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

Featured stories in this issue...

The Carbon Capture Juggernaut Rolls on
  If the coal industry's carbon capture and storage (CCS) plan were
  ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal
  project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous
  as well. A new report explains why the plan cannot work.
Cigarette Bill Treats Menthol with Leniency
  Congress is about to regulate tobacco products, but it is giving
  special lenient treatment to mentholated cigarettes, which are a major
  killer of African-Americans. The New York Times says Congress would
  actually like to control mentholated cigarettes but the tobacco
  companies won't allow it; there's simply too much money to be made
  killing Blacks with mentholated cigarettes.
Climate Policy: From 'Know How' To 'Do Now'
  The main question for determining energy policy is simple: "Can we
  continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without
  provoking unacceptable climate change?" Scientists overwhelmingly
  agree the answer is no.
New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs
  A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards
  in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5
  billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough
  estimates.
Nanoparticles Scrutinized for Health Effect
  Some scientists are concerned that these seemingly magical
  materials (products made with nano particles) are hitting the market
  before their effects on human health and the environment have been
  sufficiently studied.
Large-Scale Solar Power Plants Could Power the Nation
  Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating
  capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can provide "baseload
  capacity," replacing traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas
  and nuclear power.
Upholding the Human Right of Freedom from Racial Discrimination
  The U.S. has signed an international treaty (the Convention on the
  Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), and has therefore
  agreed to protect us all from racial discrimination and its effects.
  How are we doing?

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

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #959, May 15, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

THE CARBON CAPTURE JUGGERNAUT ROLLS ON

By Peter Montague

The coal, oil, automobile, railroad and electric power industries are
planning to "solve" the global warming problem by capturing carbon
dioxide (CO2) and burying it a mile underground, hoping it will stay
there forever. The plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and
storage" (or sometimes "carbon capture and sequestration").

Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil,
and natural gas) is thought to be the main human contribution to
global warming.

If industry's CCS plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest
hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and
among the most dangerous as well. As the New York Times reported
April 23, 2008, "A large leak of underground carbon dioxide could be
as dangerous as a leak of nuclear fuel, critics say."

Now a new report by Emily Rochon and others, published by Greenpeace
International, describes industry's CCS plan in detail and shows,
point by point, why it cannot prevent climate chaos.

Anyone who wants a basic introduction to CCS will want to get a copy
of Rochon's report. It is a thoroughly documented, carefully argued,
presentation of industry's plan, with professional graphics that
clarify how CCS is supposed to work.

Rochon's report is even-handed, often leaning over backwards to
present the industry plan in the best possible light. Still, the
report concludes that CCS is a "dangerous gamble" that ultimately
cannot prevent climate chaos because -- even if it works -- it will
arrive too late to do any good.

In 40 pages, Rochon's report reinforces five main points:

1. CCS wastes energy. Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10%
to 40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on
average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for
every 4 new power plants that use CCS. Thus CCS requires, on average,
25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS
power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power
plants by 90%.

2. CCS is expensive. CCS will double the cost of a power plant
and will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and
91%, according to U.S. government figures. Worse, CCS will divert
funds away from renewable sources of energy and energy conservation
projects, which could reduce CO2 emissions faster and at lower cost
than CCS.

3. Storing carbon dioxide underground is risky. No one can
guarantee that CO2 buried in the ground will stay put forever. Even
very low leakage rates could reverse the climate benefits achieved
initially by CO2 burial.

4. CCS carries significant liability risks. A large leak of CO2
could kill vegetation, animals, and humans over a fairly large area.
Industry is already angling to get taxpayers to shoulder the
liability. With some 6000 CCS burial projects required to make a
significant dent in the CO2 problem, opportunities for serious mishaps
will be ever-present.

5. CCS cannot deliver in time to avert climate chaos. The
world's scientific community is saying CO2 emissions must peak by 2015
and decline thereafter -- but even the most optimistic industry plans
call for CCS to begin in 2020 -- and most industry spokespeople are
saying CCS won't be available until 2030 to 2050.

Despite these fatal flaws in industry's CCS plan, the U.S. and Europe
(and probably China) are counting on CCS to solve the global warming
problem. As Fred pearce wrote in New Scientist March 29, "In
Germany, only CCS can make sense of an energy policy that combines a
large number of new coal-fired power stations with plans for a 40 per
cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020." And the New York Times reported
April 23, "Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance
on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent." The Times reports that "the
technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon
dioxide emissions that add to global warming -- carbon capture and
storage -- is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is
feasible on a large, cost-effective scale."

In the U.S., the three remaining major presidential candidates --
Clinton, Obama and McCain -- are all enthusiastic supporters of coal
with CCS tacked on. No matter who wins the presidency, the coal
industry will be sitting in the Oval Office promoting CCS.

In sum, the coal industry is putting all our eggs -- yours and mine --
in a basket that has never been tried before on a commercial scale. It
is -- as Emily Rochon says with characteristic understatement -- a
"dangerous gamble."

Rochon's report ends by reminding readers that we already know how to
solve climate chaos. Energy conservation and renewable sources of
energy are already available, are cost-effective, and can do the job
far faster than coal with CCS. CCS is not only dangerous, expensive,
and too late to do any good. It is also unnecessary. Given all that,
why would we choose to take this dangerous gamble?

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: The New York Times (pg. A1), May 13, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

CIGARETTE BILL TREATS MENTHOL WITH LENIENCY

By Stephanie Saul

Some public health experts are questioning why menthol, the most
widely used cigarette flavoring and the most popular cigarette choice
of African-American smokers, is receiving special protection as
Congress tries to regulate tobacco for the first time.

The legislation, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the
power to oversee tobacco products, would try to reduce smoking's
allure to young people by banning most flavored cigarettes, including
clove and cinnamon.

But those new strictures would exempt menthol -- even though menthol
masks the harsh taste of cigarettes for beginners and may make it
harder for the addicted to kick the smoking habit. For years, public
health authorities have worried that menthol might be a factor in high
cancer rates in African-Americans.

The reason menthol is seen as politically off limits, despite those
concerns, is that mentholated brands are so crucial to the American
cigarette industry. They make up more than one-fourth of the $70
billion American cigarette market and are becoming increasingly
important to the industry leader, Philip Morris USA, without whose
lobbying support the legislation might have no chance of passage.

"I would have been in favor of banning menthol," said Senator Judd
Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who supports the bill. "But as a
practical matter that simply wasn't doable."

Even the head of the National African American Tobacco Prevention
Network, a nonprofit group that has been adamantly against menthol,
acknowledges that the ingredient needed to be off the bargaining table
-- for now -- because he does not want to imperil the bill's chances.

"The bottom line is we want the legislation," said William S.
Robinson, the group's executive director. "But we want to reserve the
right to address this issue at some critical point because of the
percentage of people of African descent who use mentholated
products."

Supporters of the tobacco legislation, including the Senate bill's
sponsor, Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, say the bill
addresses the potential health risks of menthol by giving the F.D.A.
the authority to remove cigarette additives, including menthol, if
they are proved harmful.

Menthol is particularly controversial because public health
authorities have worried about its health effects on African-
Americans. Nearly 75 percent of black smokers use menthol brands,
compared with only about one in four white smokers.

That is why one former public health official says the legislation's
menthol exemption is a "cave-in to the industry," an opinion shared
by some other public health advocates.

"I think we can say definitively that menthol induces smoking in the
African-American community and subsequently serves as a direct link to
African-American death and disease," said the former official, Robert
G. Robinson, who retired two years ago as an associate director in the
office of smoking and health at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

The current lead scientist on tobacco related issues for the C.D.C,
Terry F. Pechacek, said the legislation's exemption for menthol was an
issue being discussed in the scientific community. "I would just say
this is an area of clear scientific interest and it merits very
careful attention."

The legislation could soon be up for vote in both chambers of
Congress, where it has broad support. It is by no means a sure bet --
though not because of the menthol exemption.

Despite the support of Mr. Kennedy and 56 co-sponsors in the Senate,
the legislation faces some determined opposition from tobacco-state
lawmakers who resist industry regulation. And the White House has said
it opposes the legislation, arguing that F.D.A. regulation could
create the false impression that tobacco is safe.

The legislation is largely a result of negotiations during sessions in
2003 and 2004 between lawmakers, antismoking groups and Philip Morris
-- the only major American cigarette company that supports the effort
to regulate the industry.

"My recollection is that we were able to eliminate the use of
flavored cigarettes, strawberry, mocha, and all this stuff that is
clearly targeted at young kids and to start them smoking tobacco,"
Mike DeWine, the former Ohio senator who helped arrange a series of
negotiations between Philip Morris and an influential antismoking
group, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a recent telephone
interview. "Where the compromise was made as I recall was on
menthol," Mr. DeWine said.

While Philip Morris and other tobacco companies acknowledge the health
hazards of smoking, they contend that menthol does nothing to worsen
those risks. One of the government's current top public health
scientists on tobacco, however, says there are few definitive answers
about the health impact of menthol cigarettes. Still, he points to
several studies that suggest menthol smokers may be exposed to higher
levels of dangerous compounds than nonmenthol smokers.

"There are multiple lines of evidence, generally consistent,
suggesting that there's reason for concern," said Dr. Pechacek, the
associate science director of the office on smoking for the C.D.C.

Of 45 million smokers in this country, the American Lung Association
identifies about 33 million as non-Hispanic whites and 5 million as
African-American. Historically, statistics showed that a somewhat
higher percentage of African-Americans smoked than whites. Recent
figures, though, indicate about the same rate of smoking for both
groups -- in the 21 to 22 percent range.

But the use of menthol cigarettes is disproportionately an African-
American phenomenon, which critics say has been reinforced by decades
of advertising aimed at black consumers. Concerns about menthol have
circulated since at least 1998, when the C.D.C. reported that menthol
"may increase the absorption of harmful smoking constituents."

Four years later the C.D.C., along with the National Cancer Institute,
sponsored a meeting in Atlanta on menthol cigarettes and disease rates
in African-Americans. The official report from that meeting said the
research up to that point had been inconclusive, but it called for
further studies.

In five large studies of menthol to date, only one has found higher
rates of cancer among menthol smokers than nonmenthol smokers, and
only in men. But a growing body of evidence suggests that menthol
makes it harder to kick the smoking habit -- a view shared even by
many scientists who say that menthol in cigarettes is not itself
dangerous.

A tobacco company spokesman, Brendan J. McCormick, said menthol was
"an ingredient and a flavor preference that is widely preferred by
more than a quarter of adult smokers out there, and it's got a long
history of use."

Mr. McCormick works for the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip
Morris USA, whose Marlboro Menthol is the second-largest menthol brand
in this country and also the fastest growing.

Last year, to counter concerns about menthol, a mint extract that can
also be made synthetically, Philip Morris scientists published a 26-
page paper in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. After examining dozens of studies on menthol, the
company's scientists said they found little evidence that menthol
cigarettes were any more harmful or addictive than other types or that
they encouraged people to start smoking at younger ages.

Its support of the tobacco legislation has put Philip Morris at odds
with other cigarette companies, which generally oppose regulation. As
the American industry'sbiggest player, Philip Morris says it is
willing to let the F.D.A. oversee tobacco because as the company tries
to develop products that are less harmful, it wants a regulatory
agency to evaluate and approve those products. The company also says
it would prefer national tobacco regulations rather than a hodgepodge
of state and local rules. But the company's rivals complain that the
legislation could help Philip Morris, with its best-selling Marlboro
franchise, further entrench itself as the industry's dominant player
by placing new restrictions on cigarette marketing, making it
difficult for rivals to use advertising to catch up. Besides banning
the marketing of cigarettes on the basis of most flavorings -- other
than menthol -- the new rules would also place additional limits on
the types and placement of signs and magazine advertising for tobacco
products.

Even with the menthol exemption, the legislation is opposed by
Reynolds American, whose R. J. Reynolds unit sells menthol brands that
include Kool and Salem. Another opponent is Lorillard, which makes
Newport, the best-selling brand among African-Americans and the
menthol market leader over all.

"Bottom line, the scientific publications to date have not concluded
that menthol cigarettes are more hazardous or addictive than
nonmenthol cigarettes," a Lorillard spokesman, Michael W. Robinson,
said in a written response to questions. Lorillard is a subsidiary of
the Loews Corporation.

Scientists who study smoking have identified various disparities in
the health of black and white smokers. National Cancer Institute data
shows that African-American men get lung cancer at a rate 50 percent
higher than white men -- a gap that most scientists say cannot be
fully explained by historically higher rates of smoking by black men.

One theory suggests that menthol in cigarettes, by providing an
additional pleasurable sensory cue, reinforces addiction.

"There is evidence from different studies that it's harder to quit
menthol cigarettes," said Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, a pharmacologist and
professor at the University of California, San Francisco and one of
the nation's leading tobacco researchers. He calls menthol a "public
health risk."

In work published in 2006, Dr. Mark J. Pletcher and colleagues at that
same university analyzed smoking behavior for 1,535 people over 15
years. Their findings suggested that menthol smokers were 30 percent
less likely to quit smoking and 89 percent more likely to relapse than
other smokers.

One African-American woman, Joya Robinson of North Brunswick, N.J.,
said she began smoking Newport in 1988 and developed a pack-a-day
habit. After several unsuccessful attempts to quit, she is now
enrolled in a tobacco dependence program. "It's the hardest thing
I've ever done," Ms. Robinson, 46, said.

Dr. Pechacek, the C.D.C. official, said a combination of menthol and
genetic factors that predispose African-Americans to certain cancers
may be in play for black smokers.

"There is sufficient reason to maintain a strong public health
interest in it," he said.

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: CommonDreams.org, May 13, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

CLIMATE POLICY: FROM 'KNOW HOW' TO 'DO NOW'

By Herman E. Daly

Recent increased attention to global warming is very welcome. But much
of it is misplaced.

We focus too much on complex climate models, which ask things like how
far emissions will increase carbon dioxide concentration, how much
that will raise temperatures, by when, with what consequences to
climate and geography, and how likely new information will invalidate
model results. Together these questions can paralyze us with
uncertainty.

A better question for determining public policy is simpler: "Can we
continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without
provoking unacceptable climate change?"

Scientists overwhelmingly agree the answer is no. The basic scientific
principles and findings are very clear. Focusing on them creates a
world of relative certainty for policy.

To draw a parallel, if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude
parachute more than an accurate altimeter. And if you take an
altimeter, don't become so bemused tracking your descent that you
forget to pull the ripcord.

The next question we should ask is, "What causes us to emit ever more
carbon dioxide?"

It's the same thing that causes us to make more of all kinds of
wastes: our irrational commitment to economic growth forever on a
finite planet.

If we overcome our growth idolatry, we can then ask, "How do we design
and manage an economy that respects the limits of the biosphere so
economy and biosphere both will survive?" But we are so fixated on
maintaining an ever-growing economy that we instead ask, "By how much
will we have to increase efficiency to maintain growth in gross
domestic product?"

Suppose we answer, "By doubling efficiency," and succeed. So what? We
will then just do more of all the things that have become more
efficient and therefore cheaper, and will then emit more wastes,
including greenhouse gases. A policy of "efficiency first" does not
give us "frugality second" -- it makes frugality less necessary.

But if we go for "frugality first" -- sustainability first -- with a
national tax on carbon, then we will get "efficiency second" as an
adaptation to more expensive carbon fuels. Efficiency cannot abolish
scarcity, despite what politicians say, but it can make scarcity less
painful.

We must throw out our assumption that economic expansion is always
good.

There is much evidence that GDP growth at the margin in the United
States is uneconomic growth, growth that increases social and
environmental costs faster than it increases production benefits.

It is not hard to see how the reality of uneconomic growth sneaks up
on us.

We have moved from a world relatively empty of us and our stuff to a
world relatively full of us, in one lifetime. In the empty world
economy the limiting factor was manmade capital; in the full world it
is remaining natural capital.

Barrels of petroleum extracted once were limited by drilling rigs; now
they are limited by remaining deposits, or by the atmosphere's ability
to absorb the products of combustion.

But we continue to invest in manmade capital rather than in
restoration of natural capital.

In addition to this supply-side error, we have an equally monumental
error on the demand side. We fail to take seriously that beyond a
threshold of income already passed in the United States, happiness
depends not on what we have, but on what we have relative to what our
friends, co-workers and neighbors have.

What we need is a stiff severance tax on carbon as it emerges from the
well and mine. Besides discouraging everyone's use of climate-altering
fossil fuels, this would enable us to raise enough tax dollars to
replace regressive taxes on low incomes. Let's tax the raw material,
not the value added to it by processing and manufacturing. Higher
input prices bring efficiency at all subsequent stages of production,
and limiting depletion ultimately limits pollution.

Setting policy by first principles still leaves some uncertainties. It
will require provision for making midcourse corrections. But at least
we would have begun moving in the right direction. To continue
business as usual while debating the predictions of complex models in
a world made even more uncertain by the questions we ask is to fail to
pull the ripcord.

Herman E. Daly, a former senior economist for the World Bank, is a
professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. His
books include "Steady-State Economics" and "Beyond Growth." He wrote
this comment for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina,
Kan.

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: Wall Street Journal (pg. B1), May 12, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

NEW WAVE OF NUCLEAR PLANTS FACES HIGH COSTS

By Rebecca Smith

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in
the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5
billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough
estimates.

NRG Energy Inc. hopes to add two units to the South Texas Project
nuclear site. Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to
other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which
have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the
high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers
and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry's
suitability to meet growing energy needs.

Nuclear plants haven't been built in meaningful numbers in the U.S.
since the 1980s. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are
being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such
as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor;
and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the
industry.

The price escalation is sobering because the industry and regulators
have worked hard to make development more efficient, in hopes of
eliminating problems that in the past produced harrowing cost
overruns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, has created
a streamlined licensing process to make timelier, more comprehensive
decisions about proposals. Nuclear vendors have developed standardized
designs for plants to reduce construction and operating costs. And
utility executives, with years of operating experience behind them,
are more astute buyers.

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

** The News: Estimated costs to build the next generation of nuclear
power plants have soared to $5 billion to $12 billion a plant.

** The Debate: Questions are emerging over the affordability of
nuclear power, despite its popularity as an alternative to polluting
coal-fired plants.

** What to Watch: If Congress taxes greenhouse-gas emissions, nuclear
plants, which aren't emitters, will become more attractive. But if
coal and natural-gas prices decline, nuclear-plant economics will get
worse.

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

Now, 104 nuclear reactors are operating in the U.S. Most are highly
profitable but that was not the case until fairly recently. For the 75
units built between 1966 and 1986, the average cost was $3 billion or
triple early estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Many plants operate profitably now because they were sold to current
operators for less than their actual cost.

The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between
utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control
costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by
experienced nuclear operators -- NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy
Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. -- "have blown by
our highest estimate" of costs computed just eight months ago, said
Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service
credit-rating agency in New York.

Moody's worries that continued cost increases, even if partially
offset by billions of dollars worth of federal subsidies, could weaken
companies and expose consumers to high energy costs.

On May 7, Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it
expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7% interest in two new reactors
proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Ga. Utility
officials declined to disclose total costs. A typical Georgia Power
household could expect to see its power bill go up by $144 annually to
pay for the plants after 2018, the utility said.

Bill Edge, spokesman for the Georgia Public Service Commission, said
Georgia "will look at what's best for ratepayers" and could pull
support if costs balloon to frightening heights. The existing Vogtle
plant, put into service in the late 1980s, cost more than 10 times its
original estimate, roughly $4.5 billion for each of two reactors.

FPL Group, Juno Beach, Fla., estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9
billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site
in southeast Florida. It has picked a reactor design by Westinghouse
Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., after concluding it could cost
as much as $12 billion to build plants with reactors designed by
General Electric Co. The joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said
it hasn't seen FPL's calculations but is confident its units "are
cost-competitive compared with other nuclear designs."

Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear operator, is considering building
two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, and said the cost could
be $5 billion to $6.5 billion each. The plants would be operated as
"merchant" plants and thus would not have utility customers on the
hook to pay for them, as is the case in both Florida and Georgia.
Instead, they would have to cover expenses through wholesale power
sales.

Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is
one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could
again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices
for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear
plants less attractive. On the other hand, if Congress decides to tax
greenhouse-gas emissions, that could make electricity from nuclear
plants more attractive by raising costs for generators that burn
fossil fuels. Nuclear plants wouldn't have to pay the charges because
they aren't emitters.

Some states are clearing a path for nuclear-power development, even
before costs are fully known. They are inspired by a growing fear of
climate change. "The overwhelming feeling in Florida is that nuclear
power is popular and that's why it's going to go ahead," said J.R.
Kelly, head of the Office of Public Counsel in Tallahassee, which
represents consumers. "Our main concern is the tremendous cost."

In Florida, state officials are allowing utilities to collect money
from customers to cover development and construction costs. In the
past, regulators typically required utilities to bear the costs until
plants were finished.

Many utilities said they are watching with interest. Ralph Izzo, chief
executive of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in New Jersey, said
his company may not be big enough to build a nuclear plant, even
though it is a nuclear operator. "We're concerned by the rise in
construction costs," he said.

Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: San Francisco Chronicle, May 12, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

NANOPARTICLES SCRUTINIZED FOR HEALTH EFFECT

By Ann Fernholm

Windows cleaned by raindrops, white sofas immune to red wine spills,
tiles protected from limescale buildup -- new products created from
minute substances called nanoparticles are making such domestic dreams
come true.

Based on tiny particles 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair,
the products are some of the early widespread applications of
nanotechnology, the science of manipulating atoms and molecules.
Nanoparticles are showing up in everything from fabric coatings to
socks to plush teddy bears.

In the best-case scenario, these nanoparticles are harmless and can
help spare the environment from the overuse of polluting cleaning
agents.

But some scientists are concerned that these seemingly magical
materials are hitting the market before their effects on human health
and the environment have been sufficiently studied.

If a chemical substance has been commercialized before, on a larger
than nano-scale, and is included in the Toxic Substances Control Act
Chemical Substance Inventory, it is considered as "existing" by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- and the nano-scale version of
the material requires no further testing.

Scientists such as Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense
Council say they think that's a mistake, and that nanoparticles should
be treated as new and different materials.

That's because the few scientific reports available suggest that
nanoparticles can pose a threat to human health and to the
environment. For example, fish swimming in water containing modest
amounts of fullerenes, soccer-ball-shaped nanoparticles made out of 60
carbon atoms, showed a large increase in brain damage. These are the
same types of fullerenes being used in various skin products.

Another study showed that rats exposed to manganese oxide
nanoparticles accumulated them in the brain.

Warning on nanoparticles

Scientists also have shown that very small nanoparticles, called
quantum dots, penetrate pigskin. Other studies suggest that from the
skin, they can travel through the lymphatic duct system to lymph nodes
and eventually end up in organs such as the liver, kidney and spleen.

And when inhaled, nanoparticles will go deeper into the lungs than
larger particles and reach more sensitive parts. Because of that,
scientists are particularly concerned about nanoparticles being used
in spray products.

"We have research showing that as a material shrinks in size, it
becomes more harmful to the lungs. Nanoparticles tend to be more
inflammatory to the lung, and it seems as if the lung has to work
harder to get rid of them," said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser
at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington. The project
was established in 2005 by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts to ensure that the potential
benefits of nanotechnology are realized, at the same time possible
risks are minimized.

Insufficient information

"We can do great things with this technology, but there is a lack of
information on how to use nanoparticles safely," he said.

To get a better picture of what kind of nanomaterials are being
commercialized, the EPA in January started a voluntary reporting
program, the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Two companies
have so far submitted data, DuPont and Office ZPI, while 10 other
companies have committed to reporting.

Another way to find out which nanoparticles are used in commercial
products is to scan the database held by Honolulu's Nanowerk. The
database, which helps manufacturers find suppliers of the
nanoparticles they need, contains 1,955 different nanoparticles
produced by 135 suppliers worldwide. The nanoparticles represent more
than 100 different chemical compositions, at sizes ranging from just 1
nanometer to more than 100 nanometers.

"I think it is the best information source around for nanomaterials
you can purchase. These are just the commercial ones. Go into research
labs, and the list grows rather quickly," Maynard said.

Researchers are concerned not only with human health, but the effect
nanoparticles could have on the environment, especially silver
nanoparticles.

Maynard said the antimicrobial effect specific to silver nanoparticles
is dangerous to microbes essential for ecologic systems. In April,
scientists at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in
New Orleans tested six different types of socks, all containing silver
nanoparticles to minimize odor. Some of the socks released all of the
silver nanoparticles they contained when washed in room-temperature
water; others leaked no silver at all.

Sewage treatment works cannot clear the water of the substance, so
released silver nanoparticles will end up in rivers, lakes and in
seawater.

Samuel Luoma, senior research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological
Survey, is studying how the increasing use of silver nanoparticles can
affect the environment.

"We know silver itself is very toxic to plants in the aquatic
environment and to invertebrates like clams, oysters and snails,"
Luoma said. "Silver is especially toxic to phytoplankton, the base of
many food webs."

Like "normal" silver, nano-size silver will continuously release
silver ions, causing adverse effects to water-living organisms. But
it's possible the nanoparticles are additionally toxic due to the
small size.

"We know extremely little about silver in the nanoparticle form,"
Luoma said.

It also is unknown how nanosilver affects humans. Normally, silver
accumulates in various organs, but do no harm.

"Right now, there is an explosion of these products, but we cannot
assess the risk in a rational way," Luoma said. "The simplest thing
the government could do is to require information on how much silver
is used in each product."

The EPA considers certain use of silver nanoparticles a pesticide, and
they therefore need to be registered according to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. But so far, the agency
has received no such applications.

"We have not registered any nanopesticides yet," said Jack Housenger,
associate director of the health effects division in the office of
pesticide programs.

A report published April 2 by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
draws a parallel between today's nanotech boom and the 1980s, when
manufacturing processes of the electronics industry resulted in
groundwater pollution in Santa Clara Country. There is, for example, a
lack of data on health impacts and environmental toxicity of
manufactured nanomaterials, and there is no technology for monitoring
potential nano-pollutants in the environment.

Many good uses

Despite the alarming reports, Luoma said that silver nanoparticles can
be quite useful.

They do a great job in hospitals, killing bacteria resistant to
conventional antibiotics. And coating artificial hips and shoulders
with silver nanoparticles can hinder bacteria from accumulating and
causing infection years after implantation.

"It will be a challenge to find that middle road in absence of much
scientific information," Luoma said. "How do we limit the use, what
uses should we regulate and what uses should be allowed?"

Maynard, of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said that more
funding is needed for research on the safety of nanomaterials. The
budget for research related to health, safety and environmental
effects of nanotechnology in 2009 is $76.4 million, or 5 percent of
the total budget of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative,
which is $ 1.530 billion.

"The $76.4 million is what the NNI are claiming, but they may be being
generous in their assessment," Maynard said.

"The bottom line here is that we need $100 million to $150 million per
year invested in targeted risk research if we are to have a hope of
answering some of the critical questions surrounding developing and
using nanotechnologies safely."

E-mail Ann Fernholm at afernholm@sfchronicle.com.

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: Environment America, May 8, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

LARGE-SCALE SOLAR POWER PLANTS COULD POWER THE NATION

America could meet all of its current electricity needs with large
central concentrating solar power plants according to a report
released May 8, 2008, "On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight
Against Global Warming" by Environment America.

Solar thermal power plants covering an area of 100 x 100-mile area in
the Southwest (slightly more than what's already been excavated for
strip mining for coal across the country), could power the entire
nation while slashing global warming emissions.

Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating
capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can provide "baseload
capacity," replacing traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas
and nuclear power.

"If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and
addressing our nation's energy woes, solar energy must be part of the
solution, said Anna Aurilio, Director of Environment America's
Washington DC office. "Tapping this abundant and clean domestic energy
source must be a centerpiece of America's energy, environmental and
economic policies," she added.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential
for more than 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of concentrating solar power
generation on lands in the southwestern United States alone -- more
than six times current U.S. electricity consumption. Other areas of
the United States, such as the mountain West, the Great Plains and
Florida, can also generate significant power from the sun.

"This report confirms what we in the industry have known for a long
time-that utility-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) has the
potential to provide a clean, reliable energy choice to power America
and help us achieve national energy security in the 21st century,"
said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association
in Washington, D.C. "We agree wholeheartedly with the report's
recommendation to provide the proper incentives to encourage
development of CSP plants. Specifically, it is imperative that
Congress follows through on passing a final bill to provide a multi-
year extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) -- a policy
with support from over 85 percent of the American public," he added.

Concentrating solar power development has accelerated dramatically
since the beginning of 2007. More than 4,000 MW of solar thermal
projects are in some phase of development nationwide and could be
completed by 2012. However, solar energy tax credits that are helping
make these projects cost-effective are set to expire at the end of the
year, putting their future in doubt.

"Federal clean energy tax incentives are spurring investment, creating
thousands of "green-collar" jobs, and helping reduce global warming
pollution," said Anna Aurilio. "If Congress lets them expire, clean
energy projects will grind to a halt," she added.

Concentrating solar power plants are increasingly cost-competitive
with other power generation technologies that do not produce carbon
dioxide, the main global warming pollutant. The cost of energy from
solar thermal power plants is estimated to be competitive in cost with
theoretical coal-fired power plants that capture and store their
carbon dioxide emissions and with new nuclear power plants.

The report concludes that with leadership at the state and federal
level and the right policies, that, putting 80 gigawatts of
concentrating solar power in place by 2030 is within reach. This would
provide electricity for 25 million homes, would generate between
75,000 and 140,000 permanent jobs, would and cut global warming
pollution from U.S. electric power plants by at least 6.6 percent by
the year 2030.

Electricity generation accounts for more than a third of America's
emissions of global warming pollution. "Concentrating solar power can
make a large contribution toward reducing global warming pollution in
the United States, and do so quickly and at a reasonable cost,"
concluded Aurilio.

Download the report, "On the Rise:Solar Thermal Power and the Fight
Against Global Warming."

Environment America is the new home of U.S. PIRG's environmental work.
44 Winter Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02108

Federal Advocacy Office: 218 D Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
E-mail: Info@EnvironmentAmerica.org

Return to Table of Contents

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

From: Opportunity in Action eNewsletter, May 15, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

UPHOLDING THE HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

We aspire to be a country that values and protects our rights, but
what does that really mean? Of course, most Americans are aware of the
rights protected by our Constitution. But fewer are aware of the human
rights outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
related treaties signed by the U.S. Under one such treaty, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), our country has agreed to protect us all from racial
discrimination and its effects, and to report its progress in doing so
periodically to the United Nations CERD Committee.

The U.S. Government recently filed such a report. At the same time,
experts from around the country were invited to file their own reports
on the nation's progress toward ending discrimination. The Opportunity
Agenda joined a range of researchers and social justice advocates, led
by the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, to prepare one of
these "shadow reports," Unequal Health Outcomes in the United States
(1.2 Mbyte PDF). This report both illuminates instances where the
U.S. has failed to comply with the treaty in the areas of health and
health care, and suggested steps the country can take to correct this.

The Opportunity Agenda also contributed to the Health Chapter of the
New York City CERD "shadow report," coordinated by the Urban Justice
Center's Human Rights Project and also submitted to the U.N. CERD
Committee. The report, Race Realities in New York, details barriers
to equal opportunity facing New Yorkers and what New York City and
State must do to create true opportunity and equity for all New
Yorkers.

After considering both the government's and advocates' reports, the UN
CERD Committee noted that the U.S. has failed to recognize and
remedy certain instances in which current policies contribute to
inequalities in health and in health care. Advocates' critiques and
recommendations are now part of this overall record.

The CERD experience is just another example of how advocates can
harness diverse tools to bring attention to issues of opportunity in
the country. Talking about human rights domestically can give
Americans a new way to think about rights, about domestic issues, and
about our government's responsibilities to protect us and promote
opportunity for all.

Sincerely,

The Opportunity Agenda Staff

SPOTLIGHTS

More CERD and Human Rights Tools

Human Rights Public Opinion Research

OurFuture: "Striving for Equality," authored by Alan Jenkins

The Huffington Post: "Renewing the Promise of Equal Opportunity,"
co-authored by Alan Jenkins and Laleh Ispahani

Concluding Observations of CERD Committee

New York Human Rights Initiative

What's New at The Opportunity Agenda?

New Report on Reducing Health Care Inequality co-authored by The
Opportunity Agenda

The Changing Face of American Poverty
Alan Jenkins on The Tavis Smiley Show (mp3)

Brave New Laws: Civil Rights in the 21st Century

Health Action: The Opportunity Agenda on Public Radio (mp3)

The State of Opportunity Blog Buzz

Disappearing Food: Inadequate Access to Healthy Food in New York

Baking More Pie: Higher Education for Everyone

Arizona Proposal to Ban Race-Conscious Student Groups

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.

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