On the gender-equality battle

There are definitely sexist practices worth fighting for. However, the most ubiquitous example is the “he or she” phenomenon: I don’t know who first asserted that this usage was necessary, but I would like to find out where he or she lives and poke him or her in his or her eye. The above sentence well exemplifies what vexes me most about this “politically correct” behavior. The idea behind it, best I can tell, is to show that men and women, even hypothetical ones, are equal in status. But by forcing awkward construction into the sentence, the speaker equally suggests that females are so very delicate that they can be injured by not getting equal pronoun space.

Many of the similarly overzealous PC phrases that were forced on society decades ago have since been deemed, thankfully, unnecessary. No one can, for example, have a truly sincere conversation about someone being “vertically challenged.” Even the term “African-American” is dying out and being replaced by the less ethnically fretful “black.”

The main problem with “he or she” is akin to the latter issue, and it was raised by the Angry Black Woman and many of the other people who responded to her post: More than it achieves anything else, a PC construction draws attention to itself.

The cumbersome “he or she” model often draws so much attention that the substance of the sentence is actually eclipsed by the pronoun panic. (I again direct you to the last sentence in the second paragraph.) And just using "she" as a replacement for the long-established standalone "he" is similarly jarring and salient; that kind affirmative etmyological action might even be more distracting.

Don Raley, a professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism, dedicated a page of a publication editing textbook to this pronoun problem, and he cites multiple alternatives that can help a writer circumvent the clunkiness of “he or she.” Take the following sentence: “A nurse should do her job.” To fix this, you can, for example, make the subject of the sentence plural, as in “Nurses should do their jobs.” Or you can recast the whole sentence in the second person: “If you are a nurse, you should do your job.”

This does cleverly solve the “politically correct” problem for the moment, but the required reworking compounds another dilemma: By being overly sensitive toward potentially offending women, we’re sacrificing efficiency for little, if any, reward. I don’t mean just efficiency in terms of space either. I happen to believe that renowned grammarians have better things to do with their time than make answers to sexism hand-wringing (whether or not those grammarians would agree).

There is the oft-cited caveat that sexist language isn’t only about protecting the dignity of women, and the sentence reworked above is a good example of the type a person might quote to make this argument. Male nurses, they would say, have pronoun-sensitive feelings, too. But the equal-problem defense is a red herring. With all due reverence to the male nursing community, I don’t believe they are a strong enough lobby to cause this kind of massive linguistic shake-up: feminism is most certainly the culprit here.

So to the person who feels that this satisfies some feminist streak, I say that it doesn’t. If you want to break real glass ceilings, go to Saudi Arabia and rally women drivers. And to the woman who continues to disagree, I make the special plea for her to recognize how much stronger the gender would seem if we didn’t balk at gender-neutral hypotheticals. It’s only an insult if women are precious enough to take it as one. By Katy Steinmetz.

Service-Learning

When it comes to short-term volunteering abroad, do such providers actually deliver efficient results? Are we fooling ourselves, justifying our guilt, or fulfilling our own desires as volunteers? The most recent President's summit pledged a huge focus on volunteerism and the need for more and more young individuals to become involved. Case-in-point, this "service-learning movement" has indeed burgeoned amongst high schools, higher education institutions, and U.S. non-profit organizations.

Service is awarded something of a "sacred" status so it is neither popular nor political to raise questions about the assumptions of unintended effects of volunteerism which often characterizes service-learning. Between the excitement and dramatic tales of volunteer stories, the field for service-learning is therefore booming. Most studies assessing the efficiencies of such programs lean far within interest to maintain and/or grow such programs. And while some informal debates do rise occasionally, most of what should be considered an important opinion is overlooked in favor of the excitement and superficial ideas of "volunteerism."

So does service-learning teach a false understanding of need? Although I have consistently been in favor of volunteer programs, both abroad and local, I recently have come to question the appropriateness and efficiency of such commitments. For example, I am scheduled for my next volunteer mission in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti in four weeks. In light of the Cholera outbreak, where beds are few and health professionals are even fewer, is it justified for me to take away resources in exchange for only 10 days of volunteering? Americans, especially during volunteer expeditions, are protected with the utmost highest watch. That is to say, if it is even the possibility that an American does contract a health problem, greater attention will be (as history has shown) provided to that American in lieu of attention that could otherwise be given to at least more than one Haitian citizen.

Do little "blips" of volunteer trips satisfy the long-term goals and needs of countries? What is the worth of my spending several hundred dollars in U.S. funds while taking attention from Haitian government officials (though Haitian dollars)? When does it become efficient to volunteer? And most importantly, should anyone and everyone be allowed to volunteer abroad? If we placed stricter regulations on who could volunteer, where, when, and for how long, would we be more efficient in using funds and providing help? I wish there were more studies on this so I could quit speculating. But deep down, my gut instinct doesn't feel too right about what I'm about to do.

Big belly update

Big Belly Solar spotted on my campus! http://fragmented-shilpagogna.blogspot.com/2009/08/big-belly-solar.html "The BigBelly Solar Compactor is a patented compacting trash receptacle that is completely self-powered. Instead of requiring a grid connection, BigBelly uses solar power for 100% of its energy needs. The unit takes up as much space as the "footprint" of an ordinary receptacle—but its capacity is five times greater. Increased capacity reduces collection trips and can cut fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. BigBelly also provides cost efficiencies from labor savings, fuel cost and maintenance savings, as well as environmental benefits from reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Safe, easy to use, and designed to keep out pests, the BigBelly has already proven its worth in urban streets, parks, colleges, arenas—and in all weather conditions."

No Chunkin the Pumpkin

It's halloween again!...

The seeds are not the only amazing part of pumpkin! Save your pumpkin flesh and use them in desserts, dinners, and even smoothies! It is difficult to believe how much healthy food is being thrown down the disposal so families can light these fruits shells for 2-3 days before they begin rotting. Do your part and conserve the food of our globe!!!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!! :)

Pumpkin Pie

• 175g/6oz plain flour
• 75g/3oz butter
• 100g caster sugar
• 2 tbsp cold water
• pinch salt
• 450 g (1 lb) prepared weight pumpkin flesh, cut into 2.5 cm (1 in) chunks
• 2 large eggs plus 1 yolk
• 1 tsp ground cinnamon
• ½ tsp freshly grated nutmeg
• ½ tsp ground allspice
• ½ tsp ground cloves
• ½ tsp ground ginger
• 275 ml (10 fl.oz) double cream

Pre-heat the oven to 180ºC/350ºF/Gas Mark 4. Sift the flour and salt into a bowl. Cut the butter into small pieces and rub it into the flour until the mixture resembles fine breadcrumbs. Add 2 tablespoons of cold water to mix it into a firm dough, then wrap it in cling film and chill for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, to make the filling, steam the pumpkin, then put it in a sieve and press lightly to extract any excess water. Then lightly whisk the eggs and the extra yolk together in a large bowl. Place the sugar, spices and cream in a pan, bring them to simmering point, stirring with a whisk regularly. Then pour this mixture over the eggs and whisk it again briefly. Now add the pumpkin pureé, still whisking everything until it is thoroughly combined. Roll out the pastry on a lightly floured surface, then use it to line a 20cm flan dish. Prick the entire surface with a fork and bake blind at 190ºC/375ºF/Gas mark 5 for 15 minutes until just firm to the touch. Then pour the filling into your pastry case and bake for 35-40 minutes, by which time it will puff up round the edges but still feel slightly wobbly in the centre. Then remove it from the oven and place the tin on a wire cooling rack. Serve chilled (stored loosely covered in foil in the fridge) with some equally chilled créme fraïche, but warm or at room temperature would be fine.

Dangerous waste

If you live in DC or the surrounding areas, drop off your hazardous wastes here:

Date: Saturdays 8am-3pm

Location: 4900 John F. McCormack Road. Washignton, Dc, 20011

The DPW takes everything from hazardous chemicals to old television sets. (If you are unable to this, donate your old usable items on Craigslist). Ever district has its own DPW site, so find yours!

Acceptable household hazardous waste and e-cycling items include:

• Acids
• Aerosols
• Antifreeze
• Asbestos tile
• Batteries
• Cleaning chemicals
• Drain openers
• Fluorescent light bulbs
• Furniture stripper
• Stains
• Varnish
• Fertilizer
• Lighter fluid
• Mercury thermometers and mercury containing devices
• Moth balls
• Motor oil
• Paint
• Pesticides and
• Poisons
• Roofing tar
• Solvents/thinners
• Transmission fluids
• Windshield wiper and
• Brake fluids
• Wood preservatives

Electronics Recycling Acceptable Items:

• Audio/visual equipment
• Audio cassettes
• Camcorders
• CD Rom drives CDs/DVDs
• Cell Phones
• Computers and monitors
• Connectors / Cords / Wire
• Copy machines
• Fax machines
• Floppy drives Hard drives
• Memory chips
• Network / Video / Sound cards
• Pagers
• Power supplies
• Printers
• Scrap computer plastic
• Scrap computer metal
• Tape drives
• TVs
• VCRs
• VCR tapes
• Video games & Software

http://dc.gov/DC/DPW/Services+on+Your+Block/Recycling/Household+Hazardous+Waste+-+E-cycling-+Document+Shredding

For the Political Win

Making aware the pedigree of "sound science":

"Sound science is a phrase often used by corporate public relations and government agency spokesmen to describe the scientific research used to justify a claim or position. Sound science, however, has no specific scientific definition itself, so the phrase is used subjectively. “Sound science” is not a synonym of “good science” practices, but rather it is an ideological policy statement more about the criteria for the use of science in policy making. It is invoked mostly to call into question the validity of a given study or scientific statement. Many advocates of Sound Science are Anti-Science believers."

The following article discusses the current GOP Senate Candidates viewpoint on climate change and government responsibility. Despite the fact that over 97% of climate change scientists claim that global warming is significantly being impacted by human activity, most all of the current candidates oppose climate action (specifically after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnel).

See the breakdown on the individual candidates and their stances in Wonk Room's report.

GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy

 by Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Wonk Room Climate Editor

A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. In May, 2010, the National Academies of Science reported to Congress that “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change” because global warming is “caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.”

This finding is shared by scientific bodies around the world. However, in the alternate reality of the fossil-fueled right wing, climate science is confused or a conspiracy, and policies to limit pollution would destroy the economy.

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O’Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.

Many of the Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries’ Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to “Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.”

In reality, a carbon cap-and-trade market — by rewarding work instead of pollution — would increase jobs, lower electricity bills, restore American competitiveness, and forestall a climate catastrophe.

Checks and balances

I read the following excerpt in an email my medical university sent out last year. It had repeatedly pervaded my thoughts, and so thankfully today, I happened to come across it once more. Thoughts? Especially in regards to future health reform endeavors, current problems with "checks-and-balances" in government entities, and medicare/medicaid abuse, etc.

(Also-->see: http://fragmented-shilpagogna.blogspot.com/2009/12/sutton-robbed-banks-because-thats-where.html)

Futhermore, in my current Health Law classes at GW, I have come to understand more the evolution of the "no-duty" to treat principle, non-disparate treatment under EMTALA, and the civil rights law's pertinence to health care accessibility. I posed the question if it statistically significant, that health care professionals would treat a racial minority (with equal or less symptoms) before treating a non-minority patient (with equal or worse symptoms)? In terms of health care accessibility and usage of Medicare/aid, these racial minority groups tend to be African American. Since it is not entirely quantifiable, do you think it is the case that health care professionals end up violating such laws in the opposite direction, as to avoid a bad reputation?

"Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.


While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD"

Raw foodism

In my latest transition from a vegetarian to a raw food diet, I thought I would provide a few recipes which could help those motivated to make the switch too.

Mixed Kale Salad
- 2 carrots peeled and shredded
- 1 cup of grape tomatoes
- 1 cup red Kale finely chopped
- unsalted shelled pupmkin seeds
- 1/4 red onion cut into thin rings
- juice of one lemon
- 2 tbs cold pressed olive oil
- 2 cloves chopped garlic
- sea salt, cayenne, cumin
Mix all ingredients and chill

Raw Falafel
- 1 cup sprouted garbanzo beans
- 3 tbs sprouted pinta seeds
- 1 tbsp minced garlic
- 1 cup miinced fresh cilantro
- 1/2 tbs sea salt
- 1/3 cup minced fresh parsley
- 1/2 cup minced onion
- 1/2 c. fresh-squeezed lemon juice
- 1/2 tsp cayenne
- 1 tsp cumin
Blend all ingredients. Form blended mixture into 1-inch by 3-inch elongated patties. Place 2 tbsp of olive oil in slow cooker, and allow to cook for 90 minutes.

Tabouleh
- 1/4 cup medium grain bulgur cooked in slowcooker
- 1/4 cups water
- 1 cup loosely packed, roughly chopped flat-leaf parsley, about 3 bunches
- 1/2 cups peeled and diced tomatoes, about 3 to 5 Roma tomatoes,
- 1/4 cup green onions chopped, white and some of the green, about 2 green onions
- 1/4 cup chopped mint leaves
Dressing:
- 1/4 cup freshly squeezed lemon juice
- 1/4 teaspoon minced garlic
- Pinch seasalt
- 1 tablespoon extra-virgin olive oil
Toss together main ingredients in dressing, chill and enjoy!

Although vegetarian dishes can have its health benefits, many vegetarian cooked foods can be unhealthy too. I am not even talking about overly-processed "meat-free" vegetarian meals/snacks. Strictly from a pure food p.o.v, the more you cook a food product, and the higher temperature you cook your food in, the more the item becomes acidic, as well as toxic/less digestable. I am not, by any means, advocating vegetariansim, as I believe meat consumption (through proper and humane means) has its benefits. In fact, I come from a family full of carnivores. However, over the past year, I have become increasingly turned off by it, and decided to become entirely vegetarian. An explosion in packaged and convenience foods in the late 20th century has directly been linked to a steady rise in obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. Many foods that were once thought of as treats, such as soda and candy, are now in our daily diets. Portion sizes continue to evolve and fast food restaurants are sprouting along every Main Street and highway in America. Today, the average supermarket is packed with frozen meals, packaged dinners, side dishes and canned goods replete with artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and many other ingredients whose long term effects remain unknown, despite passing FDA scrutiny. So, before you plan your next meal, think about what you are eating. Make each meal count!

In tribute!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/health/14kelsey.html?_r=1&hpw
"Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey is 96 now, nearly deaf and barely mobile, as modest as her faded house in this Washington suburb. And though her story is nearly forgotten, she was once America’s most admired civil servant — celebrated for her dual role in saving thousands of newborns from the perils of the drug thalidomide and in serving as midwife to modern pharmaceutical regulation. "

The late 1950's was a time of a new beginnings: a time when optimism and energy flourished. World War II was now a memory, and instead it became replaced with growing visions and a developing scientific epicenter. Innovations became prevalent and tomorrowland seemingly arrived. Housewives were serving TV dinners in less than 5 minutes of preparation and X-ray machines were being found at shoe stores everywhere. It would only be a matter of a few years before Boeings 707s would be able to transverse nations in a matter of hours, or faster vehicles would drive coast-to-coast on Eisenhower's new turnpike systems. Successful nations only became more and more so, following the advent of technology, which I can only say cast a heavy and increasing anxiety of international threat of annihilation. By the late 1950's nuclear war drills became commonplace in schools across North America, only to be supported by a booming fallout shelter business.

Recurring threats between the U.S., Southeast Asia, and the Suez Canal only reminded the world that World War II was not the last word. Central and eastern european nations, I could say, were developing the most rapidly. The USSR was the first to launch the Sputnik satellite, and when the launch of the first U.S. satellite exploded in 1957, the USSR was applauding the launch of their second satellite. Perhaps Germany experienced the shorter end of the stick during WWII, as the final years of the war had been a living nightmare. Most citizens had no idea if they would wake up alive the next morning, and had even began expecting to open their eyes to bombing or dangerous wastes. So it was no surprise, that when tranquilizers and sleeping pills were introduced in Germany in the early 1960's, citizens were supported to partake in its usage as a way to relieve post-war anxiety. I found that almost 1 million people in Great Britain were using barbiturates daily and almost 15% of central European prescriptions were a barbiurate or sedative of some sort. Not to mention, suicide by sleeping pills was the seemingly popular way to check out. The U.S. didn't stray far behind, while they produced over 4 billion sedatives in just 1955 alone. Pharmaceuticals flourished. Get this, the U.S. actually allowed usage of a prescription medicine that could speed up the process of suntanning: "You can turn the color of a life guard!" was at the head of their vision statement. I am sure most everyone is familiar with Huxley's Brave New World, where he described how the dependence upon alcohol in forgetting Communist threats and society's woes would soon be cross-tolerated with invention of a "wonder drug"--a pill which could help people unwind without, psychiatrically speaking, ellicit any abusive or dependent symptoms. "Will the pharmacologist be able to do better thant he brewers and distillers?"

It was no surprise then, that just a month after Huxley's statement, that Germany began distribution of a newly, and uninvestigated, "wonderdrug" Thalidomide within large parts of Europe. This was done under the leading German pharmaceutical company Gruenthal, which was mainly given its fame after mold production of industrial penicillin. Oh and by fame, I mean notorious for throwing drugs in the market without any sense of adequate testing...forget exhaustive testing at the least. Thalidomide was first administered to help decrease feelings of uncomfort in pregnant women. Soon enough, it was discovered that this drug had absolutely no effect as an antibiotic, but what it did show, was a high sedative affect in humans. Surprisngly, this drug showed no affects in animals. In fact, the toxicity test results were beyond remarkable. Even at the highest doses, it was nearly impossible to attain the LD50 (the dose at which 50% of the subjects die). (WHICH THIS BRINGS ME TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT RELATING TO VEGANS AND USERS OF MEDICINE. EVERY SINGLE DRUG AVAILABLE IN THE U.S HAS BEEN TESTED AND KILLED MILLIONS OF ANIMALS). By the way, there were at least some rules, which detailed that drug could not be put on the European markets without "successful results" (even slightly below an LD50 denotes success) in both humans and animals. So of course Gruenthal manipulated their research, to forcibly induce results with compound treatments to show that, in company, Thalidomide can produce sedative effects.

Through fiscal means, Gruenthal managed to leak its force within scientific journals internationally recognized, supporting the usage of Thalidomide. Giving out free samples to companies and physician offices everywhere, advertisements with children reaching for a bottle of Thalidomide (Distaval) stated "This medicine could save your child's life" (as it was also used as a means to calm children down in anxious moments. It even came to the point that this drug was commonly known as the "babysitter" as it had the powerful ability to always produce consistent sedative effects. In fact, this drug became so commonly used that pregnant women did not even list it on injested medications on routine physicals. Eventually, this drug found its way across the entire world, (and for once I am happy to admit that the FDA disallowed entrance of this drug into the U.S) totalling over 12.4 million dollars of sales in 1961. Thaldomide began being mixed into other pharmaceutical treatments, to which even an addition to common advil and tylenol.

This is a PERFECT example how fiscal interests and greedy powers can inflict horrible results. The lack of extensive research, and the growing rush to get a "goldmine" drug into the market ended up, within JUST TWO YEARS OF ADMINISTRATION, producing birth defects in the thousands. Children were being born with fetal limb abnromalities and loss of external structures, such as the ears and nose. And JUST three months ago, Germany finally began dispensing compensation for thalidomide victims (OVER 40 YEARS LATER. please read!!: http://www.goinglegal.com/article_863416_101.html). Thalidomide, even now, is still being released as an off-label drug as a "special needs" medication to patients with severe pain. In truth, Thalidomide may have some beneficial effects to those women whom are not pregnant or not planning to become pregnant. However, that is only a short-term vision. It is, an essence, a hippocratic dilemna. It can destroy you or it can save you. Though, there is nothing to be said until it undergoes years of extensive treatment, as such all pharmaceuticals should. YOUR PATIENTS ARE NOT YOUR RESEARCH. And to all of us becoming physicians, I think the take-home statement is this: be aware that short-term success does not mean long-term benefits. We may be doing more harm than good. I think the even bigger question may be why individuals choose to venture into pharmaceuticals for purposes so unnecessary. There are clearly more homeopathic and physical ways of doing so. Listen to your body, not the pills.

Not so local

While most grocery stores across the nation now have “local produce” sections for a wide variety of fresh items, I have become increasingly aware that “local produce” doesn’t always mean just that. Grocery stores, such as the well-known Publix, Safeway, Haris Teeter, and Trader Joe's, use the concept of “local foods” to mean foods that are picked “locally” at different reference locations, and then shipped into the store over wide distances. For example, a grocery store may ship in “local produce” from independent farms from at least 200 miles away. With local produce labeled as cherries “from the USA” and pineapples “from Costa Rica”, costs of wasted fuel make up for the difference in non-local products. Simply put, this technique helps grocers bring in discounted items, while also paying discounted percent profit to those local farmers—no need to pay a middle-man for brand-name products. Studies show that “farmers receive just 10% to 21% of the retail price of their produce at supermarkets...not enough for a small family farm to survive on, while at farmers markets they get to keep an average 84%."

Although shopping at farmer markets is not always conducive to a hectic schedule, studies also show that shopping at farmers market increases social interaction by over 300 times. A big plus for people who want to learn more about what they’re eating from some of the people who know it best-- "92% of farmers market shoppers said it was important to them to be able to buy food directly from a local farmer [while] 62% said it was extremely important."

So while it is encouraging to our environment for individuals to include local produce on their grocery lists, be aware of what you are buying, as well as try your best to support the small-business farmers in your area be more sustainable. 

On defying tradition

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/05/12/sidner.iyw.india.pathfinder.cnn

Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

The spilling truth

Coal ash, the waste that remains after coal is combusted, contains some of the most dangerous toxics on the planet -- and it's leaching, leaking and spilling out of disposal sites across the nation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now considering two possible alternatives for regulation of coal ash. We need you to tell the EPA that to protect public health, states must be required to use effective coal ash disposal technology.

Coal ash toxins can cause cancer, damage the nervous system, and contaminate surface water and drinking water. Yet coal ash disposal is not yet regulated by the federal government, and the loose patchwork of state regulation is inadequate to protect human health. The EPA is weighing two regulatory options:

• One, known as "Subtitle C," would require the states to adhere to strict new federal rules. It would also phase out dangerous wet disposal of coal ash, like the storage pond that burst in Tennessee in 2008, flooding a river valley with a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge.
  
  
• The second, "Subtitle D," would set guidelines for coal ash disposal, but allow states to opt out of them. Storage sites not following the optional guidelines could be labeled as "open dumps" -- and then citizens would have to file suit against utility companies in order to enforce the legal prohibitions against open dumps.

Talk about getting it backwards!

Please email the EPA with a clear message: Protection from toxic coal ash requires Subtitle C's strong regulations and mandatory compliance. When it comes to the arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and other toxic substances in coal ash, we must prevent toxic contamination -- not try to mop it up after it happens.

For background information, see Physicians for Social Responsibility's fact sheets on the health impacts of coal ash toxins,FAQ's on coal ash, and suggestions for filing effective comments with the EPA.

Ain't No Reason

Brett Dennen put it best in his song "Ain't No Reason" when he said that slavery was stitched to the fabric of his clothes. And with such truth in his words, an estimated 250 million textile child laborers between the ages five and fourteen worldwide, toil in farms or factories under gruesome conditions for the purpose of developing American imports with little to no monetary compensation. And while this is an understood fact, it is also a commonly overlooked one.

So although this is just a start, with the help of groups like Maggie's Organics, there is still hope. Maggie's Organics plan to be the first and only clothing company that is independently certified with stricter standards in fair labor practices. And Maggie's Organics makes it affordable too. With most items, from dresses to scarves, priced between 10 and 35 dollars, this company stays fiscally manageable. Maggie's Organics will be upon stringent watch by SCS, the scientific certification system.

" [The] independent monitor inspected every stage of Maggie's production chain, from the growing of organic cotton and ginning and spinning the crop fabric into fabric in Nicaragua, to cutting and sewing garments in Costa Rica, to screen printing, office and warehouse operations in Michigan. Criteria investigated by SCS (scientific certification system) include: hiring, wages, working conditions, hours of work, freedom of association and freedom to organize, and access to housing, health care and transportation."

So gear up for winter and support Maggie's Organics=) and tell your friends too.

Return of the TSCA

Following Senator Lautenberg’s introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act in April, House Representatives Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act 2010, H.R. 5820, a bill discussing reformation methods for the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Over thirty years since Congress first opened discussion of protection from toxic chemicals, TSCA was first brought into the legal spotlight in 1976. However, following TSCA’s initial introduction, little success has been proved by a bill which lacked safety review, maintained unregulated public chemical exposure, and created disruptive communication amongst the EPA, FDA, and the act itself.

This most recent bill would overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which has done little to regulate chemicals in consumer products, including those linked to cancer and other health problems. The House legislation would heavily increase public health protections from toxic chemicals.

Some aspects of the bill include:

• Requiring the chemical industry to demonstrate that a chemical is safe, as opposed to relying on the EPA to prove a chemical is unsafe.
• Requiring chemicals to meet a health standard before they are allowed on the market.
• Requiring chemical manufacturers to provide basic health and safety information for all chemicals, as a condition for being allowed to remain on the market.
• Requiring the EPA to rely on the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations to incorporate the latest science in chemical safety determinations.
• Requiring the EPA to identify and restrict persistent, bioaccumulative toxins.

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection recently held a hearing discussing the legislation’s next steps in amending the Toxic Substances Control Act. Notably, Steven Owens, Administrator at the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, opened discussion by admitting to EPA’s need in developing more cooperation from the chemical industry in regulating global safety from toxics. Owens stated that “implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded, in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting that goal. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers."

At the same hearing, Calvin Dooley, president of American Chemistry Council, noted “any approach toward updating chemical regulation should

· Ensure worker, consumer and public safety as its highest priority;

- Preserve the ability of the United States to serve as the innovation engine for the world; and

· Protect the hundreds of thousands of American jobs fueled directly and indirectly by the business of chemistry.

I am sure most can agree that it is well beyond time for measures to be taken in reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, first signed into law by President Ford. Now, under the Obama administration, we are taking bigger steps to make our country safer and increasingly protected from toxins and chemicals flooding our industry. With huge concern, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has grandfathered over 60,000 without review into our public system



"Flaws of the Toxic Substances Control Act

EDF's Richard Denison testifies before a House subcommittee (February 2009) on the urgent need for chemical policy reform.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which Congress passed in September of 1976, was supposed to give Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to identify and regulate dangerous chemicals. The law was also supposed to require chemical companies to give Americans the information needed to assess the safety of their products.

The "grandfather" problem

Unfortunately, TSCA "grandfathered in" some 62,000 chemicals in use at the time it was enacted—that is, chemical companies could keep selling them without safety testing. Today, most chemicals on the market are among those original 62,000 and have never been tested.

The "unreasonable risk" problem

TSCA contained another fatal flaw. To regulate a chemical, the law places the burden of proving a chemical is causing harm on EPA, rather than requiring chemical producers to prove their chemicals are safe. In addition, the law requires that EPA prove a chemical presents an "unreasonable risk."

In practice, this standard has been impossible for EPA to meet. The only chemicals banned under TSCA are PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), which were widely used in transformers and electrical equipment and that happened only because the ban was written by Congress into the original law.

EPA couldn't even ban asbestos, a known and deadly carcinogen. In 1991, a federal Court of Appeals threw out EPA's regulation banning asbestos because, the court said, the agency had failed to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk. In the wake of this precedent, EPA never tried to ban a chemical under TSCA again.

The secrecy problem

Under TSCA, chemical companies can label as trade secrets virtually any of the information they submit to EPA about their products. And EPA, the law states, may not share information claimed as secret with the public, with state or local governments, or with the governments of other countries.

The chemical industry is highly competitive, and some protection for research and trade secrets is reasonable. But the chemical industry has exploited this loophole to claim that information about 95% of their new chemicals should be secret. They make the same claim even about many chemicals for which they are required to submit health and safety data.

EPA can challenge these claims. But TSCA says they must be contested on a case-by-case basis, and the agency simply hasn't the resources to examine more than a tiny percentage of the thousands of claims made each year.

The result? The identities of almost 20% of the tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial use in the United States—from flame retardants to laundry detergent additives—are kept secret from consumers, scientists and government regulators. And even health and safety information, which under TSCA is supposed to be ineligible for trade secret protection, is routinely claimed by companies to be confidential, rendering the information inaccessible to the public."

1.more.4.0

From the makers of Inconvenient Truth, comes Countdown to Zero, a Physicians for Social Responsibility associated documentary. Although there are some biased falsities and exaggerated evidence, it is an important discussion regarding the nuclear arms race--definitely worth watching! Check out the trailer here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572769/

As the bill spills

As the casket for the climate bill closes, both the house and senate switch gears as they release bills concerning the oil disaster in the gulf. These bills will attempt to amp up regulation of drilling procedures, as well as to regulate drilling operations more strictly. Liability caps for these oil companies will also be eliminated, allowing such groups to be fully and financially accountable for any infringement on the ecosystem. Kate Sheppard with Mother Jones, discusses the main topics of the bill as follows:

• Eliminates the $75 million liability cap for offshore oil spills.


• Amends the Death on High Seas Act to eliminate the cap on liability for workers who die at sea.


• Repeals the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act of 1851, which Deepwater Horizon owner Transocean tried to use to curb its liability for the incident.


• Holds oil company CEOs accountable for safety failures on rigs and drilling operations.


• Sets tougher standards for inspection of blowout preventers and other equipment intended to shut off wells in the event of an emergency, and require independent certification by a third party.


• Requires more layers of redundancy on safety equipment to close wells in case of an accident.


• Sets new standards for the cementing and casing of wells.


• Raises penalties for safety violations.


• Requires all companies drilling in the outer continental shelf to pay royalties on oil and gas, a measure that sponsors say would bring in $53 billion dollars in lost revenue over 25 years.


• Ends the practice of granting categorical exclusions to detailed environmental analysis for offshore operations.


• Adds protections for whistleblowers who call attention to safety violations in oil and gas operations.


• Bars companies with poor safety record from obtaining new leases.

According to Sheppard, the last discussion point of the bill will be the most effective. "The measure that would bar oil companies with a history of safety violations from bidding on new leases is among the most aggressive; the measure, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), would essentially block BP from new drilling in the US for the foreseeable future. Any company that racks up more than $10 million in fines for air or water violations within seven years, has at least five times the industry average on worker safety violations, or more than 10 fatalities at an individual facility would be barred from bidding. This, of course, is very bad news for BP. "Their record on safety is egregious," said Miller. "We need to assure American people we're only allowing responsible bidders."

With liability caps out of reach and an increased stringency in the off-shore oil drilling market, this could possibly be one giant step for mankind.

Take 5

While it's hot out, Uber-hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, a self-described “die hard contrarian,” tells it like it is in his blunt 2Q 2010 letter on global warming.

An excellent viewpoint from a non-scientific perspective, Grantham discusses conspiracies in global warming, the costs and risks associated with investing in environmental protection, and the steps involved in marketing a climate "fund".

Up, up, and away!

A congratulations is in order for The Zephyr, a solar-powered aeroplane capable of enduring over 14 days of non-stop flight, nearly 13 days more than any other unmanned air flight. With its eternal aircraft capabilities, The Zephyr, weighing in at 110 pounds, uses thin, cheap, and light-weight solar panels to maintain air-flight at over 70,000 feet without the need to refuel. Its panels recharge lithium-sulphur batteries throughout the day, powering the aircraft’s engines at night. Although this aircraft was built in the UK, current testing is taking place at the Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, where it will take off once again to beat its own 14 day super-record.

With the ability and endurance to fly at high altitudes, The Zephyr could be used for reconnaissance purposes without hurting the environment as much as fuel-engine aircrafts. Military drones are limited by capability due to their refueling needs. Earth-observing satellites are unable to continuously circle areas repeatedly. So this special aircraft will fill the hole that other technologies cannot. Watch a video of the zephyr here.

Another reason why make up sucks

Do you know it is legal for cosmetics manufacturers to use chemicals directly linked to cancer and reproductive harm in their products? Such toxic chemicals are also used in salons every day and as a result, consumers are at risk. I just signed a petition telling my Congress member to SUPPORT consumer health by supporting the safe cosmetics legislation. Cosmetics already play a damaging role on our environment and animals. We must stand together and take action to protect our rights to public information and health safety. http://16deathsperday.com/

Gardening!

Try growing your own herbs, fruits and vegetables! Chemical agriculture on a large scale depends on very few chemicals: mainly nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Though important, they aren't the only elements that plants need to grow and produce healthy fruits and vegetables. One study I read shows that a naturally grown vegetable (with homemade fertilizer and organic potting soil) had 84 identified minerals and elements as compared to only 8-10 in the same vegetable (using seeds from the same seed packet) grown conventionally. IE: with the standard chemical fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides.


So try out your green thumb and plant a few of your favorites. Plus, you'll love being able to walk by your plants whenever you like, and smell fresh herbs or flowers! Plus plus:) Be careful to take care of your plants daily! if you have any questions, I'll be happy to help:)

Your toxic veggie burger

A recent report by the Cornucopia Institute shows that many non-organic vegetarian products which are currently available in our supermarkets contain Hexane, a dangerous neurotoxin. Hexane is used by these soy-based food comapnies in order to seperate the soy oil from the soy protein as well as eliminate fat from the soy.

Vegetarian foods containing soy protein isolates, soy protein concentrates, or texturized veggie proteins are created with Hexane products. You WILL find these specific toxins in veggie-soy products from the following companies:

· Amy’s Kitchen
· Trader Joe’s
· Boca Burger, conventional
· Franklin Farms
· Garden Burger
· It’s All Good Lightlife
· Morningstar Farms
· President’s Choice
· Taste Above
· Yves Veggie Cuisine

Even though "organic" prodcuts are not supposed to contain any hexane-derived products, soy-foods that are given the label "made with organic ingredients" follow NO SUCH GUIDELINES.

'If you use such vegan products, you ARE harming your health and the environment in ways you are unaware. Consider the vast amount of products that consumers demand which are necessary for the vegan lifestyle - foods containing grains, corn, and soy such as well as ingredients in personal care products, and household items - and you begin to get an idea of just how widespread the use and consumption of vegan foods and products really is. Proponents of the vegan diet claim these studies are invalid and that vegans are often healthier than meat eaters, but these suppositions FAIL to take into account the following factors:

1. The majority of soy eaten in developed countries such as the U.S. is
processed, altered, and highly toxic to our bodies and the earth. The same is
true for many grains and corn.
Claims are continually made that Asian people
have consumed soy for centuries and enjoy robust health. What is seldom
mentioned is the fact that Asian people consume fermented soy (miso and tempeh,
for example), and in much smaller quantities than people in developed countries
(such as the U.S.).
2. The fact that most meat consumed by citizens in
developed societies is the conventional, factory-farmed variety - the very type
of meat which directly contributes to poor state of health in humans. Animals
from these operations are given feed that promotes disease - grains, corn, and
soy (and much of this feed is also genetically-altered). Then, farmers
administer antibiotics to counteract illness. These animals are also given
hormones to speed up growth and maximize profits. All of these substances are in
the meat you eat - and cause your health to decline. Not only does
conventionally meat wreak havoc directly on human health, but the methods used
in farming are also exceedingly damaging to the environment
3. Human beings
need healthy meat to obtain proper nutrition from a clean source -
sustainable-raised, pasture and grass-fed meat from animals that are allowed to
roam and eat proper types of feed - not commercially-produced meat coming from
abused animals in the worst possible conditions. Unfortunately, the
factory-farmed meat represents the bulk of what is available on the market, is
consumed by the majority of meat eaters, and is the culprit of those very
illnesses and diseases which vegans blame on eating meat in the first place.

Traditionally, vegans rely heavily on soy foods to supplement protein in their diet. Research reveals that soy consumption has a negative impact both on human health and the ecosystem. The majority of soy produced is grown with farming methods which use genetic modification, chemical fertilizers, and toxic pesticides. Soy farming is also responsible for the destruction of important pristine lands such as rainforest area in the Amazon. Another commonly used food in vegan diets is grains. Like soy, the majority of grains produced use farming methods which have a negative impact on the environment. Since the market explosion over the last several decades of vegan and vegetarian foods in food stores, a proliferation of processed soy and grain products requiring packaging materials are now available which also contribute to more garbage and toxins in the environment. Corn is in the same category, and is found in many vegan foods as well as thousands and thousands of other food, household, and personal care products on the market. It could even be construed that anyone not supporting sustainable farming agriculture for production of food, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DON’T EAT MEAT, are directly contributing to the INCREASE of more pollution and destruction to our environment. Diets void of meat proteins and replete with plant variety proteins are lacking in many nutrients necessary for optimal health. Soy can inhibit absorption of vital nutrients in the body, and can cause or contribute to deficiencies such as Vitamin B. Parents who impose a vegan diet on their growing children are also believed to commit a gross disservice to the health of their offspring. Professor Lindsay Allen of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service stated, "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, there are increasing results of babies who are born small, they grow very slowly, and they are developmentally retarded - possibly permanently." Lindsay is particularly pointed toward those who eliminate fats from children's diets such as meat and dairy foods. "If you are talking about feeding young children, pregnant women, and lactating women, I would go so far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life. There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegan.'