantly lower corn prices and corn prices have had little to do with rising food costs.
Overall, the study shows that the underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is higher energy costs. With rising energy costs, corn and other commodity prices increase.
See also BIO’s recent response to Texas’ petition to the EPA.

Welcome to the Bush White House. (What? Like you didn't see that one coming?)

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Felicity Barringer reports for the New York Times that the administration has successfully pressured the EPA to drop large sections of its original report, including the assertion that strict regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce between a half- and two trillion dollars in economic benefits over the next three decades.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto, when asked about the differences between the reports, said, "It's the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available".

Yet it is hard to take the word of an administration so broadly accused of tampering with scientific perspectives and results for purely political motivations. Indeed, the EPA determines what analysis it wants to make available, but what is the basis of its want?

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.'s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" on the agency's response to the Supreme Court.

He added, "The next administration will have to face what this one did not."

Soothsayers are not required to predict this future. A best-case scenario requires any number of irresponsible presuppositions. For instance, would President Obama be enough of a political wizard to bestow some sort of courage unto a scarecrow Democratic Congress more prone to use their majority to pander to special interests than voters, or even abstract principles? If House Democrats are willing to hand immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and join the Bush administration's siege against the Constitution for a few thousand dollars here and there, can we really expect them to stand up to the heavy-hitting heavy polluters? And what of Obama himself? His reversal on the FISA "overhaul" and retroactive immunity leaves us to wonder whether he will stand for the environment or the industry, the future or the now.

The next administration may well have to face what this one did not, but there is no guarantee that it will face the issue responsibly. There's always room for Jell-O and, slouching toward extinction, there is always time to put off until tomorrow what seems politically inconvenient today.

Last year I deigned to lecture Elton John about certain ludicrous remarks he'd made in one or another English tabloid. Beneath the ridiculous extremity of his suggestions, though, was a valid concern about the lack of public demonstration. And while contributing factors are myriad, the truth is that the next administration ought to face large, frequent, and even raucous and disobedient protests in the streets. We, the people, must make our voices heard. Because, quite clearly, the 2006 election giving the Democrats a Congressional majority certainly wasn't enough. Are the Democrats waiting for President Obama and a supermajority? Are they waiting for the people to stand up and make the point? What kind of gambles are these? Certainly, they are safe. The Democratic party may well be comfortable gambling on a President Obama. And perhaps they are not so foolish to try to ride public discontent with the GOP to a cloture majority in the Senate, but how long can they expect the people to wait? Indeed, how long can the people wait?

Doubtless, it is discouraging to observe the behavior of the Bush administration. And certainly, the lesson of the WTO and World Bank/IMF protests is that riots only compel the broader American public to lend sympathy to the Devil, but while the President has gotten away with ignoring any voice of opposition, we ought not pretend that the Democrats have not been taking notes. Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi have tried to justify their "compromise" over FISA and immunity; Barack Obama has rolled on the issue. And right now they have the example of a President playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", and the only thing he has to do to pull that off, apparently, is not bother opening his e-mail.

We get what we deserve. And, to borrow a tired hyperbole, our children will get what we deserve. Don't be fooled. It really has gotten this ridiculous. In what universe, save one of our own making, could someone say they were never told, and the reason they were never told is because they refused to open the goddamn e-mail?

The problem is that we cannot do the same. We cannot shut our eyes, plug our ears, and mutter endlessly, "This isn't happening. This isn't happening."

Because it is. And it's long past time we did something about it.

From the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON -- Escalating a fight with Democrats on Capitol Hill, the White House on Friday invoked executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents to a congressional committee investigating the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards.

The Bush administration asserted executive privilege hours before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to vote on whether to bring contempt-of-Congress proceedings against EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and Susan Dudley, administrator of regulatory affairs in the White House Office of Management and Budget, for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Original DVD cover.

Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) put off a vote on the contempt resolutions while he considers his options.

"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," he said, appearing determined to press ahead, even if it leads to a court fight. "We don't know whether this privilege that's being asserted is valid or not."

...snip...

House and Senate committees have been investigating what role the White House played in EPA decisions preventing California and other states from enacting tougher emissions rules than the federal government and in the EPA's approval of new ozone pollution standards.

The administration's claim of executive privilege is the latest twist in the escalating legal and political battle over California's efforts to implement its own law combating global warming. Critics of the EPA decision contend that it was based on politics, not science or the law.

...snip...

In asserting executive privilege in the EPA inquiry, the administration made public a copy of a letter sent to the president by Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey saying that releasing internal documents "could inhibit the candor of future deliberations among the president's staff."

Veja mais

What's here?

- lack of state or federal control on noise pollution

- 600,000 riders per day exposed to unhealthy noise levels

- noise not considered a 'real' pollution by officials

Research and interviews done for a Boston Globe assignment that never ran:

By Candice Novak
The Environmental Protection Agency has standards for community noise: Anything at 85 decibels or higher is considered harmful.

The World Health Organization says that permanent hearing damage can occur if a person is exposed to 100 decibels for over 90 seconds.

Neither agency would ever schedule a meeting on the issue on the platform at the Park Street MBTA stop: The noise level there reached 101 decibels, according to a digital sound level meter used in the subway.

Riding inside some MBTA cars isn’t much better – noise at Copley station reached 94 decibels - louder than a low-flying airplane. The EPA and WHO allow seven minutes total at that level per day before it has the potential to damage hearing. Park Street station hit 92 - a level that's also loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss, according to auditory experts and health organizations.

And yet, there is no agency that regulates noise level in public transit systems.

Boston has the fourth-largest and fastest expanding subway system in the country. Some 600,000 people in the Boston area ride the subway daily, not including those riding commuter rails.

While short durations of high-decibels screeches leave little time for passengers to cover their ears, research shows, longer exposure does more damage. A stretch between Maverick and Aquarium stations on the blue line, was read at 88 decibels for over 30 seconds at a time.

At these levels, noise “causes physical damage in your ear,” which leads to hearing loss, said Dr. William Martin, an auditory expert at the Oregon Hearing Research Center said. “And it doesn’t come back.” In town for a convention, Martin noticed the unhealthy noise on the subways. He says the MBTA should “eliminate or, at least, abate the noise.”

Though day noise over 70 decibels is considered “unreasonable” by City of Boston municipal codes and is grounds for legal action, people who live in the city are subject to many unregulated sounds on a regular basis. An airplane flying over East Boston booms at 91 decibels, the same level as a kitchen coffee grinder at close range. On a bustling Saturday morning, Quincy Market comes in at 75 decibels

In a 2006 study, Dr. Robyn Gershon of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University found that noise in the New York City subways exceeded recommended levels. When presented with the findings Gershon said, “Boston’s the oldest system and obviously it’s one of the loudest. It’s probably as loud, if not louder, than [New York City’s].”

When commuters raise volume levels on their earphones to compete with the noise of traincars, they can speed up hearing loss. “It doesn’t matter if it’s Brahms or Twisted Sister,” Dr. William Martin says, music doesn’t substitute subway screeches, but rather adds to it. “If you’re riding the T and playing your iPod on top of that noise, then you’re really screwed.

“They keep saying noise and hearing loss is a big public health thing,” Gershon said, “but then they don’t fund it. It’s very frustrating.”

Others make a living filling that gap. Mike Bahtiarian, vice president of the Billerica based acoustic consulting firm Noise Control Engineering, Inc., said sound pollution is different from many air pollutions because “You do need some expertise to show it’s there.” Noise pollution is not as alarming as fires or smog, and leaves little physical evidence. His small private business has inspected about a dozen private noise complaints in the last six months. That’s high demand for a service that comes under the jurisdiction of a government agency, Bahtiarian said. The information his company gathers is often used in noise impact ordinance assessments or environmental impact reports.

With little state or federal oversight, cities and towns are left in charge of noise complaints and hazards. And that’s putting a burden on the smaller offices such as Boston’s Environmental Department, Director Bryan Glascock said.

Most noise complaints end up at the Air Pollution Control Center (APCC), a small section of Glascock’s office, where he says they account for 50 percent of all air violations.

Since 2000, one in every 40 noise complaints filed with the APCC involved MBTA operations. In East Boston complaints focus on the Blue Line’s noise and vibration. In Brookline and Brighton, it’s squeaking Green Line wheels. When it can, the APCC sends a worker to inspect the situation. Then they decided whether to deliver a citation.

In the past eight years, no punishment in cases involving the MBTA has been documented. In most cases, the MBTA officials were warned with letters or calls but did not respond, according to the noise complaint logbook. In 2005, a call from East Boston about noise and vibration prompted an APCC official to write this irritated logbook note: “Issue has become more problematic over past two years due to not truing [grinding smooth] the wheels.” Officials at the T were contacted; “however, there has been no progress on matter.”

MBTA officials declined interviews, but spokesman Joe Pesaturo wrote in an email that the main cause of noise in the subway system is “short pitch corrugation” – ridges that form on the rail surface.

There are solutions, says Herb London, president of Hudson Institute, a public policy think-tank. “There are all kinds of cushions, rubberized devices, and you might be able to reduce the noise,” but it wouldn’t be a significant reduction. In Paris, new technology is being tested in hopes to reduced noise levels in the Metró by five to eight decibels. “And the trade-off is, it’s going to be very expensive,” London said.

As far as public health goes, Gershon says, the noise pollution on the T is a “major” problem. With the data indicating an unhealthy environment, she says, it’s hard to argue with numbers.

Submit your own creations - cnovak85(at)gmail(dot)com

But what was interesting was the reactions of the CDC, EPA and HHS representatives when I questioned them about agency morale and political interference with science. Can you say, dancing as fast as they can? or "not allowed to express my opinion?" How about, "well, in a few months from now, we're hoping to get funding for this study..." I asked the CDC representative where the pandemic flu planning educational materials were, and she quickly informed my ignorant ass that her division of the CDC didn't do that. Check with the HHS rep. When I moseyed over to the HHS booth an aisle away, that rep looked at me as though I had parachuted from the stratosphere. Pandemic flu planning? "Why would that be at a women's health fair", she seemed to ask with rolled eyes and a dismissive wave.

Never mind that women will be the chief caregivers, will have to know how to shelter in place, buy the canned goods, the bottled water in the approved plastic containers, isolate infected family members and care for those in the home who are ill. And if nurses (since half of the attendees are, by the way), they will also be expected to report for work in hospitals and other facilities as designated by their local emergency preparedness planners.

Government under Bush in action: uninformed, unresponsive, scientifically undermined and ineffective - one could even say - dangerous to the public.

I continued on my way around the vendors, and it was at a not-fruit-juice-but-not-seltzer-either booth that I met the Army nurse speaking to the vendor about where to find this new elixir. He wasn't giving away his new and improved wonder water except by mouthfuls in little paper cups. The nurse asked where she might find it in her Baltimore hometown, and then she said, she really didn't have time to look for it because she was leaving for Afghanistan at the end of the week.

Huh? The vendor couldn't have been less interested. 2+2= bottles sold.

I asked her how long she was being deployed. "15 months". Where. "Kabul". Does she speak the language? "No, I'll have a translator - a woman."

Then she said, "I'm active duty so I knew I'd be going somewhere, but I'm not allowed to treat men, it's the culture, you know, and it's all men there. So I'm going to open a clinic since the women can't even be on the base. I really think the Army made a mistake. I don't know what I'll be able to do. I'm a midwife. I guess I can do some suturing and clinic things, but really, I'm supposed to treat just women."

EPA Joins the Supreme Court and Congress to Play Piggy In the Middle

Note: Piggy in the Middle, also called Monkey in the Middle, Pickle in a Dish, Pickle in the Middle, or Keep Away is a children's game played primarily in North American politics. Three or more players pass the responsibility for keeping the air clean and saving lives to one another, while the player in the middle (called it, the monkey, the piggy , the pickle, or simply we the people,) attempts to pinpoint the accountability.

Piggies on the run. REUTERS/Gary Hershorn (UNITED STATES). Image may be subject to copyright. See FEWW Fair Use Notice

US Supreme Court: Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the existing Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate it.

EPA Administrator Stephen [disgrace] Johnson: "If the nation is serious about regulating greenhouse gases the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job and it's really at the feet of Congress to come up with good legislation that cuts through what will likely be decades of regulation and litigation."

The US Congress: Didn't the Supreme Court clarify the position on this in 2007 in MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.? [Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007]

They said: "Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. The agency further characterized any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President’s comprehensive approach involving additional support for technological innovation,the creation of non regulatory programs to encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further re-search on climate change, and might hamper the President’s ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions. Petitioners, now joined by intervenor Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit. Al-though each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately, two of them agreed that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the rule making petition. One judge concluded that the Administrator’s exercise of “judgment” as to whether a pollutant could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” §7521(a)(1), could be based on scientific uncertainty as well as other factors, including the concern that unilateral U. S. regulation of motor-vehicle emissions could weaken efforts to reduce other countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. The second judge opined that petitioners had failed to demonstrate the particularized injury to them that is necessary to establish standing under Article III, but accepted the contrary view as the law of the case and joined the judgment on the merits as the closest to that which he preferred. The court there-fore denied review. ..."

Related Links:

• The White House of Horror!!
• Disgrace, Disgrace, You’re Such an Ugly Disgrace …
• EPA official resigns citing Dow Chemical

• 60 Percent of EPA Staff Have ‘Personally Experienced’ ‘Political Interference
  
• Washington waste site: Recent reports confirm that the EPA needs a major cleanup

For those of you having problems reading this text, please place your cursor over the text and hold down the control key on your keyboard, (CTRL), and with the wheel of your mouse, roll the wheel towards yourself. This will increase the text size.

Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Joe Lieberman

What a peachy pair huh? This dastardly quad, (see other two below), needs only 60 votes to pass the following bills S2191 and S3036. First of all, you need to understand that Global Warming is a scam made up to cause fear and used to control the world! In an article I've already done on this, there are over 31,000 Scientists that disagree with the United Nations on Global Warming and in fact state plainly that:

Carbon dioxide released by energy production is actually beneficial to the environment. See www.petitionproject.org.

31,000 Scientists with signed statements versus the 600 the United Nations has that HAVEN'T signed or agreed to the statements made in their names... Sheer manipulation on the part of the governing bodies of the UN and the United States Congress. Boxer and Lieberman are trying to pull a fast one on us and if they succeed, they will be bilking us of billions of dollars FOR A LIE!!!

These four Senators need to be removed from office Pronto! To try to dupe the public, the Congress of the United States of America, while allowing the Lobbyists to have their say and sway, is tantamount to treason! These Congressional people are living fat of the citizens of this country with no regard for the things they do or the people they hurt, or the lies they weave. We the People must be the guardians of the Land since our government has become so corrupt and greedy that it cannot be trusted to do as it is supposed to do. The Constitution means nothing to those responsible for its defense and upholding.

From NewsWithViews we get this article:

STOP US SENATE BILLS S2191 & S3036 - CLIMATE SECURITY ACT SHAMS

By Rosalind Peterson

July 1, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Two climate security act shams, U.S. Senate Bills S2191 and S3036, were debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate between June 2-6, 2008. Senators Boxer and Lieberman will be bringing this legislation forward, in the near future, once they have the sixty votes needed pass either one of them.

These bills are designed to sell out the health and welfare of the people of the United States in order to establish a national and international Cap & Trade Money Market Scheme, and under Section 6E, “…initiate programs to “mitigate” the impacts of any unavoidable global climate change…” These bills have nothing to do with “Climate Security”. They are designed to fleece the American people out of $$$ Billions of their tax dollars to support a questionable “market scheme of carbon trading” by selling “emission allowances” to polluters to allow them to pollute more in the future.

And this is how third world countries become the dumping ground for the pollutants of the developed countries. And why pay for a scam anyway? Why should we pay for any more fleecing? Go after these Senators and make examples of them! I want a Congressional investigation into this one and I want to know the answers to some serious questions.

This year a so-called environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund, is promoting the passage of these bills which would move the United States EPA into becoming, a market based “Climate Change Credit Corporation”, instead of an agency that works to reduce air pollution at it source, in order to protect human health and our air, water, soil, and trees from the detrimental effects of ever-increasing air and water pollution.

The EPA is as broken as the FDA is. Why on EARTH would we want this agency to become a global market based climate change credit corporation??? Are they insane? Or do they think we won't notice? Maybe most of you won't. But I did... Not only do I say no, but HELL NO!

Another new board will be established if S 3036 is passed: "The Carbon Market Efficiency Board” The term of a board member has been changed to where an appointed board member could serve for up to 14 years. This private corporation and board will be made up of presidential political appointees with little or no Congressional oversight or regulations.

And we already know what a fine job Congress, the president, vice president and all other governing bodies are doing right now. Here, bend over and let us screw you some more! Have you had enough yet? Ready to get these assholes booted out of office?

The buying and selling of bogus pollution credits will not be regulated under this bill. It is like having the American taxpayers fund a worldwide gambling casino made up of American assets. And it appears that nothing will happen until 2012; doing nothing to implement the reduction of air pollution for four years.

Taxpayers will fund this new, private, and mostly unregulatedcorporation, which will negate the purpose and goals of the EPA as stated: “The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment.”

Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Lieberman, and Warner, staunch supporters of these bills, did not write into the 500+/- pages of legislation that the EPA libraries, closed by the Bush Administration, should be reopened and funded. These bills do not stress that polluters should be fined for polluting our environment, rivers, lakes or streams. Instead they reward polluters by allowing them to purchase bogus emission credits which allow them to continue to pollute unabated for years. Instead of structuring higher EPA fines for polluters to pay if they exceed pollution laws…these bills provide an escape hatch for polluters and negate EPA rules and regulations at the same time.

Is there anyone out there just a wee bit mad? Do you enjoy knowing these people are making fools of us and our environment? Doesn't it feel wonderful to know these fools can hold their heads up every day instead of hiding in shame just for being alive? Cuz I'm really pissed off that they would have the gall to even think this would fly!

Senator Warner Senator Dianne Feinstein

We know that many financial markets, like the oil futures markets, are unregulated and have cost Americans $Billions of dollars in ever increasing fuel prices. These bills set up a system that will operate under a similar structure.

In the end the taxpayers will pay because corporations will transfer their costs to consumers through higher prices. Goods arriving from other countries will have higher prices due to emissions charges, and we will fund this private corporation through higher gasoline and income taxes, a double and triple tax on all citizens. This will add to speculation in the emissions credit markets and will enrich those industries that are not polluting, giving them bogus emission credits that they can then sell to polluters.

And doesn't this just suit Congress??? They continue to get the money that Lobbyists pay them through the corporations while passing laws designed to make business richer, people poorer, financing their business on our backs!!! What I have to say about these Congressmen isn't fit to print!

The American taxpayer fleecing will be complete if either of these bills pass. The self-reinforcing bubble market created by the buying and selling of emissions credits will eventually collapse and then the taxpayer will fund that collapse. If our elected officials want to reduce pollutants all they need to do is set standards for polluting industries to meet, under EPA rules and regulations, and have them enforced. Polluters who continue to pollute each year would pay heavier and heavier fines to the EPA who can then redirect the money to technologies that will reduce air pollution.

Think about the housing market collapse, the bank collapse, who is footing those bills? Certainly it isn't the Federal Reserve who is supposed to insure these banks, and certainly not the banking industry that sold the bogus mortgages KNOWING what consumers didn't although they should have.

The majority of the 500 pages in the two bills set up the parameters for this money market scheme while gutting the EPA Clean Water Act’s water protections to allow commercial-scale injections of toxic chemicals underground (geosequestration). If these schemes were safe and worked these bills would not need to lower our Clean Water Act standards. We can’t protect our water supplies from being contaminated by toxic waste sites or waste disposal sites in general, at this time. And we don’t know if these toxic sequestration schemes will work.

There is evidence that a few sequestration schemes have failed. Geosequestration is designed to help the coal companies pollute more and would clearly benefit the coal industry and their drive to expand this highly polluting industry. And clearly there are few places where geosequestration could be used safely at this time.

Last September 2007, the United Nations held its 60 Annual Conference on Climate Change. And the drumbeat for climate change “mitigation” was almost a motto of the conference. However, the word “mitigation” was never defined and these bills fail to define the word “mitigate” or what types of programs would be used to initiate climate change “mitigation”. Thus, open-ended funding will be provided for massive mitigation experimentation at the expense of public health, crop production, and the protection of our environment from the assaults of unregulated pollutants.

And doesn't it just figure that those charged with protecting our interests, protecting the Constitution and the country, would be the ones tearing it apart? If the people in the states of California, Virginia and Connecticut don't tear these Congress people down from their ivory towers they don't deserve to be part of this county! How dare these Congresswomen and men show their faces in public?

And Senator Feinstein is such a wonderful upstanding American who also pushes for amnesty and will stick her pet project onto whatever bill she can get it attached to, even in the middle of the night!!!

Senator Lieberman is for war with Iran, even though there is NO EVIDENCE to prove they are enriching uranium for purposes of nuclear weapons. What a guy!

Senator Warner is retiring, thank God for small favors! He won't be doing any more harm in Congress just as soon as he steps down. Let's hope that is Very, Very SOON!

Senator Boxer is perhaps the best actress of them all. On the one hands she seems to be there for We the People, yet to promote such a project as this is beyond belief! What are you thinking Senator? Or did you take a stupid pill when someone handed this legislation to you?

California Senator Boxer’s Bill S3036 was used last week, in a “bait and switch” tactic, to replace Senator Lieberman’s Bill S2191…S3036 was defeated in the Senate by a narrow margin on June 6, 2008. When contacted after this vote, her Washington, D.C., office stated that this bill would be introduced again as soon as they had enough votes to pass it. (Note: Both S2191 and S3036 have almost the same wording and goals.)

One has to wonder if they think the whole of the Senate is so stupid that they will vote one bill down but vote the exact same worded bill in with a different number? Or maybe they are guaranteed that all the other Senators will take stupid pills that day?

These two bills do not speak to alternative means of transportation, bullet trains, or funding any other alternatives which could be immediately implemented. This bill is a regressive tax on all of us without funding the alternatives that are needed to reduce our carbon imprint. When you raise the taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating fuels, etc., you increase the price of basics like food and clothes.

And where does this wealth go...to set up a private Climate Change Corporation that will use our tax dollars to allow polluters to pollute more by purchasing bogus emissions credits in an unregulated money market scheme. This bill is not helping reducing our use of oil…there are few if any realistic alternatives at this point…it is about the redistribution of our tax dollars to foreign markets, speculators, banks (a section in this bill), and corporations.

Christ, why is there even a market for this crap anyway? Talk about scams of the highest order. Perhaps it is time for WE the PEOPLE to audit ALL the bills and proposals that Congress is doing right now and have them explain to us WHY they think this or that bill is a good idea and then WE will decide if it so. After seeing this, it is clear these people cannot be trusted in any way, shape, or form!

California Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman are the driving forces behind these Climate Security Act shams and California Senate Feinstein is supporting this legislation along with Senators McCain and Clinton.

Well, there you go! Just more proof that McCain is unfit for the White House. I have rarely seen a candidate so out of touch with voters as McCain is. And Clinton I'm not surprised at although I really thought she had more sense! However, just goes to show you that the Senators, ANY SENATORS are NOT good at leadership in this country! Too interested in lining their pockets at the moment, probably figuring we're going to boot the lot into the parking garage!

If we don't take action today this bill will pass and our tax dollars will go to fund a private corporation, the Climate Credit Corporation, while air pollution that degrades the quality of our air, water, and environment will continue unabated.

According to the Congressional Research Service Summary the Act:

1)“…Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to…Provide(s) for the selling, exchanging, transferring, submitting, retiring, or borrowing emissions allowances…” and

2)“Provides for the distribution of emission allowances…”

3)This bill “…Establishes in the Treasury and provides for allocations…” and

4)Establishes the Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances…”

5)“Amends the Safe Water Drinking Act to require the Administrator to permit commercial-scale underground injection of carbon dioxide for purposes of geological sequestration…”

Information on Carbon Trading: “Cap & Trade Money Market Schemes”

1, Communities for a Better Environment Fall 2006 Newsletter: Richard Drury’s article: “Pollution Trading: We Don’t Buy it” Excellent Article on the “Pollution Shell Game.”

2, Los Angeles Times April 1, 2007 “Carbon Trading Won’t Work”

3, Cap & Trade Article Part I

4, Cap & Trade Article Part II

5, According to Source Watch this group has “…evolved into George Bush's favorite environmental group…”

6, U.S. Senate Bill 3036 Text

7, U.S. Senate Bill 2191 Text

8, U.S. EPA Information

Information on Experimental Weather Modification bills:

9, Contact your elected officials and defeat these two bills experimental weather modification bills from passage in 2008. U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 brought to you with compliments from Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

10, In a speech (June 5, 2008),on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator Salazar of Colorado, spoke of the drought which has decimated his state in the last two years. The Senator blamed global warming as the cause of these problems without realizing that the Colorado drought started at the same time a massive experimental weather modification scheme was initiated in Wyoming. It is easy to blame global warming for all of our problems rather than look at the experiments we are conducting on ourselves with more than 50 experimental weather modification programs ongoing in the United States (according to NOAA records).

NOAA - Current Weather Modification Programs – How are they linked to current weather problems and agriculture declines due to the disruption of local micro-climates?

10, NOAA 2005 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs.

11, NOAA 2006 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs

12, NOAA 2007 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs

13, Honey Bee Decline Articles & Documents

14, U.S. House of Representatives Passed U.S. House Bill 6304 – FISA Amendment Act of 2008 on June 20, 2008. When the U.S. Senate Returns from their 4th of July vacation they will discuss passage of this bill which will allow continued Spying on United States citizens. This bill also gives amnesty to all of the telecom companies that allegedly colluded with the Bush Administration in spying on American citizens without obtaining a Court Order from the FISA court…among other abuses. It is time to object to the loss of our 4th Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution.

15, Ex-TVA Head Denouces Plans for Nuclear Plants. By David Flesser, Chattanooga Times, June 13, 2008. "Former TVA Chairman S. David Freeman returned to his native Chattanooga Thursday to denounce proposals by the Tennessee Valley Authority to build more nuclear reactors. 'Unfortunately, the concern over global warming has provided an opening where the nuclear industry has risen up from the dead,' Mr. Freeman told reporters during a news conference organized by citizen groups opposed to building more nuclear reactors. 'There's a whole new generation that didn't live through the first nuclear era and frankly the industry is touting much more success than their record would support. The only thing new is the history we've forgotten'... Mr. Freeman, an 82-year-old lawyer and engineer who has headed four U.S. utilities, accused TVA officials of being 'nucleoholics' addicted to atomic power despite the agency's costly mistakes from overbuilding nuclear plants a generation ago."

© 2008 Rosalind Peterson - All Rights Reserved

I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of reporting on these idiots in Congress who seem to do nothing FOR the American People and everything AGAINST US! Time to send these morons to the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE! Let's help them to become one of us and see how incompetent they are!

]]> http://keytonaturalhealth.wordpress.com/?p=114 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:17:07 +0000 keytonaturalhealth http://keytonaturalhealth.wordpress.com/?p=114 Home Toxic Home: National Harris/Shaklee Corp Poll Finds 95% of American Mothers Believe Household Cleaning Products can be Toxic

- But only half believe their kids are being exposed to household toxins -

     Home may be where the heart is, but these days it's also where the toxins are. According to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average American home generates over 20 pounds of household hazardous waste every year. Cumulatively it's a whopping 1.6 million tons -- that's 3.2 billion pounds -- of household hazardous waste per year, of which 176,000 tons is just from cleaning products. Those familiar, everyday cleaners, including tub, tile, shower and toilet cleaner; drain and oven cleaner; wood and metal polishes, laundry bleach and many more, are designated by the EPA as household hazardous waste and improper disposal "...can pollute the environment and pose a threat to human health." (1)

But are moms -- who make most family purchases and still do most of the housecleaning -- aware of the safety concerns about common household cleaners? Do they believe that their families' health may be at risk? Shaklee Corp, the #1 natural nutrition company in the U.S. and maker of "Get Clean(R)" -- home cleaning products that offer natural, non-toxic and biodegradable cleaning choices -- enlisted Harris Interactive in January 2008 to conduct a telephone survey of 1,108 moms across the U.S. with children under the age of 18 living in their households, about home cleaners and safety. Citing poll results revealing misconceptions, contradictions and the need for more education, Shaklee urges Americans to look at what's under their own sinks. "Many people seeking cleaner, greener lifestyles consider the impact of climate change, but very few think about the chemicals we are exposing ourselves to every day in our own homes," says Roger Barnett, Shaklee Chairman and CEO.

Following are some key poll results and some expert implications:

A study in contradictions: Almost all moms -- 95% -- agreed that household cleaning products can be toxic; 88% agreed that home cleaning products can be harmful to their health and their families' health; and 61% agreed that the fumes from cleaning products bothered them. However, two-thirds of moms (70%) also agreed that home cleaning products are safe to use around their family, and only 49% agreed that their children may be exposed to household toxins. "Moms already know household cleaners can be hazardous if swallowed or spilled directly on your skin," said Jane Houlihan, VP for Research at Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. "But most don't make the connection that when these products are used as directed on floors, sinks and tubs, their families are exposed 24 hours a day."

Acute Asthma Awareness: 81% of the respondents agreed that household cleaning products may trigger asthma in children and adults, reflecting high awareness of the suspected link between chemicals and what many call an epidemic. "Unfortunately asthma has become a common serious disease of childhood," says John Spengler, Akira Yamaguchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation, Department of Environmental Health at Harvard University. "When reviewing the rapid increases of asthma rates in America, it is critical to recognize the link between pollution and human health, including chemical and biological pollutants in indoor environments." In 1998, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that asthma increased 75% from 1980-1994(2) and in 2007, the EPA reported that an average of one out of every 13 school-age children suffers from asthma.(3)

Murky on Indoor vs. Outdoor Air Pollution: Only a little more than one-third (38%) of respondents agreed that the air inside their homes is more toxic than the air outside their homes, despite the proven fact. A five-year study by the EPA found that the organic pollutants inside the typical American home are two-to-five times higher than the air outdoors, caused by pollutants from common household products, including cleaners such as solvents, wood preservatives, aerosol sprays, cleansers and disinfectants, air fresheners and more. According to the EPA, health effects of organic pollutants include eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, loss of coordination, nausea, liver, kidney and central nervous system damage. The fumes given off by carpet cleaners can cause cancer and liver damage.(4) Additionally, many cleaning agents yield high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including glycol ethers, which are regulated toxic air containments, and terpenes that can react with ozone to form secondary pollutants including formaldehyde and ultra-fine particles.(5)

Kidding Themselves about the Kids: Only half (49%) are concerned about their children coming in contact with the chemicals they use to clean their floors, and only about one-third (35%) believe that some rashes on their children's skin are reactions to chemicals in the products they use. Only a small fraction of the more than 80,000 registered chemicals have been tested for human health concerns.(6) "We are conducting a vast toxicologic experiment in our society, in which our children and our children's children are the experimental subjects," says Dr. Herbert L. Needleman, University of Pittsburgh pediatrician and co-author with Philip Landrigan, MD MSc, Ethel H. Wise Professor of Pediatrics -- Chair of Community and Preventative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Healthy Child Healthy World Board of Directors Member, of Raising Children Toxic Free: How to Keep Your Child Safe from Lead, Asbestos, Pesticides, and Other Environmental Hazards.

Seeking a Safe Clean: "94% of moms said they would stop using their favorite cleaning product if they found out it may be harmful to their families' health," notes Barnett. "To become educated, go to the National Institute of Health Household Products Database to search by chemical, find out which brands contain it, and uncover its links to health effects."

About Shaklee Corporation

For 50 years, Shaklee has been a leading provider of premium quality, natural nutrition, and personal care products, environmentally-friendly household products, and state-of-the-art air and water treatment systems. In 2000, Shaklee became the first company in the world to be Climate Neutral(TM) certified to totally offset its CO2 emissions, resulting in a net zero impact on the environment. With a robust product portfolio, including more than 50 patents and patents pending worldwide, Shaklee has more than 750,000 Members and Distributors worldwide and operates in the U.S., Mexico, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, and soon, in China. For more information about Shaklee, visit www.keystonaturalhealth.com.

    (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Household Hazardous Waste. Feb.

Now, the Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton reports that DoD is refusing comply with EPA orders to clean up military bases where chemical contamination poses “imminent and substantial” dangers to public health.

When EPA issues “final orders” to polluters, those that don’t comply can be hauled into court and forced to pay fines of up to $28,000 per day for each violation. When the polluter in question is a government agency, though, the picture changes. Layton explains:

Under executive branch policy, the EPA will not sue the Pentagon, as it would a private polluter. Although the law gives final say to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in cleanup disputes with other federal agencies, the Pentagon refuses to recognize that provision. Military officials wrote to the Justice Department last month to challenge EPA's authority to issue the orders and asked the Office of Management and Budget to intervene.

Experts in environmental law said the Pentagon's stand is unprecedented.

"This is stunning," said Rena Steinzor, who helped write the Superfund laws as a congressional staffer and now teaches at the University of Maryland Law School and is president of the nonprofit Center for Progressive Reform. "The idea that they would refuse to sign a final order -- that is the height of amazing nerve."

Pentagon officials say they are voluntarily cleaning up the three sites named in the EPA's "final orders" -- Fort Meade in Maryland, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

In other words, the Pentagon’s response is a blend of “I’ll do it because I want to, not because you tell me to” and “who’s gonna make me?” Aren’t you comforted to know that a third-grade mentality is driving the response to dangerous chemicals leaking into soil and groundwater?

If you already utilize compact fluoresent light bulbs, you have (or should have!) been seeking out local hazardous wastes programs or small retail chains such as True Value and IKEA who are willing to collect the bulbs for recycling.  Others of you were waiting for retailers such as Wal-Mart to designate a recycling day, or bought kits to mail the bulbs to a recycling facility.   

There's now a new option in recycling compact fluorescent bulbs, and it's your local Home Depot.  So if you haven't been recycling your compact fluorescent bulbs, there's no excuse!  Why??  First thing, a bulb that breaks in your home pollutes - it's vapors can harm people and pets as well as impact the environment.  Secondly, your local Home Depot now will take back old compact fluorescents in all of its stores in the United States.  This will be the nation's most widespread recycling program for the bulbs.  With Home Deopot having 1,973 stores, they estimate that 75% of the homes in the United States are within 10 miles of one of their stores. 

What's next for the world of compact flouroescent light bulbs?  Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been looking into putting bulb drop-off boxes at post offices which would give consumers another option for recycling.  Recently, Brown University's Center for Environmental Studies recently developed a box that absorbs mercury so there would be no worries should a bulb break in the box.

What do you do if a bulb breaks?  Click on the Link at the end of this blog for a handy, two-page publication you can read and print out.  In the meantime, handle and dispose of your compact fluorescent light bulbs responsibly ... there's no excuse!!

Managing mercury-containing compact fluorescent lamps for households

DES MOINES, Iowa, June 17, 2008 (ENS) - Raw sewage is flowing into rivers and streams across central and eastern Iowa as one after another wastewater facilities are inundated by the record floods that have swept the state during the past two weeks.

Livestock manure is also part of the nasty mix, along with spilled fuel and chemicals, all heading to the flooding Mississippi River and down to the Gulf of Mexico.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is warning people to avoid contact with floodwater that may be contaminated with sewage or hazardous substances because exposure to the waste could transmit intestinal illnesses and skin infections.

http://urlet.com/never.certainly

"who continue to be exposed to this poison in their residential drinking water on a daily basis."   

In a 2005 legal settlement with the residents, DuPont agreed to clean-up parts of the C8-contaminated water systems and sponsor an unbiased scientific panel to investigate links between C8 exposure and human disease; for the most part those are ongoing.  Mr. Bilott writes that he was compelled to send his letter after reading or otherwise learning that EPA is being pressured to

"discontinue or delay its efforts to pursue further toxicity and exposure research on perfluorooctanoic (PFOA)."

He explains the consequences EPA's inaction is having on State agencies, which are the entities which actually have to respond to instances of PFOA-contaminated water supplies and residents' concerns about the compound in human blood and breast milk.

Bilott writes:

"Although USEPA has released several draft hazard assessments and risk assessments for PFOA since 2001, none have been finalized.  In addition, although USEPA has taken steps to initiate the process for evaluating PFOA through the IRIS process, USEPA has not publicly released any draft of any such assessment."

The attorney's letter provides a chronology of events, but still no final product.

"It has now been approximately a decade since USEPA first learned of the existence of PFOA (and related perfluorochemicals) in the environment and in human blood.  More than seven years have passed since we first reported to USEPA the presence of excessive levels of PFOA in residential drinking water supplies, and more than five years have passed since USEPA first announced the commencement of its formal investigation into the sources of effects of PFOA in the environment and humans" (emphasis added).

"USEPA first released a draft risk assessment in 2003.  Over the next several years, USEPA indicated that it could not finalize its risk assessment for PFOA until it had been reviewed and approved by USEPA's Science Advisory Board's independent PFOA Review Panel."

The review panel gave its final report and recommendation to EPA in May 2006. 

"Although it has now been almost two years... USEPA has not released any revised risk assessment or IRIS review for PFOA and has now confirmed that it does not intend to do so for at least several years."

About ATSDR, Bilott reports:

"Although it was publicly-stated years ago that ATSDR was working on an evaluation of health risks, including risks arising from PFOA contamination of human breast milk, arising from PFOA-contaminated drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia, ATSDR also has not yet released a draft of any such report and has not clarified if or when it intends to do so."

Bilott also warns of the adverse public health consequences of delaying release of information or protective action in a mistaken quest for newer, better, or more complete data.  He writes:

"New studies and data will continue to be released, as is the case with essentially every other chemical.  As USEPA and ASTDR have done in the past, the new studies should be evaluated to determine whether present agency conclusions warrant modification; but the present conclusions should not be held by the agencies while researchers continue their work.  Waiting another 'several years' to complete the PFOA work in hopes that some 'better' or more 'complete' data may come along is too long for those drinking the contaminated water (and breast milk) every day to continue to wait."

For decades, advocates for public health, communities and workers have seen how polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products have made claims of scientific uncertainty to delay action to protect the public's health and environment.   We don't need our government officials doing the same thing.  Hats off to Mr. Bilott for advocating the community's right-to-know, even if that information is incomplete.  As Sir Austin Bradford Hill stated in 1965:

"All scientific work is incomplete---whether it be observational or experimental.  All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge.  That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone action that it appears to demand at a given time..."

Links to transcripts of the debates: June 2, 2008, June 3, 2008 Part 1, June 3, 2008, Part 2, June 4, 2008, and  June 6, 2008,

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ran tests in 2002 and found that water coming from the site contaminated the lake with millions of asbestos fibers per liter of water. Lake dredging did not help the situation because it only disturbed the sediment allowing fibers to break loose and wash ashore.

A major concern is the fact that much of the asbestos contamination is tremolite asbestos, which is considered to be several hundred times more hazardous to human health than asbestos fibers commonly found in urban settings. Exposure to tremolite asbestos has been strongly linked to the development of Mesothelioma (http://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/) cancer. Mesothelioma is an extremely aggressive cancer that attacks the body's mesothelial cells, which compose the mesothelium lining that protects organs and body cavities. Very few cases of mesothelioma have ever been cured, putting the mortality rate at nearly 100 percent.

While public officials claim there is no threat to public health, Jeffery Camplin disagrees. Mr. Camplin is an environmental/health safety engineer and nationally known asbestos expert. He was hired by the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society to review studies done by the EPA, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and a Chicago Park District contractor. He found those studies to be "deeply flawed and severely lacking in standardized scientific protocols."

The Illinois Duneland Preservation Society offers some advice as to how to minimize the exposure and inhalation of the asbestos fibers. They warn against shaking off towels and blankets since this can release asbestos fibers into the air, against eating and drinking at contaminated beaches and suggest that beachgoers vigorously clean belongings and shower before leaving.

Concerned beachgoers are likely wondering what, if any, activities are free from the risk of exposure to asbestos at Lake Michigan's beaches. According to Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society President Paul Kakuris, "Waves wash fibers onto the beaches where sand releases asbestos during beach activities, exposing millions of unwitting victims to deadly asbestos fibers while corrupt public officials and polluters' consultants rigged studies, using government funds." Naturally, the society strongly advises against anyone visiting Lake Michigan's contaminated beaches.

by Erik Baard

Last night I saw my first mosquito of the season, flying into my bedroom, hot on my carbon dioxide trail. I lost track of it, but minutes later I heard the soft buzz of menace in my ear. One must never underestimate the dangers of mosquitoes. Emperor Titus was driven made by one that flew up his nose and picked at his brain, buzzing ceaselessly until he was driven into madness and death. Well, at least according to the Babylonian Talmud, written by Jews hopeful that God at least took some vengeance on the sacker of the Great Temple of Jerusalem.

Actually, those ancient Jewish exiles aren’t unique in offering a slanted view of history centered on this insect. Consider yourself, a person who’s probably an environmentally aware reader. If I mention DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), the first person to spring to mind (okay, bad pun) is probably Rachel Carson. Her book, “Silent Spring,” and crusade against the chemical for its role in collapsing bird populations helped unleash one of the strongest currents in modern environmentalism, and led to the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Few remember Paul Hermann Müller, who won the Nobel Prize in 1948 for synthesizing DDT, which contemporaries saw as an incalculably humane achievement. Some credit the invention of DDT with saving upwards of 500 million lives. Even today, the mosquito threat is real. The species transmits diseases to 700 million people in tropical, often poor, regions each year. Over five million people, usually children, die from malaria annually. Mosquitoes also playing a central role in transmitting yellow fever, elephantiasis, dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, several encephalitis type diseases, and Ross River fever.

The fight over DDT usage, as policy leaders balance its risk to human health (in 1987 the EPA classified it as a “probable human carcinogen”) and the environment against its benefits. Of course, strains of mosquitoes in some regions developed a resistance to DDT in the intervening decades. Succeeding pesticides are also controversial. Locally, where 57 of the world’s 3,500 species of mosquitoes live, concerns over pesticides grew with aggressive spraying programs to eradicate insects potentially carrying the West Nile virus.

A few years back I wrote for the Village Voice about how New York City-bound containers of the insecticide malathion, made by Cheminova, was being stored at temperatures known to cause carcinogenic impurities. Spraying has continued in recent summers, affecting neighborhoods in areas as widespread as the South Bronx, western Staten Island, and northern Queens. A recent article in the Antigua Sun continues to raise the red flag.

One troubling passage on the malathion directions label reads:

“Malathion is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the USA.

The EPA doesn’t actually test malathion.  It approves the product based on information supplied by the manufacturer.”

In other words, our safety is in the hands of the industry, from the manufacturer down to the evidently often-negligent distributors.

Another aspect of the argument against malathion spraying is that our reaction to the West Nile threat could be overblown, perhaps even hysterical, given how infrequently the disease is fatal.

Some argue that given our relatively less-dense mosquito populations we might take less radical measures like wearing light-colored clothing (the species is drawn to dark colors), eating more repellent vitamin B1 (found in brown rice, blackstrap molasses, sunflower seeds, brazil nuts, wheat germ, and soybeans, among other foods), applying cinnamon oil, deploying nets and screens, and introducing more animals that prey upon mosquitoes. One odd note: mosquitoes are highly sensitive to women’s menstrual cycles. I’m not sure what that says about interspecies sisterhood…

The environmental damage done by spraying is of increasing concern. Parallel to the bee decimation, lobster stocks are historically low. Both marine biologists and the industry suspect malathion spraying, as I reported in the New York Times. Of course there are worrisome inherent contradictions with an insecticide to be used against a wetlands species like mosquitoes when the directions read, as they do on malathion, “Avoid contaminating any body of water.”

Joel Kupferman of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project pointed out to me recently that sprayers near Soundview Park were unaware that just over a ridge they were covering was the Bronx River.

What is not heard often, however, is cost of losing mosquitoes themselves. Their importance as pollinators has been greatly underestimated. After all, sugar from nectar is the species’ primary diet, not blood. Males drink no blood at all, and females imbibe blood from a variety of species only as their prenatal nutrient “superfood.” In the Centers for Disease Control photo above, you see the mother-to-be salivating her anticoagulants into capillary and sucking up a meal). Without mosquitoes, our wildflower and community gardens would be impoverished. Mosquitoes and their larvae are a vital food source for shorebirds, amphibians, reptiles, dragonflies, and small fish.

At the heart of the Petition is the belief that in approving the standards, the EPA ignored the advice of its own scientists who recommended more stringent rules, especially for the secondary standards. A Petition for Review is a direct challenge a regulation that has been promulgated by a federal agency. Usually, it is filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals and must be filed within sixty days of the publication of the regulation. This lawsuit is separate from the Writ of Mandamus that a group of states filed last month to enforce the ruling of the U.S Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. That lawsuit involves the establishment of regulations for greenhouse gases in general and CO2 in particular.

Also filing a petition for review is a group of environmental action groups, represented by EarthJustice. Their Petition was also filed on May 27, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case No. 08-1203). Included as Petitioners are the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Appalachian Mountain Club.