Tuesday, February 07, 2012

"Using our children as the experimental animals" - What's More Important, Infant Health or Corporate Profits?


From the transcript of a Bill Moyers PBS show entitled Trade Secrets:  

DR. PHILIP LANDRIGAN, CHAIRMAN, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, MT. SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: We are conducting a vast toxicologic experiment, and we are using our children as the experimental animals.
NARRATION: Not a single child today is born free of synthetic chemicals.
AL MEYERHOFF, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: With chemicals, it's shoot first and ask questions later. 
Thousands of new substances are added to the the Chemical Abstracts Service Register daily and used without being tested.   Researchers report in an Italian journal:

The database CAS REGISTRY (www. cas.org), produced by Chemical Abstracts Service, a division of the Chemical Society that since 1907 identifies univocally chemicals, at present includes more than 33 million organic and inorganic sub- stances and over 59 million sequences (January 2008). This database is updated daily and, as an average, approximately 4000 new substances are added each day. [emphasis added]

Should each new substance be tested before it's put into food we eat or products we use or into the air or water?  Or would that impede progress, the introduction of new products, and the growth of the economy?

And what about the cumulative effect of one chemical from different sources?  Or the cumulative effect of many chemicals?  We know, for instance, that different medications interact with each other often cause negative effects


BPA As an Example

So to put this into perspective, I got an email with a link to a 2010 post about BPA in canned tomatoes.  It refers to a Prevention article about an endocrinologist not eating canned tomatoes.
The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The problem:
The resin linings of tin cans contain Bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”

But the American Chemical Council says there's nothing wrong with BPA as you can see in a post on their website

From an October 13, 2010 press release entitled: "Canada's Announcement Regarding BPA is Contrary to the Weight of Worldwide Scientific Evidence" quotes their own PhD expert:
“Just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) once again confirmed that BPA is safe for use in food-contact items, Environment Canada’s announcement is contrary to the weight of worldwide scientific evidence, unwarranted and will unnecessarily confuse and alarm the public. This puts Environment Canada at odds with the recent conclusions of EFSA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, all of which have concluded that BPA is safe in contact with food.  The decision also appears to contradict the very recent opinion of Health Canada, which stated in August that ‘the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.’   
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) release cited by the American Chemical Council didn't exactly say it was safe for use in food.  It actually says, in its Sept. 30, 2008 release, ". . . they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise the current Tolerable Daily Intake[2] for BPA of 0.05 mg/kg body weight[3] set by EFSA."

So, they have current maximum levels of safe intake of BPA.  That suggests that more than those levels are NOT safe.

It goes on to say:
The CEF Panel members acknowledge that some recent studies report adverse effects on animals exposed to BPA during development at doses well below those used to determine the current TDI. These studies show biochemical changes in the central nervous system, effects on the immune system and enhanced susceptibility to breast cancer. However, these studies have many shortcomings. At present the relevance of these findings for human health cannot be assessed, though should any new relevant data become available in the future[6], the Panel will reconsider this opinion.
A January 20, 2012 (ten months earlier) US Food and Drug Administration Report also doesn't say what the ACC release suggests: 
"Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.  However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.  In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA."


The German study does cite two studies that show little risk in studies of rats that seems to not substantiate earlier studies that showed problems.

To me this is reminiscent of the tobacco industry's decades of denial of any health problems related to smoking.  

Who's In Charge?  The Regulated Industries or Regulators?

Another issue here is the influence of lobbyists on Congress overseeing the regulators and how much that impinges on the FDA and other agencies' abilities to test and to declare chemicals dangerous. 

How does this relate to people who do not want their kids vaccinated?  They argue they are being forced to risk their kids' health.  But that seems to be totally different for two reasons. 
  • First, the vaccines are far more thoroughly studied - even if there are lingering questions for some - than the tests on all these commercially used chemicals.
  • Second, vaccines prevent the spread of serious health hazards, while commercial chemicals are important mainly because they help corporations make profits.  Yes, the profit because they offer something that makes life a bit more convenient, but again, that convenience is just that - a convenience, but hardly a necessity.  

It does seem clear that the various government agencies in the US and Europe have determined that there is a level above which they believe BPA's are dangerous, yet the several press releases I've looked at offered by the American Chemical Council are worded to imply that they have all found it safe.  Which isn't true. Their argument against the Canadians was not based on the science, but on ACC's allegation that their conclusions are different from everyone else, which isn't exactly true either.  


Here's what the Mayo Clinic website says about BPA:
BPA stands for bisphenol A. BPA is an industrial chemical that has been used to make certain plastics and resins since the 1960s.
In particular, BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastics are often used in containers that store food and beverages, such as water bottles, and baby bottles and cups. They may also be used in toys and other consumer goods. Epoxy resins can be used to coat the inside of metal products, such as food cans, baby formula cans, bottle tops and water supply lines. Some dental sealants and composites also may contain BPA. And certain thermal paper products, such as cash register receipts, may contain BPA.
Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA or into your body when you handle products made with BPA. BPA remains controversial, and research studies are continuing. The American Chemistry Council, an association that represents plastics manufacturers, contends that BPA poses no risk to human health.
But the National Toxicology Program at the Department of Health and Human Services says it has "some concern" about the possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. This level of concern is midway on its five-level scale, which ranges from serious to negligible. The Food and Drug Administration now shares this level of concern and is taking steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply by finding alternatives to BPA in food containers.
The corporations seem to think that if it hasn't been proven dangerous, they should be able to use it.  But if it hasn't been proven safe, would you want your infant to be exposed to it?  We should use it and if problems show up, then we can take another look.  Essentially, test it on the general population.  Monday's New York Times has another example of this:
The United States Army is investigating whether certain dietary supplements for athletes, available until recently at stores on military bases in the United States, may have played a role in the deaths of two soldiers.

To me this is all related to the Occupy Movement and their concern about the power of big business over government and over people's perceptions about health and safety.  It's also related to the Citizens United - the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.  By getting candidates who make decisions that favor the corporations, they gain control of government and how government treats larger corporations.  The irony is that while the corporate spokespersons rail against government, they are the de facto government. 

It's not a cut and dried issue, but it seems to me that at this point the balance of power is way over on the side of industry, not on the side of the general public.

Monday, February 06, 2012

German Word of the Day - Feige

From www.dict.cc  German to English:


feige
coward {adj}
craven {adj}
dastard {adj}
cowardly {adj} {adv}
cravenly {adv}
recreant {adj}
skulking {adj}
dastardly {adj} {adv}
lilylivered {adj}
lily-livered {adj}
fainthearted {adj}
faint-hearted {adj}
pusillanimous {adj}
sissy {adj} [coll.]
chicken {adj} [coll.]
gutless {adj} [coll.]
weak-kneed {adj} [fig.]
yellow-bellied {adj} [coll.]
chicken-hearted {adj} [coll.]
chicken-livered {adj} [coll.]
yellow {adj} [coll.] [cowardly]
chickenshit {adj} [Am.] [vulg.]
feige [niederträchtig]
caitiff {adj} [archaic]
Feige {f}
bot. fig

Anchorage Has Another Chance to Move Out of Dark Ages

I was reminded how far behind we are in Anchorage by a story in today's LA Times.  It lists six states debating the legalization of gay marriage.  And six more states, plus the District of Columbia, where same sex marriage is legal.

But in Anchorage we're still struggling to get a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment and other such situations.  We would have such guarantees already had our current mayor not vetoes an ordinance passed by our Assembly just before he became mayor.

But there is a proposition on the ballot and a chance to show the world that the voters of Anchorage are not as intolerant and narrow minded as some of our politicians.

Why does this matter?  As OneAnchorage, the group behind the initiative, posts:
In Anchorage, all employees should be judged solely on their capabilities and job performance. Today, however, most – but not all – hardworking Alaskans are protected from being unfairly fired. For example, no one can be fired from a job solely because they are married or single. It is illegal to refuse to interview a job applicant because the business owner doesn’t like Christians, Jews or Muslims. You can’t be denied service in a restaurant because you’re African-American, Asian, from South America or Alaska Native. You can’t be turned down for a credit card or bank loan because you’re sight or hearing impaired.
However, these legal protections that most of us rely on everyday do NOT protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender workers.

But even when this initiative is passed in April, we still have a one man - one woman marriage clause that was added to our state constitution in 1998.

When I say far behind, I mean it in the way that people in the South were far behind other parts of the US when they still had legal segregation whereas Blacks had legal (if not de facto) equal rights in other parts of the country.  As behind as those people who opposed voting for women and then other rights for women.  One form of human progress is the gradual elimination of the legal props that support social prejudices against people who are different from the majority, props that give 'normal' people power over the 'other.'


Sunday, February 05, 2012

Balancing Postive and Negative - Alexander DCD Smith

Alex is the nephew of an old friend of J's and we ended up accidentally having dinner with him, his aunt, and his parents earlier this week. He invited us to his show Saturday night in Culver City and so we went.




There were giant commercial looking inspirational 'posters.'  But looking close there was a lot more going on.  Alexander
explained he used brushes, spray paint, and stencils on wood.


And remembering our dinner conversation the other night, it made sense that Alex would be pushing things like believe, dedication, productive, and success.  He's dealt with some health issues and he now works from early morning until late at night.






But the edgier side of him balanced this show with four Stop Signs like this Stop War piece.  Looking at the motivational work on the photos now, I'm seeing a lot more in the background than I originally saw.

He also does live paintings and Alex's blog has speeded up video of him creating these pieces.  There were QR codes on each description card that took you to a video of him painting that piece.  I can't locate those videos, but you can check out his blog for other videos.

You can get a sense of his excitement in the video below.






 
 

Dedication close up



 

Saturday, February 04, 2012

A Chat with Treeman Near Venice Beach







We took advantage of the nice weather to bike down to Venice Beach. On the way back I saw a person I needed to talk to. Of course, I had my camera with me. Somehow I meet a lot of interesting people, but this certainly was one of the more unique people I've met.


Treeman's message might not resonate with everyone, but there is clearly a sense of being one with nature.  When it was all over I thought that I had had a chat with a relative of the Na'vi.

Treeman, judging from his website Treemanity, is a character of someone who told me his father named him Lantis (I think) as in Atlantis. Perhaps in this character, Lantis is able to talk about things he normally wouldn't be able to. The character Treeman also made me think about Charles Wohlforth's book The Fate of Nature.  Many people today, in their own ways, myself included, are concerned about humanity's loss of connection with the natural world.  Perhaps I was transporting my concerns onto Treeman, but I do believe he too is concerned with our human relationship to other living things, to water, to the earth, and to the heavens. 





Redistricting Court Challenge: Judge Sends 4 Districts Back To Board

Judge McConahy's decision on the Alaska Redistricting Board challenge came out Friday. The decision itself is 136 pages, plus nearly another 100 pages of appendices.  You can get the whole decision here.  The Judge has a whole list of terms at the beginning of the decision which might be helpful.  I've discussed them in various previous posts and I won't redefine them here.  Overall, the decision is quite readable.  But then I've been immersed in this stuff since last March, so I'm not a good judge.

I've gone through it pretty quickly, but here are some key points I see.

Basically he sent back four districts to the Board to be redrawn.  These are the four districts that were found to be unconstitutional in summary judgments before the trial opened - Districts 1 and 2 in Fairbanks, District 37 which splits the Aleutians, and District 38 which combines suburban Fairbanks with rural and roadless villages all the way to the coast.


Districts 37 and 38 are both effective Native districts.  Both had more Native population than necessary to qualify as effective under the Voting Rights Act.  He focused on the Board's reluctance to pair Democratic Native Senator Lyman Hoffman of Bethel with Republican Senate President Gary Stevens of Kodiak as insufficient reason to violate the state constitution's compactness and contiguity requirements.  He concluded that the speculation that such a pairing might be seen as a violation of the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice was not strong enough grounds to violate the constitution.
"Ultimately the Board is asking the court to approve the split of the Aleutian Chain so that  Native Senator Hoffman will not be paired because DOJ might not pre-clear the plan.  The court does not find that this option was necessary under the VRA but rather is speculative.  There will always be groups that are unhappy and they all have the option of objecting to DOJ.  The Board cannot base the plan on fear of speculative consequences." [p. 127]  
You can read the specifics of the Judge's analysis on pages 123 - 127 of the decision.

This conclusion, coupled with the fact that both districts 37 and 38 had (plus neighboring district 36 had significantly) more Native population than they needed to be effective, led to the judge remanding 38 as well.

District 1 in Fairbanks was remanded because of the finger that protrudes into District 4.  (See this recent post for a map.]  While the judge rejected plaintiff's allegations of political gerrymandering here, he found the Board's reasoning for the irregularity (strange protrusions are a sign of lack of compactness in the redistricting standards literature) - to keep the deviations low - unpersuasive.  He mentions the fact that plaintiff's witness, Leonard Lawson, could  make minor adjustments to the district without affecting deviation.

The judge has little to say about District 2.
"The court previously found that Proclamation House District 2 was not compact.  The Board did not argue that the Proclamation House District 2 was necessary under the VRA.  No evidence was presented on Proclamation House District 2 at trial.  The court remands Proclamation House District 2 to the Board to redraw."  [Map of HD 2 at this post.]
Significantly for the future of the Alaska State Senate, the Judge did not accept the plaintiff's arguments that pairing two Fairbanks Democratic Senators was done for partisan reasons and he did not rule against the allegations that underlay those charges.

Will Affect More than the Four Districts, But First Going To Alaska Supreme Court

Although four districts have been remanded for redrawing, it will be impossible to redraw those four without affecting the districts around them.  And while the Board staff might start playing around with maps this weekend, the Board will surely appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.  The judge's ruling even addresses the Supreme Court on occasion.


Below I've copied the conclusion points in the judge's decision from pages 134 - 136.






[UPDATE 11am: I forgot to mention that the Board will meet Tuesday, February 7 at 10 am to discuss their next actions, though since this relates to litigation, I would guess much of the meeting will be off the record.  Their January 24 notice said:
This meeting will be streamed at www.alaskalegislature.tv. In the event you can't listen on internet you may call 1-855-463-5009. This is a listen only meeting.  Testimony will not be taken.]

Friday, February 03, 2012

Nobodyhere: Digital Genius - The Most Brilliant Website I've Ever Experienced


I stumbled upon a website like none I've ever seen.  I can't find the name of the creator, so I'll just call him/her The Genius.   It does all sorts of things I wish I could do.  It uses code to put images and words on the screen just where The Genius wants.  TG combines ideas and images and movements.  It's the best use of the medium of websites I've seen.

I just discovered this website this morning so I'm still poking around through it.  TG is a poet, an artist, and techie enough to make things do what he wants on the screen.  (I'm sure TG will say there is much he/she can't do, but I'm still more than impressed.)

Let's look at a few pages.  I've made them so they link to directly to the original Nobodyhere (that's the name of the website) page.  So you can interact.  Click on the image, you'll not regret it.
Above is the main page, if there is such a thing on Nobodyhere.  And you probably won't get TG standing on the chair.  When you get there, move your mouse all over.  As you can see when you get there, you can see this page in Dutch and Japanese too.  I'm guessing, based on the bug charts, TG is Dutch. 



Shame is typical of a page with an illustration and some text/poetry.

But Nobodyhere is also very interactive.  This is from a page where you can fill in your accusation and apparently TG takes these and makes apologies for them.  Here are some examples.  Again, you can click on the image and go directly to the page on TG's website.


I would note that the figures are not static.  Their movements display suitable supplication.

And, of course, there are the bugs.



Along with the bugs are these more hierarchical pages.  I haven't figured out yet how these pages relate to the others - is this a filing system for the more whimsically displayed content?  I don't know.  But this is true internet genius.  This website is a brilliant digital poem I'm looking forward to exploring more.  And unlike when I studied 17th Century English poets, there's a chat page where I can possibly interact with TG.  I haven't tried it yet.

You don't agree with my assessment?  Then leave your pick for a better website - by that I mean a website that uses the full creative potential of a website.  I'd love to see others this good or better.  But don't pick sites simply because you agree with its message. 


Taking Back The Word Liberal

Gryphen has this poster and video up at Immoral Morality and they're important enough for people to see that I'm reposting them..  It's Lawrence O'Donnell answering the question about whether the words on this poster appearing across the internet about the meaning of 'liberal' are really his.


The ad is short, turn off the sound if it bothers you, but listen to the video.
There's an important point in the video which doesn't show up in the poster. Some of the items - like the Clean Air Act - were passed under Republicans, and the response by Jimmy Smits is, "Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them?" It's a point I keep making - the whole country has moved so far to the right in the last 30 years that Republicans like Richard Nixon would be considered far left today.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Redistricting Court Challenge: If I Were The Judge

No, I'm not going to predict the decision, but if I were the judge I would release the decision next Monday, February 6.  Here's why.

[UPDATE Sat. February 4:  But I'm not the judge and he released his decision yesterday (Friday).  Despite the Friday release, the Board won't meet until Tuesday at 10 according to their website. See Feb. 3.]

At the end of the trial he said he'd have it out by the first Monday in February.  That's Monday, February 6.  The Board's attorney requested a Friday release because the board needs to give 48 hours notice for a public meeting.

Since that day the Board has posted tentative daily meetings  starting last Monday and going through Feb. 10.  (And each meeting has been cancelled the day before.)

So it seems they have found a way around the 48 hour notice and the need for a Friday decision, even if the Judge were inclined to make one, is gone.  (They've cancelled each of the tentative meetings including tomorrow's.)

So, if I were the judge, I'd take advantage of the weekend to review my decision and the mountain of evidence it's based on.  

As a blogger, I generally check my posts multiple times before posting.  If there are only pictures and just a few words I can do it faster.  If it's a longer, more disputed topic, I'll take much longer.  I do this for several basic reasons:

1.  Just being typographically and grammatically correct is a way of letting my readers know that I'm careful and they might have more confidence in the content as well.  Despite this goal, when I look back at old posts, I tend to be dismayed at how many errors slip through.

2.  The more clearly I write, the more readers are likely to take from my words the meaning I intended.  But people's mental filters are so varied that this is never 100% foolproof.  (As I typed that word I wondered about the etymology.  I don't mean to imply that if people can't understand what I write they're fools.  I know that's not the case.)

3.  If it's a particularly contentious topic, I want to be as objective and accurate as possible so as to keep the discussion on track and avoid unnecessary noise.


Judge McConahy, I assume, has staff to check on typos and even do research and possibly drafts of sections of his decision.

He knows that this is a decision that will be read carefully by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and most probably the Supreme Court.

The Board will definitely appeal if the ruling doesn't favor their position.
And since the Plaintiffs know that, they must be prepared to go to the Supreme Court as well.   I would assume then that if they lose in Fairbanks, they too are prepared to appeal.

So, if I were Judge McConahy, I would hold this as long as I could.  Whatever he writes will be carefully scrutinized.  Even if I were done on Friday, I'd want the weekend to reread it, go back through the voluminous pre-trial submissions  as well as the testimony in court.  I'd be checking to see if I missed an important point that supported one argument or another.  If there were inconsistencies in the testimony that I'd missed.  If there were clues that would help me decide if witnesses were forthcoming or not.  And if they were, whether their judgment could be trusted.

And since the Judge committed to getting his decision out by the first Monday of February, I'm guessing he will, unless he finds something so important at the last minute that requires he rethink the case.

So I'm guessing the decision will be released on Monday and that Monday afternoon Board will not cancel its Tuesday meeting.

There is some urgency here.  There are less than five months between now and the  June 1 filing deadline for candidates in the Alaska 2012 state primary election.  If the judge's decision requires changes in the district maps and the Supreme Court agrees - those changes have to be made and approved before June 1, 2012.  The clock is ticking.  

A quick trial trivia note:  The judge and both attorneys share the first name - Michael.  



Birds Sing, Another Nice Day in LA




Maybe one of my birder friends can tell me what this small chirping bird is in the agave like tree.  Here's another view


There were several chirping from this Evergreen Pear tree (Pyrus kawakamii) below - my mom knew the name of the tree in her yard.  She'd planted it. But they hide well in the tree.



And finally this one on the neighbors' old television antenna.