EnlightenedOsote's blog: "NEWS"

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 23, 2008 Key concepts: FDA, Coca-Cola and Diet coke Recently the FDA warned Coca-Cola over the use of the word "plus" in its Diet Coke Plus product, saying it was mislabeled. Just a few days ago, however, the FDA issued a letter of no objection to Coke's use of a new stevia sweetener (Truvia), even though the FDA apparently has no intention to actually GRAS approve the sweetener. Although this is speculation, I believe there's a power play going on behind the scenes between Coca-Cola and the FDA. Here's the short timeline I've constructed in an attempt to explain the recent actions by the FDA and Coke: Early December, 2008 - Coca-Cola announces it will begin selling beverages sweetened with stevia even without FDA approval. It simply announces it will "self-affirm" Truvia (the brand-name version of Cargill's stevia sweetener) as being a safe sweetener. The FDA sees its authority threatened by Coca-Cola. If Coke can simply declare ingredients to be safe and start using them, then what's the point of having the FDA in the loop at all? The FDA isn't happy about Coke threatening an end-run around the FDA's regulatory power, to it begins to look at ways to make life difficult for Coca-Cola. December 10, 2008 - The FDA fires a shot over the bow of Coca-Cola by issuing a warning to the company, saying its Diet Coke Plus products are illegally labeled. Note that Diet Coke Plus has been on the market for over 18 months, but only now, after the Truvia threat, did the FDA decide to move against Coke. Coke responds by saying its products are legally labeled and, essentially, that the FDA is full of bunk. The FDA does nothing. December 17, 2008 - With Coke about ready to start selling stevia-sweetened products without FDA approval, the FDA realizes it must preempt Coke's launch of these products by quickly issuing a letter "authorizing" Coke to market stevia-sweetened beverages, or else it will lose face. The other option would be to halt the marketing of stevia products, but the FDA doesn't feel it has the political power to pull that off against Coca-Cola. With its hand forced by Coca-Cola, the FDA issues a "letter of no objection" that allows Coca-Cola to sell stevia-sweetened beverages and still maintains the appearance of FDA authority. The truth, of course, is that Coca-Cola was about to market the products anyway, without FDA approval, and the FDA has become little more than a regulatory ragdoll that pretends to stand up against Big Business from time to time but is actually working so closely with other businesses (Big Pharma) that is has no remaining credibility to move against Coca-Cola. In the battle of Coke vs. the FDA, the FDA just got trampled. (Or "pwned," if you're a gamer.) Sure, the FDA can threaten small companies with some degree of credibility, but not Coca-Cola. And not Big Pharma, either. The upshot for all of us is the observation that the corporations are in charge around here, not the FDA. We are well into the era of corporations running the food supply while the regulators can only pretend to exert anything resembling real authority. Does that mean we should "strengthen" the FDA? Nope; we should radically reform it and split it into two agencies: The FOOD Safety Administration and the DRUG Safety Administration. And finally, we need a third agency called the Topical Product Safety Administration that would ban all the toxic skin care and body care products made with cancer-causing chemicals. All three agencies should be led by consumer health advocates who have no ties to industry whatsoever.

The newspaper examined more than 2,000 filings in the EPA's registry of dangerous chemicals for the past three years. In more than half the cases, the EPA agreed to keep the chemical name a secret. In hundreds of other cases, it allowed the company filing the report to keep its name and address confidential. This is despite a federal law calling for public notice of any new information through the EPA's program monitoring chemicals that pose substantial risk. The whole idea of the program is to warn the public of newfound dangers. The EPA's rules are supposed to allow confidentiality only "under very limited circumstances." Legal experts and environmental advocates say the practice of "sanitizing," or blacking out, this information not only strips vital information from the public, it violates the agency's own law. Section 14 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the foundation for all the EPA's toxic and chemical regulations, stipulates that chemical producers may not be granted confidentiality when it comes to health and safety data. "The EPA has chosen to ignore that," said Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin. The newspaper's findings are just the latest example of how EPA administrators more often than not put company interests above the needs of consumers. Over the past 18 months, the Journal Sentinel has reported on numerous EPA programs that bow to corporate pressure, frustrating health and environmental advocates and disregarding the agency's own mission to inform the public of potentially dangerous chemicals. The EPA has the authority to fine companies that fail to fully disclose information about dangerous chemicals. And, in at least one instance, it has done so. But critics say the program has been allowed to flounder, and the agency rarely challenges a company's request for confidentiality. It's been frustrating to see the program "starved of resources and generally abandoned," said Myra Karstadt, a toxicologist who worked on the EPA's program from 1998 to 2005. "It's a very worthwhile program but only if it's given a chance to work." Sponsored Links (Ads by Google) Whistleblower Attorneys - www.EmploymentLawGroup.net Veteran Advocates for Environmental Whistleblowers. The program began 30 years ago as a way to help the public avoid contact with dangerous chemicals. The law requires companies that make chemicals to submit any information of potential hazards about their products to the EPA. The EPA, in turn, is supposed to make that information available to communities and consumers. Companies can claim confidentiality if they are worried that their disclosures will reveal trade secrets. They have to answer 14 questions, including specifics on why disclosing the information would harm the company. EPA administrators then decide which ones are granted confidentiality. EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said the agency realizes the claims of confidentiality "do in some instances limit the public's ability to understand the specifics of a particular filing." In those cases, the agency works with the companies to get them to provide more information, which many do, he said. But the Journal Sentinel examination of the agency's substantial risk program found that large information gaps remain. More than half of the 32 submissions for March 2004, for example, are still missing information necessary for the public to connect the name of the chemical with the information submitted. Some have no information at all. Consider File No. 8EHQ-0308-17103A. The EPA document, filed in March, marks as confidential the names of the chemical and the company that makes it. Even the generic class of chemical has been removed. What is the information that this unnamed company is submitting about this unnamed chemical so the public can see if it poses a substantial risk? Anxious consumers have no way of knowing. "No information is provided in the sanitized copy of the submission," the EPA Web site entry reads. One report, posted by an unnamed company about an unnamed chemical, shows that if the substance is inhaled, it produces "foamy macrophages" or diseased cells, in the lungs of rats. The report also indicates the chemical may cause pulmonary fibrosis - a deadly and irreversible disease in people. There is no way to know if this is a chemical coming out of a smokestack in some town or a concern for workers at a factory. The write-up does not say where the chemical is produced or used. Nor is there any indication in the description of what this chemical is or how it works. Another filing in May refers to a study that shows a chemical had caused liver abnormalities consistent with cancer. Again, the chemical name and any identifying information are blacked out. "The public is being denied useful and sometimes critical information on chemical-related health and environmental hazards," said Karstadt, the former EPA toxicologist. Karstadt said the whole point of the program was to provide the public with information about dangerous chemicals. "By law, health and safety data is supposed to be kept open," she said. The EPA's own Web site indicates that studies, letters and accident reports are intended to be viewed by the public so citizens can "understand potential human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to chemical substances." The EPA posts all reports, redacted or not, on its Web site. The law that requires companies to report data on dangerous chemicals is just one of 10 laws that the EPA is supposed to enforce. The office oversees 28 programs that address air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides, among other things. The EPA is an enormous agency with three headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area and 10 regional offices all over the country. The office that administers the dangerous chemicals program has eight divisions. The overview describing their responsibilities fills 41 pages. Even Kemery, the spokesman, could not say exactly who or how many people decide what information is allowed to be kept confidential. Nor did he know how many claims of confidentiality have been submitted and how many were granted. The Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., reports that less than 1 percent of the EPA's enforcement and compliance budget is spent on the Toxic Substances Control Act. Renee Sharpe, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, spent more than a year trying to get information from the EPA about some of the chemicals under the program, only to be denied at every turn. "It's pretty outrageous, isn't it," she said. The EPA advises companies on how to keep information confidential. It is less helpful to consumers. The information on its Web site is difficult to access. You can't look up the chemical by name or by the name of the company that makes it. So, you have to go through the filings month by month to see if there is any information listed on that particular chemical. There are huge gaps in reporting. The Web site does not have any information on chemicals before 2004. For reasons the EPA does not explain, the Web site does not include the second half of 2004. That means there is no information at all about more than 16,000 entries. Sometimes, the program works. In 2004, the EPA fined DuPont de Nemours and Co. $10.25 million for not reporting data on Teflon. The chemical, used as nonstick coating in cookware, was found to be toxic and had been linked to birth defects. The EPA alleged that DuPont had information for more than 20 years that the chemical was harmful but did not disclose the risks. The company agreed to settle and pay the penalty. It was the largest civil administrative penalty the EPA had ever obtained under any federal environmental statute. Other times the EPA has encouraged companies to withdraw chemicals found to be dangerous. In 1999, 3M agreed to phase out its use of perfluorinated chemicals after discussions with the EPA. The chemicals, used in furniture coatings and to waterproof clothing, were found to cause reproductive and developmental toxicity in rats. Still, critics including Karstadt and Wagner say the agency's policies have grown too lax. The real problem with the program "is a complete lack of commitment," Karstadt said. Even when companies say they understand the need for transparency, they aren't always willing to provide it, the Journal Sentinel found. Adam Bickel, manager of the Product Regulatory Center of Expertise at BASF, a major German-based chemical producer, said his company recognizes that toxic law is a "key chemical control and chemical management statute to protect human health and the environment." BASF is one of the companies that files the most reports to the EPA under the program. Bickel said his company takes its obligations "seriously and complies with the reporting." BASF submitted 101 reports to the EPA in 2008. It blacked out the chemical name in 85 of those entries. ___ © 2008, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Visit JSOnline, the Journal Sentinel's World Wide Web site, at http://www.jsonline.com/ Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

By Jesus Diaz, 8:43 PM on Fri Nov 14 2008, 35,436 views Get ready for some real pew pew, because Northrop Grumman has just announced that the first ever high-energy, solid-state lethal laser for actual war applications is now available for ordering. This means that you can pay now a few millions and get yours for Xmas. The new Firestrike units offer 15 kilowatts of power, but can be combined to offer 100 kilowatts of technological terror, capable of actually destroying the enemy. According to the company, this new laser "changes the game" of military engagement. Nobody would say by judging the neutral looks of it: The FIRESTRIKE(tm) laser is a line replaceable system that allows for scaling a laser weapon to desired power levels for specific warfighting applications and platforms. Northrop Grumman believes that FIRESTRIKE(tm) laser will form the backbone of future laser weapon systems. You can put together up to eight of these to achieve the maximum power available, although that would so much electric power that the military would have to mount them in tanks. Which, mind you, I bet it's exactly what they have in mind. This is a big leap in laser weapons because, until now, the only effective way to get laser weapons to work with enough lethal power was using chemicals. These were extremely heavy and the whole firing process extremely hazardous. The solid-state laser in Firestrike is hard and very easy to manage, as it only requires electricity and has no by-products. It's also very rugged, according to Northrop's beam-cannon chief Dan Wildt: This is a rugged electric laser with power levels, beam quality and runtime suitable for offensive and defensive military utility. Also available is a newly designed laser current source assembly (LCSA), which is compact, and specifically developed to precisely meet FIRESTRIKE(tm)'s power needs. Combined with advanced electro optical and/or infrared sensors, the FIRESTRIKE(tm) laser can provide self-defense, precision strike and enhanced situational awareness capabilities. The lasers don't have to run intermittently either. There's no pew pew here. Just one long buzz that will last until it runs out of energy or coolant. FIRESTRIKE(tm) Laser Features Power: 15kW laser Beam Quality: Nominally 1.5 times the diffraction limit Size: Laser head - 12" x 23" x 40" (width, depth, height), Current source - 9" x 13" x 30" Runtime: Continuous, as long as power and coolant are provided Instant Turn-on: Zero to full power in less than 1/2 second Safety_ Remote operation, customer interlock access, internal safety sensors Control: Common Command and Control (C2) systems and Ethernet interfaces Low Power Setting Provides nominally 100 watt alignment beam Weight: 400 lbs per LRU Ruggedization: Hardened LRUs with compact SSL technology engineered for mobility and field operations

by Mike Chino global warming, polar bear lifevest, polar bear life preserver, environmental art, social commentary, green design, sustainable design, wildlife preservation As the climate crisis mounts and Arctic icebergs slip away, polar bears are suffering starvation, population declines, and drowning as they must swim further and further to find food. Seeking to raise awareness for the endangered species’ plight, ADDI Concepts has taken wildlife preservation literally by designing a life-vest for displaced polar bears struggling to stay afloat as their homes sink into the sea. global warming, polar bear lifevest, polar bear life preserver, environmental art, social commentary, green design, sustainable design, wildlife preservation Polar bears are facing a bleak future as Arctic icebergs continue to melt and ancient shelfs of ice collapse. The species inhabits only the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding areas, and they and can hunt consistently only from sea ice. ADDI Concepts conceived of their polar bear life jackets not as a solution for the endangered species, but as a means to increase awareness about global warming and inspire action. Their portfolio states: “A dog who lives most of its days carried around in an expensive handbag doesn’t need a camouflage hoodie and a small cap over its ears. There are a few other [creatures] who we should give at least the same attention” The design group has also conceived of a bulletproof vest for Bengal tigers, whose numbers have decreased by 95% since 1910 due to illegal hunting. + ADDI Concepts Via Dvice

Doctors are being urged to re-think their approach to giving chemotherapy during care at the end of life. A review of 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of treatment found that in more than a quarter of cases it actually hastened or caused death. The report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death said doctors should consider reducing doses or not using chemotherapy at all. England's cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards said he was "very concerned". The group of patients the independent group was looking at represents 2% of the 80,000 people who receive chemotherapy each year. This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer Professor Jane Maher, of Macmillan Cancer Support They were all severely-ill patients for which the chemotherapy was mostly being used to manage their condition rather than in an attempt to cure the cancer. After examining case notes, the group said that 35% of patients received good care. But it found that in 27% of cases it hastened or caused death - the toxic nature of the treatment can lead to a range of problems, the most serious of which is an infection called neutropenic sepsis. Report co-author Dr Diana Mort said doctors should be more "cautious in prescribing chemotherapy for very sick patients". And she added: "The process of consent may require more than one discussion. "Patients must be made aware of the risks and side-effect of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits." Transfer arrangements The report also criticised the facilities made available to patients with nearly half being admitted to general medicine wards during the last 30 days of life rather than a specialist cancer unit. The authors recommended where hospitals did not have specialist units they should put in place transfer arrangements to centres that did. Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer. "It shows that doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life." Professor Richards said he was "very concerned". "I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally." But Dr Peter Clark, of the Royal College of Physicians, said while lessons could be learnt it was important to remember that chemotherapy carried "substantial short and long-term benefit" for the majority who undergo the treatment.

Yay!

* 22:48 06 November 2008 * NewScientist.com news service * Rachel Courtland Incoming president Barack Obama must decide the shuttle's fate soon if he wants to keeps its replacement on schedule, the Government Accountability Office says (Image: NASA) Incoming president Barack Obama must decide the shuttle's fate soon if he wants to keeps its replacement on schedule, the Government Accountability Office says (Image: NASA) US president-elect Barack Obama will need to decide soon whether to retire the space shuttle in 2010 or extend its life, a government oversight office said on Thursday. The space shuttle is one of 13 'urgent' issues that face the next US president, according to a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) list. "These are issues that will require the attention of the President and Congress early on in the next administration," says GAO spokesperson Chuck Young. Deciding the fate of the shuttle is particularly time-sensitive, Young says. If the government decides to fly more shuttle missions, it could impact how quickly NASA can move forward with a shuttle replacement, set to be ready to fly by March 2015. The replacement, the centrepiece of a NASA programme called Constellation, would end a five-year gap in the US's ability to transport astronauts to space. During the interim, astronauts will have to hitch rides to the International Space Station on Russian Soyuz capsules. Interdependent programmes Extending the shuttle's lifetime means that if "NASA's budget doesn't change, it will put Constellation off", says Cristina Chaplain of the GAO. But even with more money, NASA may not be able to close the gap in its access to space. That's because the shuttle and Constellation programmes are interdependent, Chaplain told New Scientist. The agency needs to free up facilities and personnel that currently maintain the shuttle fleet for work on the replacement vehicle, an Apollo-inspired capsule called Orion that will launch atop the Ares I rocket. Congress built in time for Obama to decide the shuttle's fate. NASA is not allowed to take any actions before 30 April 2009 that would prevent the shuttle from flying safely after its scheduled retirement in 2010, according to the agency's new authorisation act, which passed in October. High costs The agency has estimated that $2.5 billion to $4 billion a year will be needed to keep the shuttle flying past 2010. But some argue that the shuttle will need a thorough review if it is to fly much longer than that. Technical issues with the shuttle replacement programme could also affect the decision about when to retire the shuttles. Some say the Ares I rocket may be prone to vibrations that could jolt astronauts. Resolving Ares design issues could require as much as $7 billion more in order to keep the rocket on target for its first flight in March 2015, the Congressional Budget Office said on Monday.

http://www.change.gov/