Tuesday casserole

WTF is wrong with Americans?

Why we should watch the virulent religious fanaticism oozing to the surface in the US.

What is wrong with Governor Brown?  MORE jails? Really?

Paving with solar panels.

Hagfish kill by slime.

Drinkable books.

10 ingredients that don't belong in your bathroom.

Shaming, shunning, (soon to be stoning) women who have abortions.

A billboard actually doing something worth while: eating pollution.

Al Franken on the internetal tubes.

Oh, and Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

Tetris to torture.

Why we love Tetris.

Make your own solar system.

Clinging to their guns... so they can take down the government...

Dryer sheets are filled with toxic chemicals?

Mars mystery 'flower'.

A letter to Kathryn Bigelow on Zero Dark Thirty's apology for torture

Nothing could possibly go wrong, they said....

Genetically modified grass blamed for mass cattle deaths in Texas

Preliminary tests revealed that the grass, an altered form of Bermuda grass known as Tifton 85, had mysteriously begun producing cyanide gas. Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are conducting further tests to determine if some sort of mutation caused the grass to suddenly begin giving off the deadly gas.

 [snip]

Abel told CBS that he’d been using the modified grass for about fifteen years with no problems, until now. And he’s not the only one with a suddenly toxic pasture. Other farmers in the area who use the same modified grass have also found cyanide on their properties, though as yet no other cattle have died. Genetically modified crops have long been used to feed both humans and farm-raised animals. In recent years, however, activists concerned about potentially detrimental health impacts from GMOs have begun pushing for increased regulation and labeling of food products that contain modified crops. In California, voters will decide in November on a ballot measure that would require companies to label all foods containing GMOs. Such a law would be the first of its kind in the nation.

Study debunks myths on organic farms

The results are in from a 30-year side-by-side trial of conventional and organic farming methods at Pennsylvania's Rodale Institute. Contrary to conventional wisdom, organic farming outperformed conventional farming in every measure.
There are about 1,500 organic farmers in Saskatchewan, at last count. They eschew the synthetic fertilizers and toxic sprays that are the mainstay of conventional farms. Study after study indicates the conventional thinking on farming - that we have to tolerate toxic chemicals because organic farming can't feed the world - is wrong.
In fact, studies like the Rodale trials (www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years) show that after a three-year transition period, organic yields equalled conventional yields. What is more, the study showed organic crops were more resilient. Organic corn yields were 31 per cent higher than conventional in years of drought.
These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically modified (GM) "drought tolerant" varieties, which showed increases of only 6.7 per cent to 13.3 per cent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.
More important than yield, from the farmer's perspective, is income, and here organic is clearly superior. The 30-year comparison showed organic systems were almost three times as profitable as the conventional systems. The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for.
But even without a price premium, the Rodale study found organic systems are competitive with the conventional systems because of marginally lower input costs.

It puts to shame Monsanto and RoundUp and all the other Big Ag companies poisoning our food and our water.

Blog sprinkles

Friggatriskaidekaphobia!

War on reproductive rights. What Health Reform means for women.

"Non-toxic" chemicals that can kill you

10 Worst States To Be a Woman

Defining Natural Born for the last time

Eight facts and three thoughts about Social Security by Ezra Klein

The Information Sage: Meet Edward Tufte, the graphics guru to the power elite who is revolutionizing how we see data.

Full meltdown

Perspective on Chomsky

Why Ayn Rand and Her Legion of Followers Are Hopelessly Wrong

The universe.

When corporations and morons are allowed to rule the world

15 Dangerous Drugs Big Pharma Shoves Down Our Throats

Chemical Industry Lobbyists Block Measure to Protect Infants and Toddlers

Probe is sought of lead in reusable grocery bags (But what else is new?)

Rep. Schock’s Response To Poll Showing 64 Percent Want End To Tax Cuts For Wealthy: Americans ‘Reject’ That

Another 1995-style government shutdown?

In 2007, Beck Praised IAVA But Now Demonizes The Vets Group As Part Of His Made-Up Soros Conspiracy

But.... I LIKE bacon....

Darn...

Processed Meats Declared Too Dangerous for Human Consumption

Toxic homes

BERKELEY — Women with higher blood levels of PBDEs, a type of flame retardant commonly found in household consumer products, took longer to become pregnant compared with women who have lower levels of PBDEs, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.

The study, to be published Jan. 26 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that each 10-fold increase in the blood concentration of four PBDE chemicals was linked to a 30 percent decrease in the odds of becoming pregnant each month.

Sign the petition:

Dear FDA Administrator Jackson,

A UC Berkeley study recently revealed that women with high levels of Polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants in their blood were 30-50 percent less likely to become pregnant than those women with lower levels.

This is a troubling and dangerous statistic. I am aware that the current PBDE that is being used will not be phased out until 2013, and I believe that is too far away. However, I am more concerned that the chemicals that are replacing PBDEs are just as unknown to us, as are their affects on the human body. If these chemicals are going to be replacing PBDEs in order to meet fire safety standards, then it is critical that these chemicals undergo rigorous testing as to their affects on human health.

It is incredibly disconcerting to find out that products are extremely dangerous many years after having those products in my home. Please ensure that any chemicals released for public use are properly tested.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]

Just one word.... Plastics

Plastic Plastic Everywhere: The 5 Gyres Project posted by Dave Chameides

....you’ve most certainly heard about the plastic mass that is floating out in the North Pacific Gyre. The gyre, one of several in the world, is a vortex of currents swirling inwards that lies between California and Japan. Like a toilet bowl that never flushes, it’s filled with plastic debris from man made items. So much so that from the first time it was studied until now, it has grown from the size of the state of Texas to twice the size of the continental United States!

How do I know this? Simple, my friends, Dr. Marcus Erikson and Anna Cummins, along with a bevy of other scientists, have traversed it, not once, but several times, in order to study what is actually happening out there. And what they found is truly disturbing. While the plastic soup is not concentrated, meaning you wouldn’t be able to see it from the air, once you get in the water, it can’t be missed. Thousands of tiny confetti-like pieces of plastic, filling otherwise pristine waters, waiting to be ingested.

I've been fascinated by the gyres ever since I heard about them a few years ago. That and the growing Dead Zones that occur in the Gulf of Mexico and around major coastal cities.

Is Plastic Making Us Fat?

Hormone-mimicking chemicals that already have a bad rap for their role as endocrine disruptors in the body (including the notorious bisphenol A (BPA)), are now thought to also screw with the body’s metabolism and, depending on the amount and timing of exposure, predispose individuals to obesity.

We’re surrounded by these chemicals: BPA and pthalates are everywhere, from water bottles to dryer sheets to the PVC pipes that deliver your shower water, and they’re taking their toll. Call them obesogens–a term coined by Bruce Blumberg, a leading researcher on the issue. A recent Newsweek story illustrates the increasing body of evidence that links these chemicals to the body’s metabolism.

Just one word... Plastics!

Harmful chemicals in our environment that never get reported

My bold:

The 33-year old law that was supposed to ensure that Americans know what chemicals are in use around them, and what health and safety hazards they might pose, has produced a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in – but much never comes out.

The reason is that under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the chemical industry has been allowed to stamp a “trade secret” claim on the identity of two-thirds of all chemicals introduced to the market in the last 27 years, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These include substances used in numerous consumer and children’s products.

EWG’s analysis also showed that:

* The public has no access to any information about approximately 17,000 of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the master inventory compiled by the EPA.
* Industry has placed “confidential business information” (CBI) claims on the identity of 13,596 new chemicals produced since 1976 – nearly two-thirds of the 20,403 chemicals added to the list in the past 33 years.
* Secrecy claims directly threaten human health. Under section 8(e) of TSCA, companies must turn over all data showing that a chemical presents “a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” By definition compounds with 8(e) filings are the chemicals of the greatest health concern. In the first eight months of 2009 industry concealed the identity of the chemicals in more than half the studies submitted under 8(e).
* From 1990 to 2005, the number of confidential chemicals more than quadrupled – from 261 to 1,105 -- on the sub-inventory of substances produced or imported in significant amounts (more than 25,000 pounds a year in at least one facility). In July 2009 the EPA released the identity of 530 of these chemicals, lowering the number of these moderate- and highproduction volume secret chemicals to 575.
* At least 10 of the 151 high volume confidential chemicals produced or imported in amounts greater than 300,000 pounds a year are used in products specifically intended for use by children age 14 or younger.

More:

Americans have no way to learn crucial information about more than 65 percent of new chemicals approved by the U.S. government since 1977, including the substances’ makeup and what health and safety hazards they might pose. Those “details” are being kept secret under federal policies that allow industry to claim that the chemicals’ very existence is a trade secret, the Environmental Working Group has learned.

This cloak of secrecy applies even to chemicals that industry identifies as presenting “a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” Under the law, companies must tell EPA anytime they find such a risk. EWG has learned, however, that in the first quarter of this year, industry used confidentiality claims to conceal the identity of more than half the chemicals it reported to Environmental Protection Agency under this requirement.

Since the EPA began keeping an inventory of known chemicals under the weak Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the number of agents declared to be “confidential” has ballooned to nearly 17,000, according to the information the agency provided.

And the Washington Post:

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.

The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.

At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.

Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.

Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.

h/t to Lisa Frack of the Enviroblog.

(Note: I can't label specifics until I get my tags under 5000.... very frustrating and time consuming. So I can't label the TSCA, the EWG, and others... yet.)

Reminiscing on 2009's efforts to keep toxic chemicals out of our bodies

That the chemical companies want us to ignore:

Best of Enviroblog 2009: Top 10 posts

An excellent blog which I'm putting on my blogroll.

Toxic kids

An email from the Sierra Club:

Did you know that babies are being born with more than 300 industrial chemicals in their bodies, many associated with diseases from childhood cancer to birth defects, infertility and learning deficits?

America's toxic chemical safety law fails to protect the most vulnerable in society, kids. It assumes that chemicals are safe and relies on the government to identify dangerous chemicals among the 80,000 on the market. That hasn't worked. Instead, the burden should be on chemical manufacturers to prove that chemicals are safe for infants and children before they enter the marketplace.

California Senator Barbara Boxer has long supported the Kids-Safe Chemicals Act, which will make many important changes to chemical safety law to protect children. Urge her to keep up the good work and pass the bill.

As Chair of the Senate's Environment Committee, Senator Boxer is in a key position to pass legislation to protect kids’ health from toxic chemicals in our food, air and water. The Kids-Safe Chemical Act would put the burden on chemical manufacturers to test chemicals' health effects thoroughly before marketing them, guarantee the public’s right to know about health and safety data, and give the EPA clear authority to ban or restrict chemicals.

Senator Boxer has long been a leader in advocating protection of childrens' health. Urge her to pass the Kids-Safe Chemical Act ASAP.

Thanks for taking action to protect our children's future.

Greg Haegele
Director of Conservation

Wait a second.... Just what have you been putting in my food?

And why on earth would we take the word of a corporation during the Bush era?

Institute, WV (AHN) - An explosion at a West Virginia chemical plant Thursday night killed one worker while critically injuring another and produced a fireball seen 12 miles away in Charleston.

The explosion at the Bayer CropScience chemical plant in Institute happened at about 10:30 p.m.

A Bayer official told Kanawha County officials that the three chemicals involved in the explosion were dimethyl disulfide, methylisobutylketone and hexane.

[snip]

Methomyl is is a highly toxic compound in EPA toxicity class I, classified as a restricted use pesticide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because of its high acute toxicity to humans, according to a pesticide information profile on the Cornell University website.

Because Methomyl is poisonous to humans, affecting the nervous system through inhalation, as well as contact, when it is used on crops, farm workers are not allowed back into the field for one to seven days depending on the crop.

Methomyl is used on "vegetable, fruit and field crops, cotton, commercial ornamentals, and in and around poultry houses and dairies," and works by inhibiting the proper functioning of the nervous system of insects, according to information from Cornell University.

Officials say no toxic chemicals have been released outside the plant, according to local reports.

Do we have to worry about the safety of honey now?

Kim Flottum of the Beekeeper notes the most recent studies about the bees' mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder: (my bold)

Recent work by the Penn State scientists is a case in point. These scientists tried an experiment where the Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus was introduced to healthy honey bee colonies to see what would happen. It was shown quite dramatically that bees with that exposure pretty much all died. Moreover, they died away from the hive, just like in the cases of Colony Collapse Disorder. After about a month all that remained in the colonies were small clusters, many of them queenless. This certainly makes a case for this virus being extremely pathogenic, and perhaps associated with CCD, say the scientists. But they are quickto add that there’s more going on than just this virus.

[snip]

For both pollen and wax, the three most common pesticides found were Coumaphos, Fluvalinate and Chlorpyrifos. The first two compounds are chemicals beekeepers use to control varroa mites. The third is an agricultural insecticide.

The biggest surprise was that the researchers found that over the 20+ years that fluvalinate has been used to control varroa mites in beehives the formulation has changed significantly. This certainly scared me, and it should you, too - the toxicity of this once safe and benign chemical has increased from an LD50 of 65.85 micorgrams/honey bee (a non-toxic level) down to only 0.2 micrograms/honey bee (a highly toxic level). That means it has become over 300 times more toxic to honey bees, and there has been no change in instructions, that is, USE LESS nor has there been any warnings to beekeepers relative to this change. As a result, toxic levels of fluvalinate, toxic levels to honey bees that is, were found in the beeswax of some samples.

The interactions of the many other chemicals found, particularly Coumaphos, with each other to from toxic levels of poison is only now being looked at. Plus, the sub-lethal effects these chemicals (most of the rest are agricultural chemicals used by farmers and applied to crops including insecticides, fungicides and herbicides) have on honey bees, and on honey bee larvae remain unknown. And one more problem? What happens when these chemicals gather together in a beehive? Does a little of this and a little of that remain only a little, or, combined, do they become a monster that only kills? No one knows. What would you think?

Anyone taking a quick look at the levels and numbers of chemicals found in these beehives would not be surprised that honeybees are having troubles. Add in the now documented effects of IAPV and the problems seem to compound. Then stir in varroa mites, tracheal mites, that new Nosema disease, traveling thousands of miles all hours of the day and night, nutritional issues due to drought, substitute diets and those monoculture deserts to forage in, plus reduced acres to even try and earn a living on and it’s no wonder our bees have problems. Good Grief!

So... not only are we losing our bees due to overwork and overdosing on chemicals, are we poisoning ourselves as well?

Happy Birthday Rachel Carson

Even though some people blame you for no longer being able to dance in the spray of DDT and would like to dig you up to kill you:

Now Melanie Morgan of Disney Radio station KSFO 560 AM wants to dig up the grave of a dead person and kill them again!

In a conversation with John Berlau (author of Eco-Freaks from the ExxonMobile funded front group, CEI) broadcast on the 6:00 hour on December 01, 2006

They were discussing how good DDT is and the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

Lee Rogers: Well I think the moral of this story is beware of do gooders they'll kill ya.

Melanie Morgan: "or dig up Rachel Green and kill her all over again. I mean that would an appropriate,

Rogers: Rachel Carson.

Morgan: I'm sorry, Rachel Carson of Silent Green.


- Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan on ABC Disney Radio station KSFO 12/01/2006 06:15 AM (The Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan program, KSFO 560 AM) (audio link)

And Morse of The Republic of Sestakastan catches a senator:

Tom Coburn has blocked an honor for Rachel Carson.

A plan to honor environmental pioneer and "Silent Spring" author Rachel Carson on her centennial on Sunday was blocked by a U.S. senator who believes Carson created a climate of "hysteria and misinformation."

Sen. Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record) derailed approval of a Senate resolution honoring the life of Carson, whose 1962 book "Silent Spring" warned of the dangers posed to wildlife and humans by the pesticide DDT and who is credited with inspiring the modern environmental movement.

"Rachel Carson's work both directly and indirectly created a climate of hysteria and misinformation about the impact of DDT on the human populations," said John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, in explaining why the Oklahoma Republican withheld his support for the plan to honor her.

Why on earth is she so disliked by the rightwing?

Rachel Carson made environmentalism respectable. Before Silent Spring, nearly all Americans believed that science was a force for good. Carson's work exposed the dark side of science. It showed that DDT and other chemicals we were using to enhance agricultural productivity were poisoning our lakes, rivers, oceans, and ourselves. Thanks to her, progress can no longer be measured solely in tons of wheat produced and millions of insects killed. Thanks to her, the destruction of nature can no longer be called progress.

She stepped in the way of big corporations and showed people the consequences of pesticides. She taught a whole generation to question.

As early as 1945, Carson and her close colleague Clarence Cottam had become alarmed by government abuse of new chemical pesticides such as DDT, in particular the "predator" and "pest" control programs, which were broadcasting poisons with little regard for the welfare of other creatures.

[snip]

Meanwhile, the insecticide barrage had been augmented by dieldrin, parathion, heptachlor, malathion and other fearful compounds many times stronger than DDT, all of which the government planned to distribute through the Department of Agriculture for public use and commercial manufacture. "The more I learned about the use of pesticides, the more appalled I became," Carson recalled. "I realized that here was the material for a book. What I discovered was that everything which meant most to me as a naturalist was being threatened, and that nothing I could do would be more important."

[snip]

Silent Spring, serialized in the New Yorker in June 1962, gored corporate oxen all over the country. Even before publication, Carson was violently assailed by threats of lawsuits and derision, including suggestions that this meticulous scientist was a "hysterical woman" unqualified to write such a book. A huge counterattack was organized and led by Monsanto, Velsicol, American Cyanamid — indeed, the whole chemical industry — duly supported by the Agriculture Department as well as the more cautious in the media.

[snip]

By year's end, Audubon and National Parks Magazine had published additional excerpts from the book, and all but the most self-serving of Carson's attackers were backing rapidly toward safer ground. In their ugly campaign to reduce a brave scientist's protest to a matter of public relations, the chemical interests had only increased public awareness. Silent Spring became a runaway best seller, with international reverberations. Nearly 40 years later, it is still regarded as the cornerstone of the new environmentalism. v Carson was not a born crusader but an intelligent and dedicated woman who rose heroically to the occasion. She was rightly confident about her facts as well as her ability to present them. Secure in the approval of her peers, she remained remarkably serene in the face of her accusers. Perhaps the imminence of her own mortality had helped her find this precious balance and perspective. In most photographs, the pensive face appears a little sad, but this was true long before she knew that she had cancer. She was 56 when she died in April 1964.

Some of us wish you a Happy Birthday, Ms. Carson.



Thank you.

No. Still no WMDs nor chemical weapons have been found in Iraq

Absolutely nothing will sanctify this illegal war in Iraq.

Science lesson on nitric acid and why it is not a 'chemical' weapon:

But chemistry PhD, Globalsecurity.org senior fellow, and blogger extradordinaire George Smith tells DANGER ROOM that there's nothing to get freaked out about here -- well nothing beyond Iraq's usual mayhem.

Nitric acid is one of the big three common strong inorganic acids, hydrochloric and sulfuric being the other two. It wouldn't be practical as a chemical weapon and there's no way to make it so. Of the three acids mentioned, it's the easiest to handle, although all are common and pose no threat when clearly labeled. Burns skin slowly, staining it yellow. Is not particularly hazardous if spilled although you wouldn't want to walk in it. In terms of inorganic acid spills, HCl [hydrochloric acid] makes a bigger and far more noticeable mess. And as a corrosive directly against skin, sulfuric acid is the worst of the three. None have any application as chemical weapons in the classic sense.

HN03 [nitric acid] can be used to make homemade TNT -- although why this would be necessary in Iraq is beyond me. You would have suspected to find a lot of toluene and sulfuric acid, too, if this were the case.

Looks like the diversion of industrial chemicals, hoping they'll get lucky with something. That won't happen with the level of savvy which seems to be indicated.

Fellow chem-bio blogger Bugs n' Gas Gal adds:

While the story seems to imply the purpose of the nitric acid "could" be to produce a toxic chemical hazard or even a chemical agent, the simplest explanation is the most probable: it is being used to produce home made explosives (HME). They are certainly going through a lot of it and large caches of precursors would not be surprising.

The essence

Of the Bush administration:

A federal agency that evaluates the causes of birth defects and other reproductive problems is run by a consulting firm with ties to companies that make chemicals the agency is charged with reviewing.