Conspicuous Conservation or Why Did You Buy Your Prius?

We heard an old (July 2011) Freakonomics podcast on KPPC this morning that raised a subject I've thought about when writing about biking.  Conspicuous Conservation - or people being 'green' because it's cool and wanting to be seen being cool.  It's also described as signaling theory - what we do to look good.

I think about this every time I write about biking.  Will people think I'm being a biking snob because I mention biking somewhere or even linger on the topic during a post?  I try to avoid being judgmental and I try to show understanding that biking isn't for everyone or every time, that there are legitimate reasons to drive, and weaning isn't easy.  But I'm sure some think I'm being holier than thou. 

The show focuses on Prius owners.  A pair of economics doctoral students, Allison and Steve Sexton (they're twins), have written a paper on this and take part in the podcast. 

They observed that of all the hybrid cars, the Toyota Prius looks significantly different from other Toyotas (and all other cars) whereas the other hybrid cars are hard to distinguish from the non-hybrid models.  But the Prius is by far the best selling hybrid.  Are people buying them because they stand out more?  Are they buying Priuses because it signals their conservation ethic? 

They compared Prius and Honda Civic hybrid sales and determined whether there were more sales in Democratic or Republican census blocks.  They found significantly more Priuses in Democratic areas and no statistical difference in Prius sales compared to the Honda Civic hybrid in Republican areas.  Using this, they decided that Conspicuous Conservation explains, in part, why people choose to buy a Prius.  They reason that the only real distinction between the Prius and the Honda is the Prius' distinctive look.  Cost and mileage and reliability, they say, are all relatively similar.  And you get better signaling advantage in areas where people value conservation than where people aren't favorably disposed to environmentalists. 

There's even a clip from South Park which apparently noticed this trend much earlier.  The kids realize that having a Pruis-like car is alienating them from their more conservative neighbors and the Dad says, "And that's why we're moving to San Francisco." 

An Toyota knew about signaling according to the Toyota PR person on the podcast who says that the key instruction to the Prius designers was that the car should look different. 

I'm sure this has something to do with why there are more Priuses than other hybrids.  All movements attract some people who join because it confers on them some imagined status or other symbolic benefits.  We see it very clearly in what kids wear high school. 

But there are also people who do things because it's the right thing for them and not because they want to be cool, or in other cases, just different.  A factor I didn't hear on the show is the proselytizing reason for such signalling - trying to make the odd seem more normal because so many people are doing it.  Driving a Prius - because they are so conspicuous - points out to others how many people are, in fact, driving more energy efficient vehicles.  And might cause others to 'convert.'  Hiding that by buying a car that blends in doesn't get that message across. 

You can listen to the podcast and decide for yourself.

And my posting about biking is consciously intended to remind folks that biking is doable in a lot more situations than most people think.  But, if it comes across as conspicuous conservation, then so be it.  But the point is to make people think:  I could take the bike instead of the car for this.  And maybe the point of driving a Prius is to make people think:  That guy is getting twice the gas mileage I'm getting.  

Enjoying Venice Beach

I could watch the guys (that's all I saw today) at the Venice Skateboard Plaza all day, but it was breezy today so we went over to board walk to mingle with the flow of tourists and locals.




I ran down to the beach yesterday morning hoping to see some of the big waves that were predicted.  They were bigger and rougher than normal, but not huge.  Maybe 5 or 6 feet.





This fisherman was all decked out in what liked new gear.  As I left this spot to see the surfers better, I tried to talk to him, but it appeared he didn't speak English.

The pelicans were patrolling the beach side of the waves too. 


I watched the surfers for a while and got some video that was more surf than surfers.  So I decided to switch back to still.

How I wish I'd kept the video on. This guy zigged and zagged at the front of the crest from left to right and then just a bit after this shot the wave curled over him. He came out after that ride. He wasn't going to get anything better than that. He told me when he was in the curl he got a bit concerned because he didn't know how deep it w

We biked back this afternoon, but there was a pretty stiff breeze. Plenty of folks were taking advantage of it.

I only saw this guy with the surfboard walking the kite along the beach.  Didn't see him with it in the water.

For this picture, I took the camera off manual and used the built in beach setting.

And on this one I photo-shopped in a close-up of the sand.  This is looking north to the Santa Monica mountains. 

Then we biked over to the skate board plaza. This guy was really good, but I didn't catch him in the air.  I'm assuming not too many people bang their heads or they'd start requiring helmets.  Most (like the guy in the first picture above) weren't wearing them.

Then we joined the crowd on the Venice boardwalk.  This is a wall above the shops along the boardwalk. 

And if you need more than oxygen . . .

The doctor was in here.  Or at least this man in a white lab coat.

  Ice cream will do for this guy.

Thank You!

This is Edberto, a (the?) manager at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica cafeteria where I absentmindedly left my camera at lunch on Wednesday. 

His crew found it and stashed it away in the office and had it for me Thursday morning.  A big thank you!






We all tend to complain faster than we say thank you.  I hope there are a few people who read this who remember someone they should thank and do it right now.  Or at least write a note to do it by Monday.  :)

Airport Noise and Other Issues - Santa Monica and Anchorage

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities invited me to their email list sometime last year and I get periodic announcements.  So when I see their articles in other media, I know where they come from.

Last week I got an meeting announcement about Noise for Feb. 29.  We won't be back yet, but I hope someone goes.

Anchorage

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Announces
Public Meeting for Part 150 Study Update

Anchorage, AK – Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will hold a public information meeting on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 to kick-off the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the Spenard Community Recreation Center in the Multi-Purpose Room located at 2020 W. 48th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99517.

The purpose of this meeting is to inform interested parties about the purpose of the Part 150 Study Update and to outline the general study process. Airport staff and the consultant team will be available to listen to citizen comments and answer questions about the study.
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has begun the voluntary process of preparing an update to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study to examine the current and future noise effects caused by aircraft operations at the airport. The goal of this study is to work with surrounding communities, aviation experts, and stakeholders to establish a balanced, cost-effective and comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise.
This is the first of several public meetings that will be held throughout the course of the study. Public and stakeholder coordination is an important portion of the study, and the airport is interested to hear the public’s opinions and concerns on these important issues.
 For additional information please visit:     www.anc150study.com

 Expect much to happen?  Look at their words:

• listen to citizens (if it's not too noisy to hear you, but there is nothing about doing anything with what citizens say.  Do they really care or are they doing it because they have to?)
• answer questions about the study (but not about noise itself)
• voluntary process of updating (but the FAQ's on their website has this sentence buried in it:
  
  "The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is updating their previous Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that the Airport have current Noise Exposure Maps to receive federal funding for noise mitigation measures."
  
• to establish a balanced, cost-effective and comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise.  (Get a bunch of them in a room and off them - ok I'm being silly here.  But I suspect airport noise affects more than just people.  It's an area - sound impacts - that science is just beginning to look at.   But unless airplanes get quieter, I'm not holding my breath that the cost-effective part won't mean that not much will happen.)

The documents section of the linked site gives us an agenda:

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Initial
Public Meeting for Part 150 Study Update

Date:
February 29, 2012
Time:  6:00 p.m.
Location:  Spenard Community Recreation Center – Multi-Purpose Room

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

• Introductions 
• Study Team
• Who is Involved?

• Brief Explanation of FAR Part 150 and the Study
• What is a Part 150 Study? 
• Background on the Previous Part 150 Study 
• Why Update Study?
• Relationship to FAR Part 161 
• Study Process

• Description of Noise Metrics – DNL, SEL, Ldn, Time Above, etc.
  
• Discussion on Potential Noise Monitoring Sites
• Questions/Comments

Santa Monica

And after I got the email about the Anchorage Airport, my mom got this flyer in her mail from CASMAT (Community Against SM Airport Traffic).  This is a somewhat different breed of airport.  It's a very busy private airport surrounded by residential neighborhoods.  The airport's been here longer than most of the houses.  On the other hand, jets weren't flying out of the airport when most of the houses were built.  On the border of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, it's probably more valuable as real estate than as an airport.  But if it closed, where would Jerry Seinfeld keep his planes?

Anyway, the flyer is inviting people to attend "Airport Visioning" Workshops and then the Airport Commission's workshop on March 26. 

The airport site (link to airport site which I'm guessing will change over time) lists several reports.  The report from the city staff - offered by the City Manager, Rod Gould, gives a long history of the airport from its start in 1917 through today.  Then it talks about legal issues, probably the crux of what is happening.

Santa Monica's Airport has been the subject of many legal disputes between the City and Airport users, Airport neighbors, or Airport businesses. However it is the legal disputes between the City and the FAA that have proven to be the most difficult.    The most recent example is the eight year legal battle over the City's Aircraft Conformance Program and the corresponding ordinance banning Category C&D aircraft. This dispute cost the City well over $1,000,000 and the C & D ban was struck down.

Over the course of that dispute, the FAA explained its legal position relative to the City's obligations in its briefs filed with federal appellate courts. Thus, on the issue of Airport closure, the FAA has made it very clear that it does and will take the position that the City cannot close the Airport in 2015 because the Instrument of Transfer, executed after the conclusion of World War II in 1948, obligates the City to operate its Airport in perpetuity. Additionally, the FAA takes the position that the City accepted federal grant funds in 2003 and is thus required by federal law to operate the Airport for at least 20 years thereafter, or until 2023.

Then it goes on to list various options offered by some of the consultants.  Those reports are available too, but the staff report is the only one with substance.

Image of Santa Monica Airport from SMO fact sheet  North on Top

Lost Camera

I took my camera to lunch in the hospital yesterday.  When I was on my bike headed home I realized it wasn't in my pocket.  We went back after dinner and I checked in the cafeteria.  It wasn't in any of the drawers.  They sent me to security.  He looked at a paper.  Nothing reported.  He didn't ask for my name.

Then I remembered how my mom was instructed several times not to have anything valuable in in her overnight back.

OK, it's just a camera.  I didn't break a finger.  I can go out and buy a newer, better one, cheaper one.  And the little door to the battery and sound card was broken and I had taped it together.  It's just a thing.  But as a blogger, it was almost like a finger.  I think I'm more upset that I wasn't paying attention and must have put it down and walked away.  It's usually in a pocket, but it was warm and I wasn't wearing a jacket and I didn't put it in my jeans pocket.  Dumb.

And you don't want me drawing pictures.  I don't want me drawing pictures very often - that takes way too long.  But I did learn how to draw a teardrop in photoshop today. OK, I learned how to draw something that resembles a teardrop.  I'll get better. 

The LA Times lists sales for cameras..

[UPDATE 11am:  J found my camera.  It was in the cafeteria office, which was closed last night.  Patience and faith, I need more of them.]

Rain Yesterday, Sun Today - Random LA Images

The title's inaccurate.  The images aren't random.  They're ones I picked because they made a point I wanted to make or I just liked them. 


I thought that during the Super Bowl the freeway traffic would be lighter.  But getting onto the San Diego Freeway just before game time proved slow.  But the sky was very clear and the temperatures a delicious and dry mid 70s. 

Car stuff in general reminds me why I live in Alaska.  One reason we came down was to help my mom when she went in for some elective surgery.  She's in a private hospital in Santa Monica where parking is horrendous.  So many streets have permit only parking.  The others have meters.  Finding an empty space isn't easy.  When my mom is with us, I have no problem using her handicapped sign, but I won't use it when she's not with us.  (The handicapped sign has all sorts of benefits

including not paying for parking meters.)  But yesterday I couldn't find a parking space after wandering around, so I tried the parking lot.  $2 for 15 minutes!  Providence Anchorage - thank you for your free parking.  On the other hand, if traffic is so bad and parking so difficult, maybe more people will experiment with the bus or with a bike.  Today I biked up.  When people drive, they really don't think about how far things are.  It only took me 20 minutes on my second hand utility bike.  And parking was right at the entrance for free.  (Mine's the bright blue one.)

Yesterday it rained.  It was a nice break from the relentless sun as Dan Bern sang about it in The Wasteland.


This is the entrance to St. John's, with wet pavement.  They even had plastic umbrella bags at the entrance even though it really didn't rain hard enough to soak below the soil.

Sunday we had breakfast at the Mar Vista Farmers Market.  I also got my stem tightened on my bike by the friendly folks from Bikerowave , a do it yourself bike shop, that had a table there.  Also got to talk to some folks from the Mar Vista Community Council.  Hey Anchorage, we had them built into the Charter in 1975, but LA only got theirs into the City Charter in 1999. 

I just liked the way the sun was lighting up this mass of Birds of Paradise.







We had take out Monday night from Thai Vegan on Main Street.  Great prices and decent Thai food.  We even had mango and sticky rice for dessert. 
















And after yesterday's grey, I couldn't resist getting this bright yellow house and equally bright blue sky this morning on my morning run - which I had had to skip for a few days. 

By the way we decided to move the car.  We had to wait a looooooong time for the car in front of us and then the attendant spent a long time counting money before serving us.  It was $4.  I asked how long we'd been there and when she saw it was 16 minutes, she said $2 would be fine. 

Alaska Redistricting Board To Appeal Ruling on Districts 37 and 38

[11:50am Anchorage time:  I heard this online.  They met - got an overview - went into executive session.  When they came out, what I understood was that they would appeal the decisions on House Districts 37 and 38.  Then they discussed timing.  Things may not be totally complete by the June 1 filing deadline for candidates.

What I didn't hear was when or how they would deal with HDs 1 and 2.  I didn't hear they would appeal them or what they would do to meet the judge's ruling about them.  Below are my notes as listened.  Also worth noting, Attorney White mentioned that the plaintiffs could also appeal parts of the decision that went against them.]

[UPDATE Feb. 8:  The Board posted this on their website regarding HDs 1 and 2:

The Board decided not to appeal Judge McConahy's remand of House Districts 1 and 2.

"We believe that the fix to House Districts 1 and 2 will be relatively straightforward," said Torgerson. "We will address those issues after the Supreme Court has made its ruling next month."]

 ROUGH NOTES WARNING:  Read at your own peril.  These notes should give you a sense of what happened, but are not reliable for specifics.  What you find here is, at best, good for figuring out what further questions to ask. 

Board opened at 10:03am Alaska time.  Everyone was there (at least by phone.)  [As I was listening online, I couldn't quite tell who was there physically.]

Live streaming - lots of echo. [It turned out I had this on two different windows and when I shut one down, the echo disappeared.]

Michael White's Report
Judge McConahy's Decision

Here's the agenda:

BOARD MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 7, 2012 Anchorage, AK
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
    - Bickford talked about the budget
5. LITIGATION UPDATE
Michael White (Board Attorney) is going over his memo which you can get here.
Found on our favor on splitting Fairbanks, the proportionality rulings, and the Senate seats.
Found we could have higher deviation if necessary for other factors.
He ruled HD 2 not compact and we had nothing for that.
Districts 1 and 2 unconstitutional and have to be redrawn.
HD 5 in our favor.  HD 6 - hard to know what they wanted - but judge ruled in our favor.  No issues with any of the FB Senate pairings.
They said city of Fairbanks entitled to a Senate seat.  Judge agreed with us they didn't have enough people for one seat.
Compactness, court said, they had to go somewhere.  
37 and 38 against us.
Our decision to divide Aleutian Chain to avoid pairing of Senators Hoffman and Stevens, which we thought was necessary to avoid.  . .  we thought if we paired two out of seven Native lawmakers, it would be problematic, we had complaints from Calista and Kodiak, we knew all along that the Hickel decision ruled splitting Aleutians unconstitutional unless required by law.  The judge said it was too speculative so it didn't trump the Constitution and remanded it back to the board requiring us to put Aleutians back together.

Also alluded that other Native districts had more Native population than required.  I'm still struggling with that, I still don't understand that.  Somehow he thinks because 39 and 40 affected the necessary standard for violating the constitution.  He has a citation in Hickel.  We'll talk more in Executive Session what I think about these things.

HD 38, in which he said Board - urban and rural had to be combined, undisputed.  It's reasonable to take from Ester and Goldstream, but at the end he says I'm throwing it out because avoiding Stevens and Hoffman pairing affected  district 38 - which it didn't - and so it wasn't necessary to violate constitution for VRA.
Tally and Scoreboard.  4 districts court found unconstitutional.  Obviously dependent on the SC if we go there.

Bickford - which ones not remanded?
All the other Senate pairings.  four out of ten challenged.
Brodie:  If we make any changes to 37 or 38 we have to resubmit to DOJ?
White:  Any change at all has to be resubmitted.  We're under expedited ....
Petition for Review, means in non-redistricting context.  Ask appellate court   ---- because remanded to court, not technically a final order.  We have a meeting scheduled for 2:30 today ???? they want briefs by Friday - three days from now.  Increased from 15 to 25 pages.  Any petitions for review by us or plaintiffs.  Then oral argument in middle of March, March 15 likely date for that.
Looking at procedural things that need to be done.  No transcripts of trial and whether they need to be done.
Bottom line is that in the end there are 4 districts remanded by the judge to the board and we have to decide what we want to do.

Bickford:  Clarification - we can choose to appeal a part?
White:  Yes.
10:29  Torgerson:  Going to Executive Session.  It should last about an hour.  We will have people here wait in the hallway because some things brought up in trial were discussed in Executive Session so we assume that things were heard in the past while we were in Executive Session.

Things stopped at this point and they should be back in about an hour or 11:30 Alaska time. (I was listening online from California.)

6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

11:38 Anchorage time - they are going to appeal about 37 and 38.  Michael White is talking about timing, I didn't catch it all.  Something about seven days.  SC would either affirm or reverse and send it back to trial court and then it would be remanded to the board.

About 3rd week in March the board would get back together and adopt an amended proclamation, then parties to the case could raise issues.  Others couldn't.  New people can't come in and raise new challenges.  If there are challenges SC will review.  Middle of May or towards the end of May last time it was done.

If any lines changed have to go back to DOJ.  Probably wouldn't wait for all appeals, could go to DOJ before all settled.  There's an expidited process available.

Last time they got the letter of non-rejection in middle of June.  Preclearance means you can't put a plan into use, but people can file.

Hope to get it before June 1 but may not happen.

Brodie:  Filing for a review from SC?

White:  With an appeal you have ten days.  Petition for review, put justification for why they should take it.  SC will take it.

Brodie:  SC sends to trial court then?

White:  It will be a pass through to us when it comes back.

Torgerson:  Appeal 37 and 38?

All vote yes. 

Torgerson:  Any other motions?  Seeing none, go to board comments. No more meetings until it goes to SC.  If members want to fly up, that's legitimate.  I plan on being there.

About March 15.  Michael says meet 3rd week of March, but I think it will be close to 1 April.  Once we get decision, we'll start fishing dates, depending on rulings.  For planning purposes, let's block out three days.  Depending on the ruling, try to block out three days or more if possible incase we had to we could keep going.

White:  Last time they allowed people to present plans.  Don't know if that's required.  Litigants at least were allowed to comment.  Something to think about.

Torgerson:  Kept the most open plan there was, but put back by the presentation of a plan the first day of trial.  The Democrats putting a plan out to protect Fairbanks Democrats, put the rest of the state under the bus to help Fairbanks Democrats.

Brodie:  Do the best we can.

Torgerson:  Anyone else?

Bickford:  Look at your calendars for April.

Torgerson:  Michael has pre trial hearing today.

White:  After oral argument last time I went away to CB Winery cooking school.  I slept til ten and . . .  we got our decision March 27 or something last time.

Torgerson:  Thank you everyone for taking another day out of your schedule.


8. ADJOURNMENT

"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.

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.'