^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Featured stories in this issue...

Toxic Lead Is Still Robbing Our Children of Brain Power
  The government and the media give the impression that the problem
  of toxic lead has largely been solved. Unfortunately, this is not the
  case. Millions of children are still having their IQs reduced by
  exposure to lead.
FDA Says No New Labeling or Regulations for Nanotech Products
  When common materials are turned into nano-sized particles, they
  exhibit entirely new properties. That is what makes them
  scientifically and commercially interesting. But U.S. Food and Drug
  Administration (FDA) says those new properties are not important
  enough to be regulated or even labeled. So how can the buyer beware?
A Very, Very Small Opportunity
  If you talk with investors, they will tell you that nanotechnology
  is the next big thing. But what if the public turns against it
  because it was introduced without proper labeling or safety testing?
  That seems to be the direction things are headed. How can the
  nanotechnology industry avoid the mistakes made by the biotechnology
  industry?
Dioxins Linked with Behavioral Disorders
  Dioxin is created as an inevitable byproduct of incinerators,
  coal-burning power plants, and other combustion machines. Dioxins are
  a potent family of poisons of the immune system and the reproductive
  system. Now we learn that dioxins also affect behavior.
Pollution-cholesterol Link To Heart Disease Seen
  Diesel exhaust and other ultrafine particles worsen heart
  problems for people with high cholesterol.
Editorial -- a Warming World: No To Nukes
  The Los Angeles Times has taken a stand against nuclear power: "The
  enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors
  to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over
  what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear
  infrastructure will be a slow process -- far too slow to make a
  difference on global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear
  power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper,
  faster alternatives that come with none of the risks."
Better Health Through Fairer Wealth
  The media tell us that the major factors causing illness are poor
  lifestyle choices, faulty genes and infectious agents. Here's the
  rest of the story.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #917, Jul. 26, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

TOXIC LEAD IS STILL ROBBING OUR CHILDREN OF BRAIN POWER

By Peter Montague

In a front-page story June 22, the New York Times reported that a
first-born child typically has a 3-point IQ advantage over any
brothers or sisters born later.[1] The editors of the Times considered
this information so important that they featured it in a second news
story,[2] an op-ed commentary,[3] and four letters to the editor.[4]

Here is how the Times initially described the importance of a 3-point
IQ advantage:

"Three points on an I.Q. test may not sound like much. But experts say
it can be a tipping point for some people -- the difference between a
high B average and a low A, for instance. That, in turn, can have a
cumulative effect that could mean the difference between admission to
an elite private liberal-arts college and a less exclusive public
one."[1]

The Times did not mention it, but for some children the loss of 3 IQ
points could mean the difference between a high D average and a low C,
with a cumulative effect that could mean the difference between
staying in school and dropping out.

In other words, a 3-point loss of IQ may be crucially important in
every child's life, not just those headed for the Ivy League.

The U.S. Department of Labor says 19 million jobs will be created in
the next decade and 12 million of them (63%) will require education
beyond high-school.[5] As the globalized economy puts U.S. workers
under greater competitive pressure, workers are expected to survive by
retraining themselves 2 or 3 times during their working years. In this
new world, every IQ point takes on new importance.

Unfortunately, the loss of 4 to 7 IQ points is far more widespread
among U.S. children than anyone has so far reported, except in obscure
medical journals.

One of the main causes of widespread loss of IQ is the toxic metal,
lead, which is a potent neurotoxin. This soft gray metal was widely
used in paint, in leaded gasoline, in sealing "tin" cans, and in water
pipes throughout most of the 20th century, and the residuals are still
taking a toll today in the form of peeling paint, toxic house-dust in
older homes, contaminated soil, and a measurable body burden in almost
all our children.

The most common units of measurement for lead in blood are micrograms
per deciLiter of blood (ug/dL). A microgram is a millionth of a gram
and there are 28 grams in an ounce. A deciLiter is a tenth of a liter
and a liter is roughly a quart.[6]

As lead in your blood goes up, your IQ goes down. And paradoxically
the first few micrograms of lead are the most damaging.

As a child's lead rises from less than 1 ug/dL up to 10, he or she
loses an average of 7 IQ points.[7,8,9,10] If lead continues rising
from 10 to 20, another 2 IQ points get shaved off. The first 5 ug/dL
reduce a child's IQ by about 4 points.[7,8,9,10]

According to the latest available data, 26 percent of all children in
the U.S. between the ages of 1 and 5 have 5 to 10 micrograms of toxic
lead in each deciLiter of blood[11] -- which corresponds to a loss of
4 to 7 IQ points.[7,8,9,10] The estimate of lead in blood was
published in December 2003, covering the period 1988-1994. Average
levels today are probably somewhat lower because the trend for lead in
children's blood is downward.

Unfortunately this 26% average for all U.S. children masks a
disproportionate effect among non-whites, who tend to live in families
with low income and in older homes that may have peeling paint
containing toxic lead.

In the 2003 report, nearly half (47%) of non-Hispanic Black children
ages 1 to 5 had blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 ug/dL, which
corresponds to a loss of 4 to 7 IQ points. Nineteen percent of white
children and 28% of Hispanic children fell in the same range.[11]

This means that exposure to toxic lead is still a huge problem in the
U.S., robbing more than a million children each year of the
intellectual potential they were born with.[12]

Unfortunately, there is widespread misunderstanding (and muddled
reporting in the media) about this problem, due in no small part to
confusing and contradictory policies set by the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). State governments by and large just go along.

Prior to 1971, doctors only treated children for lead poisoning if
they had more than 60 ug/dL.[13] At this level many children died, and
those who survived had major permanent brain damage. Permanent damage
from lead poisoning was well documented at least as early as 1943, but
it wasn't until 1971 that the definition of "elevated" lead in
children's blood was reduced to 40 ug/dL. By 1978, it was apparent
that children were still being brain-damaged at 40 ug/dL, so the
definition of "elevated" was reduced to 30. In 1985, the definition of
"elevated" was reduced again, to 25, and in 1991 it was reduced again,
to 10 ug/dL.[14]

In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
reaffirmed its 10 ug/dL "level of concern," using tortured logic. CDC
first acknowledged that "there is no 'safe' threshold for blood lead
levels." [15, pg. ix] In other words, CDC acknowledges that any amount
of lead greater than zero causes some harm. CDC then says, "Although
there is evidence of adverse health effects in children with blood
lead levels below 10 ug/dL, CDC has not changed its level of concern,
which remains at levels equal to or greater than 10 ug/dL.... If no
threshold level exists for adverse health effects, setting a new BLL
[blood lead level] of concern somewhere below 10 ug/dL would be based
on an arbitrary decision," CDC says.[15, pg. ix]

In other words, since any amount of lead in blood greater than zero is
harmful to children, then 10 is as good a number as any for defining
where the problem begins. It's like saying automobiles are dangerous
at any speed above zero, so setting the legal speed limit at 100 mph
is as good as any other number.

So this is where it stands today: CDC says children are being harmed
at levels below 10, yet CDC retains its official "level of concern" of
10 because picking any number below 10 (except zero) would be
arbitrary.[15]

It gets worse: CDC says 10 ug/dL is the "level of concern" but finding
10 ug/dL in a child's blood still does not trigger official attention
to that individual child. When a community finds 10 ug/dL in some of
its children, it is supposed to take community-wide action to prevent
lead exposures -- urging homeowners to wet-mop to reduce household
dust, for example. Yes, this will help, but it is an adequate
response?

By current CDC guidelines, a child must have 15 ug/dL before the local
health department is supposed to initiate "case management," visiting
the home, for example, to discuss ways to reduce exposure. If a child
has 20 ug/dL or more, then serious intervention may be initiated --
forcing homeowners or landlords to remove sources of lead (such as old
paint) from the home, for example.

But here's the worst news: CDC's "level of concern" is widely
interpreted as a "safe" level by other government agencies. It was
never intended as such. As one lead researcher has written, "Although
the CDC's intervention level is not a statement concerning the level
of childhood blood lead considered 'safe' or 'acceptable,' it has been
interpreted as such by the general public and by federal regulatory
agencies."[16] And, we should add, by state agencies as well.

For example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has never set
a "reference dose" for inorganic lead, as it has for several other
neurotoxins about which far less information is available. EPA uses
CDC's logic: it cannot find a level of exposure to lead that is
"likely to be without deleterious effects during a lifetime" of
exposure. So it ignores the problem by refusing to set a reference
dose.[16]

As you can probably gather from this description, CDC guidelines do
not flag 10 ug/dL as a serious threat to children. And that is the way
it is understood across America, as a recent scan of newspapers
revealed [with my comments inside square brackets]:

** The Wasau (Wisc.) Daily Herald reported May 27, 2007, that in
Marathon County, Wisconsin, 1617 children were tested "with 43
registering levels higher than 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood."
[With only 43 out of 1617 affected, the problem doesn't sound very
serious, does it?]

** The Arizona Daily Star reported Feb. 4, 2007 that only 1 percent of
children in Pima County have "elevated blood-lead levels." [Only 1
percent? Sounds like the problem has been solved, doesn't it?]

** The Westerly, Rhode Island, Sun reported Feb. 3, 2007 that "In
2005, about two percent of 31,669 children screened in Rhode Island,
or 621 children, showed an elevated lead count in their blood..."
[Only two percent -- sounds like the problem is small.]

** In Fitchburg, Massachusetts the Sentinel & Enterprise reported Nov.
6, 2006, that childhood lead poisoning has dropped from 8.2 per 1000
children in 1998 to 2.7 per 1000 in 2005 (with "lead poisoning"
defined as 20 ug/dL). [Sounds like the problem is small and under
control.]

** The Denver Post reported April 29, 2007, "About 38 out of every
100,000 children under the age of 6 tested in Colorado in 2003-04
showed elevated levels of lead." [Only 38 out of 100,000? Sounds like
the problem has been solved.]

** The Erie (Pa.) Times-News reported Dec. 3, 2006, "... the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 310,000
children nationwide between the ages of 1 and 5 have blood lead levels
of 10 micrograms per deciliter or greater. Ten micrograms per
deciliter is the federal threshold for lead poisoning in children that
can result in development, learning and behavior problems." [A
wonderfully clear statement of the point I'm making -- 10 ug/dL is
almost universally reported as a level below which there are no real
problems.]

To be fair, several of these news stories quoted one individual or
another (often a community activist) saying that levels of lead below
10 can cause problems in children -- but none of the stories mentions
the number of children exposed at levels below 10. It's as if levels
below 10 don't really matter. All the published numerical estimates
are expressed in terms of CDC's official "level of concern" -- and all
the published estimates make the problem appear small.

The habit of only reporting 10 ug/dL or more comes directly from CDC
itself[17] and from state health departments, many of whom measure,
but do not publish, data on lead in blood below 10 ug/dL. For example,
here is how the New Jersey state health department presented its
summary of lead in N.J. children in 2005 (the latest year for which
N.J. data are available):

"While 191,788 (97.7%) children tested in New Jersey in FY 2005 had
blood lead levels below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) threshold of 10 ug/dL, there were 4,547 (2.3%) children with a
blood lead test result above this level."[18, pg. 7]

So in all of New Jersey, only 2.3% of children rise to the level of
concern defined by CDC. This is very different from estimating, for
example, that about 140,000 kids younger than 5 in New Jersey have
lost 4 to 7 IQ points because they have 5 to 10 ug/dL lead in their
blood.[19]

Numerical data on how many children have lead levels below 10 ug/dL
seem to be a closely guarded secret. A review of dozens of published
reports on lead in children's blood since 1985 uncovered only one
report that estimated the proportion of children in the U.S. with 5 to
10 ug/dL.[11] The federal government and many state governments
collect this data -- but none of them publish it. They focus instead
on the small number of children with more than 10 ug/dL, continuing
the illusion that 10 or more is the only amount that matters.

How could a small amount like 5 ug/dL harm anyone?

How could such a small amount of lead -- 5 ug in each deciLiter of
blood -- cause brain damage? One way to understand such a question is
to ask about the environment in which our species, Homo sapiens,
evolved. How much lead are humans accustomed to?

From modern studies, scientists know the relationship of lead in blood
to lead in bones. So in 1992, a group of scientists measured lead in
the bones of pre-industrial humans, for the purpose of estimating
"natural background" (pre-industrial) levels of lead in blood. They
concluded that the natural background level of lead in human blood is
0.016 ug/dL -- so 5 ug/dL represents a level 300 times as high as
natural background.[20]

A 300-fold increase in a potent nerve poison seems certain to take its
toll on humans so exposed, especially if they are exposed during early
childhood, when their brains are developing rapidly.

Brain damage is not the only harm caused by lead at levels below 10
ug/dL. In 2004, CDC asked a panel of experts to evaluate and summarize
the current scientific literature on adverse health effects associated
with blood lead levels less than 10 ug/dL. [See the Appendix in
footnote 15.]

They found that intellectual impairment -- brain damage -- was number
one, but they also found:

** Reduced height and head circumference as blood lead levels rise
above 1 ug/dL.

** Delayed sexual maturation. Two studies observed late puberty in
girls with blood lead levels in the range of 2 to 5 ug/dL. This seems
to indicate that lead is interfering with the endocrine (hormone)
system.

** Dental caries (popularly known as "cavities" in teeth) were more
likely to develop as a child's blood lead level rose from 1 to 3
ug/dL.

And a study too recent to have been included in the Appendix has shown
that a child is 4 times as likely to have attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) when blood lead levels reached 2 ug/dL
or greater, compared to children with lead at 1 ug/dL.[21] In the
U.S., an estimated 4.4 million children have been diagnosed with
ADHD.[22]

So the problem is large -- but the government and the media together
have managed to make it appear small. Yes, we have made progress in
curbing the very substantial harm done to ourselves and our children
by the paint and gasoline corporations during the 20th century. But
we've still got a long way to go.

To make any real progress, government agencies need to stop pretending
that this problem has been solved. Publishing all the available data
on lead in children's blood would be a good start. Yes, parents would
find it disturbing and there might be an uproar. That's as it should
be.

==============

[1] Benedict Carey, "Research Finds Firstborns Gain The Higher IQ,"
New York Times June 22, 2007, pg. A1. http://tinyurl.com/26nbc4

[2] Benedict Carey, "Findings on Birth Order and IQ Prompt Debate on
Influence of Family Dynamics," New York Times June 25, 2007, pg. A17.
http://tinyurl.com/yofxms

[3] Benedict Carey, "I Am Worm, Hear Me Roar," New York Times July 1,
2007, Week in Review, pg. 1.

[4] "Mom Always Said You Were Smarter," New York Times June 29, 2007,
pg. A28.

[5] Mason M. Bishop, "Promoting U.S. Worker Competitiveness; Statement
of Mason M. Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary For Employment and
Training, U.S. Department of Labor before the Committee on House Ways
and Means June 14, 2007." http://tinyurl.com/yvtwgp

[6] Occasionally you will see lead in blood reported in micromoles per
liter; if you have micromoles per liter and you want ug/dL, multiply
by 20.704; conversely, if you have ug/dL and you want micromoles per
liter, multiply by 0.0483.

[7] Richard L. Canfield and others, "Intellectual Impairment in
Children with Blood lead Concentrations below 10 ug per Deciliter,"
New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 348, No. 16 (April 17, 2003),
[pgs. 1517-1526. http://tinyurl.com/26l24n See Figure 2.

[8] Bruce P. Lanphear and others, "Low-level Environmental Lead
Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled
Analysis," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 113, No. 7 (July
2005), pgs. 894-899. http://tinyurl.com/2b6yv7 See Figures 3 and 4.

[9] Bruce P. Lanphear and others, "Cognitive Deficits Associated with
Blood lead Concentrations <10 ug/dL in US Children and Adolescents,"
Public Health Reports Vol. 115, No. 6 (Nov/Dec 2000), pgs. 521-529.
http://tinyurl.com/2fn4lp

[10] David C. Bellinger and others. "Low-Level Lead Exposure,
Intelligence, and Academic Achievement: A Long-term Follow-up Study,"
Pediatrics Vol. 90, No. 6 (December 1992), pgs. 855-861.
http://tinyurl.com/2rmvqq

[11] Susan M. Bernard and Michael A. McGeehin, "Prevalence of Blood
Lead Levels Greater Than or Equal to 5 ug/dL Among US Children 1 to 5
Years of Age and Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors Associated with
Blood of Lead Levels 5 to 10 ug/dL, Third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994," Pediatrics Vol. 112, No. 6
(December 2003), pgs. 1308-1313. http://tinyurl.com/3y5arc

[12] There are about 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year; if
25% have lead between 5 and 10 ug/dL that's a million babies harmed.
This number omits some immigrants and children with lead levels above
10 ug/dL.

[13] Walter J. Rogan and James H. Ware, "Exposure to Lead in Children
-- How Low is Low Enough?," New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 348,
No. 16 (April 17, 2003), pgs. 1515-1516. http://tinyurl.com/26wx7b

[14] Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young
Children (Atlanta, Ga.: October 1, 1991). http://tinyurl.com/2db87t

[15] Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young
Children; A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (Atlanta, Ga.: August, 2005). [Contains an important
Appendix: Work Group of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention. A Review of Evidence of Adverse Health Effects
Associated with Blood Lead Levels < 10 ug/dL in Children, August
2005.] http://tinyurl.com/3daf3q

[16] Susan M. Bernard, "Should the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Childhood Lead Poisoning Intervention Level Be Lowered?"
American Journal of Public Health Vol. 93, No. 8 (August 2003), pgs.
1253-1260. http://tinyurl.com/yrk6fl See also
http://tinyurl.com/2dbyhq.

[17] "Blood Lead Levels -- United States, 1999-2002," MMWR [Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report] Vol. 54, No. 20 (May 27, 2005), pgs.
513-516. http://tinyurl.com/ypsoqz

[18] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Childhood
Lead Poisoning in New Jersey. Trenton, N.J.: New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services, 2005. [Covers the period July 1, 2004 to
June 30, 2005] http://tinyurl.com/2gmgth

[19] Even the 4,547 number gives an overly-optimistic impression of
the situation in New Jersey in 2005. In July, 2005, there were 563,900
children under age 5 in New Jersey. http://tinyurl.com/258uoy. If
2.3% of these have lead levels of at least 10 ug/dL, that's 12,970
kids who have lost at least 7 IQ points. And if one-quarter of the
563,900 have 5 to 10 ug/dL, that's about 140,000 kids who have lost 4
to 7 IQ points to lead.

[20] A. Russell Flegal and others, "Lead Levels in Preindustrial
Humans," New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 326, No. 19 (May 7,
1992), pgs. 1293-1294. http://tinyurl.com/38rnq3

[21] Joe M. Braun and others, "Exposure to Environmental Toxicants and
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in U.S. Children,"
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 12 (December 2006),
pgs. 1904-1909. http://tinyurl.com/2ohcwf

[22] "Mental Health in the United States: Prevalence of Diagnosis and
Medication Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder --
United States, 2003." MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report]
Vol. 54, No. 34 (September 2, 2005), pgs. 842-847.
http://tinyurl.com/2u38fc

More Readings on Harm from Blood Lead Levels Below 10 ug/dL

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health.
"Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection, and Management,"
Pediatrics Vol. 116, No. 4 (October 4, 2005), pgs. 1036-1046.
http://tinyurl.com/2at8fq

Bellinger, David C. "Lead." Pediatrics Vol. 113, No. 4 (April, 2004),
pgs. 1016-1022. http://tinyurl.com/2k33vv

Bellinger, David C. and Herbert L. Needleman. "Intellectual Impairment
and Blood Lead Levels." New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 349, No.
5 (July 31, 2003), pg. 500. http://tinyurl.com/2btyj8

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Environmental Health. "Why not change the blood lead level of concern
at this time?" Accessed (and captured as a PDF file) on the CDC web
site August 7, 2004; available in PDF at http://tinyurl.com/2a3vft

Chen, Aimin, and others. "Lead Exposure, IQ, and Behavior in Urban 5-
to 7-Year-Olds: Does Lead Affect Behavior Only by Lowering IQ?"
Pediatrics Vol. 119, No. 3 (March 3, 2007), pgs. e650-e658.
http://tinyurl.com/2dq3mo

Chiodo, Lisa M. and others. "Neurodevelopmental effects of postnatal
lead exposure at very low levels." Neurotoxicology and Teratology Vol.
26 (2004), pgs. 359-371. http://tinyurl.com/2zo7y6

Committee on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics.
"Policy Statement -- Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection,
and Management." Pediatrics Vol. 116, No. 4 (October 2005), pgs.
1036-1046. http://tinyurl.com/2at8fq

Needleman, Herbert L. "Deficits in the Psychologic and Classroom
Performance of Children with Elevated Dentine Lead Levels," New
England Journal of Medicine Vol. 300, No. 13 (March 29, 1979), pgs.
689-695. http://tinyurl.com/2wj8l8

Needleman, Herbert L. "Lead Poisoning," Annual Review of Medicine Vol.
55 (2004), pgs. 209-222. http://tinyurl.com/2jgw2j

Needleman, Herbert L., and Philip J. Landrigan, "What Level of Lead in
Blood is Toxic for a Child?" American Journal of Public Health Vol.
94, No. 1 (January 2004), pg. 8. http://tinyurl.com/2dbyhq

"Neurodevelopment inversely related to blood lead levels <10 mcg/dL,"
Blood Weekly (Oct. 12, 2006), pg. 73. http://tinyurl.com/ytzfrx

Schnaas, Lourdes, and other. "Reduced Intellectual Development in
Children with Prenatal Lead Exposure." Environmental Health
Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 5 (May 2006), pgs. 791-797.
http://tinyurl.com/2dq3mo

Schwartz, Joel. "Low-Level Exposures and Children's IQ: A Meta-
analysis and Search for a Threshold." Environmental Research Vol. 65
(1994), pgs. 42-55. http://tinyurl.com/2c63nc

Shih, Regina A., and others. "Cumulative Lead Dose and Cognitive
Function in Adults: A Review of Studies That Measured Both Blood Lead
and Bone Lead." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 115, No. 3
(March 2007), pgs. 483-492. http://tinyurl.com/2kcvhk

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New York Times, Jul. 25, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

FDA SAYS NO NEW LABELING FOR NANOTECH PRODUCTS

By Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) -- The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday
said the rising number of cosmetics, drugs and other products made
using nanotechnology do not require special regulations or labeling.

The recommendations come as the agency looks at the oversight of
products that employ the design and use of particles as small as one-
billionth of a meter. There are fears by consumer groups and others
that these tiny particles are unpredictable, could be toxic and
therefore have unforeseen health impacts.

A task force within the FDA concluded that although nano-sized
materials may have completely different properties than their bigger
counterparts, there is no evidence that they pose any major safety
risks at this time.

"We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized
materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the
label," said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA's associate commissioner for
policy and planning, during a briefing with reporters.

As least 300 consumers products, including sunscreen, toothpaste and
shampoo are now made using nanotechnology, according to a Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars report.

The technology is also being used in medicine, where scientists are
developing tiny sensors that detect disease markers in the body, and
in the food industry, which is using it to extend shelf life in food
packaging.

The FDA now treats products made with nanotechnology the same way it
handles all products -- requiring companies to prove safety and
efficacy before their product can come to market.

But some product categories, such as cosmetics, foods and dietary
supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold,
which already worries some advocates. Producing them with
nanotechnology adds another layer of concern.

The International Center for Technology Assessment, a nonprofit policy
group that is suing the FDA calling for more oversight over the
technology, said the recommendations lack teeth.

"Nano means more than just tiny. It means these materials can be
fundamentally different, exhibiting chemical and physical properties
that are drastically different," said George Kimbrell, staff attorney
at the group. "The consumer is being made the guinea pig."

The group sites studies showing certain types of the particles can
cause inflammatory and immune system responses in animals as an
example of possible dangers.

The FDA said it will soon issue guidance documents for industries
using nanotechnology, which include pharmaceutical companies, medical
device makers and consumer products firms.

Lutter said the task force concluded that nanotechnology is not
substantially different from earlier emerging technologies such as
biotechnology or irradiation.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Ltd.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Orion Magazine, Aug. 1, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

A VERY, VERY SMALL OPPORTUNITY

How science and society can avoid a collision over nanotechnology

By David Rejeski

Over the last few decades, scientists have developed tools that allow
them to see and manipulate matter at an atomic scale, down to a
nanometer (that's around one eighty-thousandth the width of a human
hair). Nano is an invisible technology with big impacts that almost
nobody is talking about; bring manufacturing down to a nanoscale and
you have the makings of the next industrial revolution.

Government and industry are betting that nanotechnology will allow us
to create new properties from old matter, making materials stronger
and lighter, for instance, and even create whole new forms of matter.
If you talk with investors, they will tell you that nano is the next
big thing.

By 2014, nanotechnology is expected to account for over $1.4 trillion
of global economic production. Like most technological revolutions,
this one will have some downsides. Animal studies have shown that
nanoparticles can enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain
barrier, and damage tissue and DNA -- reasons for concern, and for
more research.

Given the size of the global investment, possible risks, and what's at
stake for our lives, our economy, and the environment, you might ask:
"Shouldn't we be having a conversation about this technology?" Yet
recent surveys have shown that 70 to 80 percent of Americans have
heard "nothing" or "very little" about nanotech, despite its
potentially transformative effects on medicine, agriculture,
computation, defense, and energy production.

This is nothing new. When was the last time the government asked you
how to spend your taxes on science? That didn't happen with nuclear
power, genetics, or agricultural biotechnology. For people who lived
through the biotech revolution, nanotech is a flashback: the collision
of rapidly advancing technology with lagging public understanding,
which could scuttle billions of dollars in public and private sector
investment in nanotech and jeopardize some real breakthroughs, like
better treatments for cancer and far cheaper solar energy.

It doesn't have to be this way. In nanotechnology we find an
unprecedented opportunity to do things differently, to develop a
social contract between the public and the scientific community that
is built on openness and trust. And that begins with a conversation.

For the past two years, a number of surveys and focus groups have been
conducted around public attitudes toward nanotechnology. When given
some balanced background material on nanotechnology and its potential
benefits and risks, few people in the U.S. want to shut down
scientific progress. But most do not trust industry to self-regulate.
They want effective oversight, more disclosure and transparency,
premarket testing, and testing done by independent, third parties --
all rational expectations for a new science with some inherent risks.
These are expectations that could form the foundation for a new social
contract between society and science that helps define mechanisms for
oversight, industry disclosure, better risk research, and public
consultation.

Movement in this direction is starting at a community level. Berkeley,
California, recently passed the world's first nanotechnology
ordinance, requiring nanotech firms within city limits to detail what
they are producing and what they know about its risks; Cambridge,
Massachusetts, may do the same. NGOs are asking valid questions about
the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, and media coverage is
finally expanding beyond the science journals. If we are on the cusp
of the next industrial revolution, we need a public conversation about
our goals. Nano may be the small technology that creates that large
opportunity.

==============

David Rejeski is the director of the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Environmental Science & Technology Online News, Jul. 25, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

DIOXINS LINKED WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS

By Robert Weinhold

Two clinically significant behavioral disorders, namely learning
disabilities and attention deficit disorder, have been linked with low
or average blood serum concentrations of two dioxins and one furan.

Researchers say these are the first indicators of a connection between
such levels of persistent organic pollutants and diagnosed behavioral
problems in children in the general population. Previous work has
shown a correlation between these chemicals and reductions in
cognitive function indicators. The findings, by Duk-Hee Lee with
Kyungpook National University School of Medicine (South Korea) and
colleagues from Spain and the U.S., were published in the Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health (2007, 61, 591-596).

The team discovered the link after reviewing 1999-2000 data for seven
polychlorinated compounds as well as lead and cadmium from the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey. In 278 children aged 12-15, those
who had detectable concentrations of three of the polychlorinated
compounds were about 2-3 times as likely as those without detectable
concentrations to report that they had been diagnosed with a learning
disability. The researchers also found that exposure to two of those
three compounds was linked with reports of a diagnosis of attention
deficit disorder. The affected children tended to be white and to have
mothers who were younger and smoked during pregnancy.

The tested concentrations of the three implicated compounds --
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HPCDD); 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(OCDD); and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzofuran (HPCDF) -- were in the middle or lower end of
the concentration ranges in the CDC's Third National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.

These compounds usually are generated by certain chlorination,
manufacturing, or incineration processes. Human exposures largely
occur via breast milk or contaminated meat, milk, eggs, or fish.

The researchers acknowledge that limitations of the study preclude
firm conclusions about the cause-effect relationships of these
substances and behavioral disorders. However, they say that their
research -- including the discovery that these results would not have
been predicted by using accepted toxic equivalency factors -- adds to
the growing knowledge and uncertainties about the neurotoxic effects
of dioxins and furans.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Los Angeles Times, Jul. 26, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

POLLUTION-CHOLESTEROL LINK TO HEART DISEASE SEEN

The combination activates genes that can cause clogged arteries, UCLA
researchers say.

By Marla Cone

Strengthening the link between air pollution and cardiovascular
disease, new research suggests that people with high cholesterol are
especially vulnerable to heart disease when they are exposed to diesel
exhaust and other ultra-fine particles that are common pollutants in
urban air.

Microscopic particles in diesel exhaust combine with cholesterol to
activate genes that trigger hardening of the arteries, according to a
study by UCLA scientists to be published today.

"Their combination creates a dangerous synergy that wreaks
cardiovascular havoc far beyond what's caused by the diesel or
cholesterol alone," said Dr. Andre Nel, chief of nanomedicine at the
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a researcher at UCLA's
California NanoSystems Institute. He led a team of 10 scientists who
conducted the study, published in an online version of the journal
Genome Biology.

Although diet, smoking and other factors contribute to the risk of
cardiovascular disease -- the leading cause of death in the Western
world -- scientists have long believed that air pollution,
particularly tiny pieces of soot from trucks and factories, plays a
major role, too.

For years, scientists around the world have reported that on days when
fine-particle pollution increases, deaths from lung diseases, heart
attacks and strokes rise substantially. Riverside County and the San
Gabriel Valley have among the worst fine-particle pollution in the
nation.

The scientists say their study, conducted on human cells as well as on
mice, is the first to explain how particulates in the air activate
genes that can cause heart attacks or strokes.

The researchers exposed human blood cells to a combination of diesel
particles and oxidized fats, then extracted their DNA. Working
together, the particles and fats switched on genes that cause
inflammation of blood vessels, which leads to clogged arteries, or
atherosclerosis.

The team then duplicated the findings in living animals by exposing
mice to a high-fat diet and freeway exhaust in downtown Los Angeles.
The same artery-clogging gene groups were activated in the mice.

The scientists reported that diesel particles may enter the body's
circulatory system from the lungs, and then react with fats in the
arteries to alter how genes are activated, triggering inflammation
that causes heart disease. Other research has shown similar
inflammatory damage in lungs exposed to fine particles. Diesel exhaust
has also been linked to lung cancer, asthma attacks and DNA damage.

"Our results emphasize the importance of controlling air pollution as
another tool for preventing cardiovascular disease," said Ke Wei Gong,
a UCLA cardiology researcher who was one of the study's authors.

In many urban areas, including the Los Angeles region, ultra-fine
particles are the most concentrated near freeways, mostly from diesel
exhaust, which is spewed by trucks, buses, off-road vehicles and other
vehicle engines.

For decades, California and local air-quality regulators have been
ratcheting down particulate emissions from trucks and other sources,
but the airborne levels in most of the Los Angeles region still
frequently exceed federal health standards.

"There are a few hot spots throughout the country that compete with
Los Angeles from time to time, but in general, we tend to have the
highest levels here," Nel said.

Exposed in a mobile laboratory moving down the freeway, the mice
breathed a concentration of fine particles, 362 micrograms per cubic
meter of air. That was five times higher than the peak that people in
the San Gabriel Valley were exposed to last year.

However, humans breathe polluted air every day for decades, whereas
the mice in the study were exposed five hours per day, three days per
week, for eight weeks.

"The levels were high, but they came from real freeway exhaust so they
were not artificially high," Nel said. "It was almost within the realm
of what we are exposed to."

Diesel particles contain free radicals, which damage tissues, and so
do the fatty acids in cholesterol.

The study aimed to find out what happened when these two sources of
oxidation came in contact.

In the cells exposed to just the cholesterol or just the diesel, the
effects on the genes were much less pronounced. More than 1,500 genes
were turned on, and 759 were turned off, when diesel particles were
combined with the fats.

"Now that we see this genetic footprint, we have a better
understanding of how the injury occurs due to air pollution
particles," Nel said.

The UCLA scientists hope to transform the gene changes to a biomarker,
which experts can then use to predict which people are most
susceptible to heart disease from air pollution.

The smaller the particle, the more harm it can cause. More artery-
clogging genes were activated in mice exposed to the ultra-fine
particles in diesel exhaust than in those exposed to larger particles
in the air. Smaller particles generally come from sources of
combustion -- mostly vehicles.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Los Angeles Times (pg. A18), Jul. 23, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

EDITORIAL -- A WARMING WORLD: NO TO NUKES

It's tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but
alternatives are safer and cheaper.

Japan sees nuclear power as a solution to global warming, but it's
paying a price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of
problems at the world's biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of
radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite
shutdown. Government and company officials initially downplayed the
incident and stuck to the official line that the country's nuclear
plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of
serious nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups.

It isn't alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate
under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security
apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly
enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a
puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the
shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain
reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. A
report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was
hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the
commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public
record.

The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force
for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island
disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility
has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later
canceled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising
natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the
nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and
environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any
solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release
greenhouse gases.

They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants,
the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an
endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping
up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process -- far too slow
to make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because
nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner,
cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.

Glowing pains

Modern nuclear plants are much safer than the Soviet-era monstrosity
at Chernobyl. But accidents can and frequently do happen. The Union of
Concerned Scientists cites 51 cases at 41 U.S. nuclear plants in which
reactors have been shut down for more than a year as evidence of
serious and widespread safety problems.

Nuclear plants are also considered attractive terrorist targets,
though that risk too has been reduced. Provisions in the 2005 energy
bill required threat assessments at nuclear plants and background
checks on workers. What hasn't improved much is the risk of spills or
even meltdowns in the event of natural disasters such as earthquakes,
making it mystifying why anyone would consider building reactors in
seismically unstable places like Japan (or California, which has two,
one at San Onofre and the other in Morro Bay).

Weapons proliferation is an even more serious concern. The uranium
used in nuclear reactors isn't concentrated enough for anything but a
dirty bomb, but the same labs that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can
be used to create weapons-grade uranium. Thus any country, such as
Iran, that pursues uranium enrichment for nuclear power might also be
building a bomb factory. It would be more than a little hypocritical
for the U.S. to expand its own nuclear power capacity while forbidding
countries it doesn't like from doing the same.

The risks increase when spent fuel is recycled. Five countries
reprocess their spent nuclear fuel, and the Bush administration is
pushing strongly to do the same in the U.S. Reprocessing involves
separating plutonium from other materials to create new fuel.
Plutonium is an excellent bomb material, and it's much easier to steal
than enriched uranium. Spent fuel is so radioactive that it would burn
a prospective thief to death, while plutonium could be carried out of
a processing center in one's pocket. In Japan, 200 kilograms of
plutonium from a waste recycling plant have gone missing; in Britain,
30 kilograms can't be accounted for. These have been officially
dismissed as clerical errors, but the nuclear industry has never been
noted for its truthfulness or transparency. The bomb dropped on
Nagasaki contained six kilograms.

Technology might be able to solve the recycling problem, but the
question of what to do with the waste defies answers. Even the
recycling process leaves behind highly radioactive waste that has to
be disposed of. This isn't a temporary issue: Nuclear waste remains
hazardous for tens of thousands of years. The only way to get rid of
it is to put it in containers and bury it deep underground -- and pray
that geological shifts or excavations by future generations that have
forgotten where it's buried don't unleash it on the surface.

No country in the world has yet built a permanent underground waste
repository, though Finland has come the closest. In the U.S., Congress
has been struggling for decades to build a dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada but has been unable to overcome fierce local opposition. One
can hardly blame the Nevadans. Not many people would want 70,000
metric tons of nuclear waste buried in their neighborhood or
transported through it on the way to the dump.

The result is that nuclear waste is stored on-site at the power
plants, increasing the risk of leaks and the danger to plant workers.
Eventually, we'll run out of space for it.

Goin' fission?

Given the drawbacks, it's surprising that anybody would seriously
consider a nuclear renaissance. But interest is surging; the NRC
expects applications for up to 28 new reactors in the next two years.
Even California, which has a 31-year-old ban on construction of
nuclear plants, is looking into it. Last month, the state Energy
Commission held a hearing on nuclear power, and a group of Fresno
businessmen plans a ballot measure to assess voter interest in
rescinding the state's ban.

Behind all this is a perception that nuclear power is needed to help
fight climate change. But there's little chance that nuclear plants
could be built quickly enough to make much difference. The existing
104 nuclear plants in the U.S., which supply roughly 20% of the
nation's electricity, are old and nearing the end of their useful
lives. Just to replace them would require building a new reactor every
four or five months for the next 40 years. To significantly increase
the nation's nuclear capacity would require far more.

The average nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $4 billion.
Because of the risks involved, there is scarce interest among
investors in putting up the needed capital. Nor have tax incentives
and subsidies been enough to lure them. In part, that's because the
regulatory process for new plants is glacially slow. The newest
nuclear plant in the U.S. opened in 1996, after having been ordered in
1970 -- a 26-year gap. Though a carbon tax or carbon trading might
someday make the economics of nuclear power more attractive, and the
NRC has taken steps to speed its assessments, community opposition
remains high, and it could still take more than a decade to get a
plant built.

Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in
cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to build a new
plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. Even if that were
feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of companies that make
specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through the roof.

The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may
demand risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A
combination of energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind
and solar, and decentralized power generators are already producing
more energy worldwide than nuclear power plants. Their use is
expanding more quickly, and the decentralized approach they represent
is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing technology
allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals,
hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water
with micro-turbines fueled by natural gas or even biofuel, much more
efficiently than utilities can do it and with far lower emissions.

The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according
to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to
produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that
could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants
more efficient is staggering. On average, coal plants operate at 30%
efficiency worldwide, but newer plants operate at 46%. If the world
average could be raised to 42%, it would save the same amount of
carbon as building 800 nuclear plants.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it
does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear
industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a
researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy
monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including
hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward
conservation.

That's out of whack. Some countries -- notably France, which gets
nearly 80% of its power from nuclear plants and has never had a major
accident -- have made nuclear energy work, but at a high cost. The
state-owned French power monopoly is severely indebted, and although
France recycles its waste, it is no closer than the U.S. to approving
a permanent repository. Tax dollars are better spent on windmills than
on cooling towers.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Yes! Magazine, Jul. 25, 2007
[Printer-friendly version]

BETTER HEALTH THROUGH FAIRER WEALTH

By Brydie Ragan

Research now tells us that lower socio-economic status may be more
harmful to health than risky personal habits...

I recently saw a billboard for an employment service that said, "If
you think cigarette smoking is bad for your health, try a dead-end
job." This warning may not just be an advertising quip: public health
research now tells us that lower socio-economic status may be more
harmful to health than risky personal habits, such as smoking or
eating junk food.

In 1967, British epidemiologist Michael Marmot began to study the
relationship between poverty and health. He showed that each step up
or down the socio-economic ladder correlates with increasing or
decreasing health.

Over time, research linking health and wealth became more nuanced. It
turns out that "what matters in determining mortality and health in a
society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly
wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed, the
better the health of that society," according to the editors of the
April 20, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal. In that issue,
American epidemiologist George Kaplan and his colleagues showed that
the disparity of income in each of the individual U.S. states, rather
than the average income per state, predicted the death rate.

"The People's Epidemiologists," an article in the March/April 2006
issue of Harvard Magazine, takes the analysis a step further.
Fundamental social forces such as "poverty, discrimination, stressful
jobs, marketing-driven global food companies, substandard housing,
dangerous neighborhoods and so on" actually cause individuals to
become ill, according to the studies cited in the article. Nancy
Krieger, the epidemiologist featured in the article, has shown that
poverty and other social determinants are as formidable as hostile
microbes or personal habits when it comes to making us sick. This may
seem obvious, but it is a revolutionary idea: the public generally
believes that poor lifestyle choices, faulty genes, infectious agents,
and poisons are the major factors that give rise to illness.

Krieger is one of many prominent researchers making connections
between health and inequality. Michael Marmot recently explained in
his book, The Status Syndrome, that the experience of inequality
impacts health, making the perception of our place in the social
hierarchy an important factor. According to Harvard's Ichiro Kawachi,
the distribution of wealth in the United States has become an
"important public health problem." The claims of Kawachi and his
colleagues move public health firmly into the political arena, where
some people don't think it belongs. But the links between socio-
economic status and health are so compelling that public health
researchers are beginning to suggest economic and political remedies.

Richard Wilkinson, an epidemiologist at the University of Nottingham,
points out that we are not fated to live in stressful dominance
hierarchies that make us sick -- we can choose to create more
egalitarian societies. In his book, The Impact of Inequality,
Wilkinson suggests that employee ownership may provide a path toward
greater equality and consequently better health. The University of
Washington's Stephen Bezruchka, another leading researcher on status
and health, also reminds us that we can choose. He encourages us to
participate in our democracy to effect change. In a 2003 lecture he
said that "working together and organizing is our hope."

It is always true that we have choices, but some conditions embolden
us to create the future while others invite powerlessness. When it
comes to health care these days, Americans are reluctant to act
because we are full of fear. We are afraid: afraid because we have no
health care insurance, afraid of losing our health care insurance if
we have it, or afraid that the insurance we have will not cover our
health care expenses. But in the shadow of those fears is an even
greater fear -- the fear of poverty -- which can either cause or be
caused by illness.

In the United States we have all the resources we need to create a new
picture: an abundance of talent, ideas, intelligence, and material
wealth. We can decide to create a society that not only includes
guaranteed health care but also replaces our crushing climate of fear
with a creative culture of care. As Wilkinson and Bezruchka suggest,
we can choose to work for better health by working for greater
equality.

==============

Brydie Ragan is an indefatigable advocate for guaranteed health care.
She travels nationwide to present "Share the Health," a program that
inspires Americans to envision health care for everyone.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &
  Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are
  often considered separately or not at all.

  The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining  
  because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who
  bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human
  health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the
  rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among
  workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
  intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and
  therefore ruled by the few.  

  In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who
  gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what
  might be done about it?"

  As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,
  please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
  
  Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as
  necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the
  subject.

  Editors:
  Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
  Tim Montague   -   tim@rachel.org
  
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy
  & Health News send any Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net.

  In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
  you want to subscribe.

  To unsubscribe, send any Email to: rachel-unsubscribe@pplist.net.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::