Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts

Thursday, September 24, 2015

VW's diesel scandal and Shkreli's drug price-gouging

More of the same - this week was not exactly ethical capitalism's (if such a thing exists) finest hour:
VW may have to pay fines in the billions for deceiving pollution monitors and violating the Clean Air Act with their TDI "clean diesel" vehicles (stock plunged 20% in response). Apparently it's not so easy for a diesel engine to be both clean burning AND great mileage.
There is a new (and sick) trend in biopharma (link1, link2) where shell companies buy up the rights to "below market price" drugs and then jack up the prices by orders of magnitude to make a ROI. Well, at least those firms aren't deluding themselves that they're trying to help patients - they're explicit in their pure pursuit of profit, and it doesn't matter if needy patients are priced out.

----

Following up on VW and drug prices:
How an academic lab at UWV (an ironically similar acronym) detected VW's diesel cheating: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383663/vw-emissions-scandal-photo. I just wonder why VW's diesel rivals didn't question how VW could get superior mileage/torque while still keeping pollution low (the diesel engine is kind of zero-sum for these performance metrics). Like wouldn't they say, "Wow, in our lab we can only get 25 mpg if we stay under the NOx limit - I wonder how VW gets 40 mpg?" (numbers are fictional) Other auto makers are professing that their vehicles don't cheat, but we'll see. Even though very few light cars in the US are diesel, we of course have plenty of semi-trucks and heavier vehicles spewing particulates and carcinogens every day (but at least in CA, these vehicles now have to adhere to tighter limits). Not sure how big the impact will be in Europe, where ~half their light cars are diesel (but they have fewer cars per capita and drive fewer miles per capita vs. the US).
This article has an interesting viewpoint on the Shkreli drug prices scandal: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/9/23/9383899/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price. He's been such an a-hole and unapologetic capitalist re: his company's actions that he's garnered a ton of negative publicity. That actually helps to shed light on the drug price-gouging issue that Big Pharma has been engaging in for decades (BS loopholes to extend patents, buying the rights to generics or cheaper rival drugs to keep them off the market, etc.). Hopefully the increased attention and outrage will motivate lawmakers to consider new rules for the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Some interesting links

How the Buffets have quietly advanced female contraception and reproductive rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/warren-buffett-foundation-donation-contraception_55bfc47de4b0d4f33a03a567


The EPA fails to properly investigate pollution cases in poor/minority areas: http://www.alternet.org/environment/epa-failed-investigate-environmental-racism-5-states-claims-lawsuit

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

"Toxic Hot Seat" about cigarettes, flame retardants, and death for profits



Toxic Hot Seat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/toxic-hot-seat-ignites-aw_b_4338572.html

This is a clear example of Pope Francis' principle of greed-driven "murder", for lack of a better term. Some companies and trade groups decided to protect their profits rather than do the right thing for their customers. And this has created enormous social costs for everyone.


The storyline:


- Since the '70s, 2-6K Americans died each year from residential fires.
- By far, the biggest driver of these tragedies are unmonitored cigarettes (yet another way they kill users and bystanders), and this trend persists in most nations.
- A self-extinguishing cigarette is affordable and easily implementable, but the tobacco industry resisted, and created a "fire marshal" advocacy org to convince leaders and public that the problem was the "fuel" (household flammable stuff), not the ignition.
- So the chemical industry jumped on this and developed "flame retardants" that could be sprayed on curtains, furniture cushions, etc. (this was during the era of DDT and such where toxicity testing was nonexistent).
- In 1975, a professional study was warped by some CA regulators and lobbyists to mandate all furniture sold in the state to contain fire retardants with no health risk conditions. Since CA was such a big market, and it was expensive to develop 2 versions of furniture, manufacturers decided to put retardants on everything, and the standard has stuck.
- Despite a huge "astroturf" (fake grassroots) chemical industry push, Maine was able to ban retardants in favor of safer alternatives. The lobbying machine has prevailed so far in CA, and Representative Leno has sponsored several similar bills to ban them, but they failed each time due to the irrational fire scare and industry advocacy. Changing the law is part of Gov. Brown's current agenda, and so far he was able to at least permit the sale of furniture that doesn't contain retardants. It's up to consumers to check whether the products they buy have them or not, but an outright ban like Maine is still elusive.

Commentary:

So what are the consequences of big tobacco's greed/negligence and big chemical's opportunism (now a $5B global industry)? We know that preventing/reducing fire severity is important and can save lives/money. But are these retardants the most cost-effective solution? Studies show that smoke alarms and sprinklers are much more effective than retardants - with nearly zero downside. Only the retardant manufacturer association has produced a few suspect studies to support the use of their product. But fires are scary and their arguments won the day for decades ("whatever it takes" to prevent fires!). Fire danger is a lot more tangible and acute than nearly invisible carcinogens that may need extended exposure to do measurable harm (but no less bodily harm than burns). So it's easy to fixate on the fire risk, which may trump other concerns. 

It's one thing if retardants are ~90% effective (at least as effective as condoms), but they're not. The flame retardant standards state that the material must be able to resist a "small flame" for 12 secs. While that could be effective in some situations, it is deficient in many tests and in the field, because a furniture's unprotected covering burns first, so by the time it hits the cushions (that contain the retardants), it's no longer a small flame and the retardants are no longer effective.

So they don't really make us safer, yet they are likely making us sicker. Retardants are known carcinogens and mutagens like thalates, bromides, and BPA (that the baby industry has been forced to remove from plastic products due to customer anger). Retardant-containing products still burn, so when firefighters have to respond, they are rushing into and inhaling the chemical soup. When SFFD personnel were tested, incidence of middle-age female breast cancer was 6X the population average, and incidence of cancer among retirees was also unusually high. Parents groups fought to get these chemicals banned in child pajamas (on toxic grounds) and won, yet the exact same chemicals are still present in child car seats, play pens, backpacks, furniture, etc. that kids touch and lick. They're still present in those products because it's expensive to mount a legal challenge, and chemicals get the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of that, why do virtually all side effects, interactions, allowable dosages, etc. need to be thoroughly documented and scrutinized for a drug to reach the market, but chemicals are "innocent until proven guilty"? It's about the burden of proof. As depicted in films like "A Civil Action", it is very hard to prove that a specific chemical directly caused measurable harm over what could be years of exposure to many chemicals. Companies can just show that rats "survived" when exposed to the chemical under specific, arbitrary conditions - and that is supposed to prove that they are universally safe.

And when pro-business leaders continually weaken and defund the EPA and other regulators, that makes them look ineffective/unnecessary and strengthens the industry argument to just trust the companies, not delay new product approval with frivolous tests, and not stifle chemical innovation, which "creates jobs/revenue" and "makes our lives better". And this is not just about retardants, but literally thousands of chemicals that we don't even know we're exposed to each day. Like all those "dispersants" used by BP to make the Gulf spill look less nasty to the naked eye - we have no idea WTF they do to living tissues over time, and they will likely show up in seafood, breast milk, etc.

There is an underlying assumption that benevolent gov't is watching out for us, and products wouldn't be on the shelf unless they were totally safe (and Dow and Monsanto say you can trust them). Well after leaded gas, asbestos, CFCs, and the sad history of tobacco, we should know better. The only ones who are looking after public safety are scientists, survivor victims, and grassroots orgs. And politicians will only listen to them if voter anger outweighs industry lobbying dollars. But this is obviously short-sighted leadership. It makes no sense to threaten and poison future society's health and productivity for present-day industry profits. Taxpayers and gov't coffers will be burdened by the health costs of harmful chemicals, which means less money for other national priorities. Everyone loses but the companies and their stakeholders.

The same thing is playing out in places like China with pathetic regulation, but they recognize this and are trying to improve. Can you imagine the impact on their economy when their current population ages and disproportionately develops all sorts of illnesses from the ubiquitous pollution, toxins, etc.?

And it's not like these "innovative chemicals" are so critical to human survival. We can get along fine with many natural, renewable products like wool, plants, and wax. We don't need chemical X to make our jacket down 0.1% warmer but our kids 10% sicker. Someone has to say enough is enough.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

More consequences of fracking

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144694550/man-made-quakes-blame-fracking-and-drilling
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0102/How-fracking-might-have-led-to-an-Ohio-earthquake

We've discussed fracking before, and now it is a fairly mainstream topic (but you heard about it here first!). Like the almost unreal tar sands projects in northern Canada, maybe we have to rethink our energy consumption habits if our society finds a process as zany as fracking to be economically viable: truck tons of equipment to some remote site, drill a deep hole, then pump millions gallons of chemical water thousands of feet underground just to release some methane trapped in rock pores. And of course we don't capture all the gas, so some leaks and contaminates the environment and human settlements. And then there's the question of what to do with all the waste water (or as the industry likes to call it, "produced water"). Plus, it's not like the gas firms are so diligent to recover every last ounce of their poison. They of course swear that the used water is perfectly safe. If so, then why did the industry lobby for a waiver from the EPA Clean Water Act? And why then are they pumping/trucking the water hundreds of miles for underground disposal in economically-depressed states like Arkansas and Ohio, places desperate for new jobs/investment at the cost of public safety and the environment? Like with nuclear power, maybe "green" natural gas wouldn't appear so cheap and clean if the waste management costs and other externalities were rightfully factored into the market price. I know we want to wean ourselves from foreign oil, combat climate change, and the US is sitting on huge natural gas reserves. Gas prices are at almost record lows. But nothing comes free. If we had the misfortune of living near a neighbor who sold land rights for drilling or waste disposal, we might feel a lot differently.

So on top of all these problems associated with fracking, now there is evidence that the fracking and waste water disposal may even be causing small earthquakes! Water is a lubricant, and a lot of water is very heavy and exerts pressure on its surroundings. Mix a small fault in there and what do you get? Fortunately the shale gas areas in the US Midwest are not very seismically active, but Ohioans living near waste water wells have experienced 11 quakes as high as 4.0-magnitude since the projects began. So Ohio and Arkansas are now banning waste disposal in certain sensitive areas of their states. Of course the drilling and waste companies say that no one can definitively "prove" that their activities caused the earthquakes, because many natural stimuli also contribute to quakes. The tobacco companies and their lawyers used to say the same thing about their products and human diseases. But enough correlation can usually convince sensible people.

Geology is a delicate balance of forces, and we can barely understand and predict quakes. Like with climate change, some people can't believe that tiny humans and our tailpipes could affect changes in the massive atmosphere. But small perturbations eventually accumulate into big consequences. Yes, faults and rock formations are huge compared to the relatively small volumes of water we're injecting, but a tiny pin can pop a balloon. Aware of this controversy, companies have tried to filter and recycle the waste water instead, but couldn't get the output to meet gov't purity standards (which I'm sure aren't that strict). If so, then I don't see how it makes sense to dispose of the untreated water in the ground, where it can eventually seep into aquifers and faults. There's just a lot we don't know about the consequences of fracking, but US policy is reactive - the companies say it's safe, so let them do it until there is clear proof of a problem, and then maybe take action if Congress or the courts are interested. But by that time it's too late for the first rounds of victims. And the gov't fines and litigation settlements are measly compared to the huge profits already extracted.

In the EU, drilling companies have seen the boom in North America and want a piece of the action. Shale gas exists over there too, but the French government has voted to ban domestic fracking entirely (despite sitting on the 2nd largest reserves in the EU). They have more incentive to frack too: energy prices are usually 4X as expensive in France than the US (and they are at the mercy of unstable exporters like Russia and Libya), but their consumption is probably 1/2 ours, and their energy companies seem to have less political sway. They have studied the risks and costs, and found that a moratorium is the best course of action for their people's future. Poland, with the biggest gas reserves in the EU, is pushing hard to frack (and foreign energy companies like Exxon and Conoco are salivating to get a piece of the action), as they are under more under Russia's thumb and dependent on dirty coal than Western Europe. The EU can impose union-wide environmental regulations, so the countries are sparring as to what the overall policy on fracking should be. It's tough because the EU also had ambitious carbon reduction goals, and converting to natural gas would help there (especially since nuclear is falling out of favor after Fukushima). But we shouldn't create 2 new problems to solve 1 old problem. Of course the more consequence-free solution is energy conservation, but that is not as sexy as a new technology or new exploration.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/france-vote-outlaws-fracking-shale-for-natural-gas-oil-extraction.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18867861

Sunday, June 27, 2010

You could be living in "Gasland"

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127593937
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/21/127988546/gasland-hbo-gas-drilling-film-exposes-drinking-water-worries

HBO is airing a documentary series this month, and one of the films is called "Gasland" by Josh Fox, about the problems associated with domestic natural gas extraction in American communities. The filmmaker was actually approached by a gas drilling company to lease his family's land for extraction for $100,000, and he first wanted to research the pros and cons before making a decision. What he discovered was so angering and shocking that he decided to drive across America to interview people living with the consequences of gas drilling for a documentary. Of course they were unaware of the impending BP disaster when the broadcast schedule was planned, but the content is now all too familiar. This is part of the true cost of our energy consumption habits.

The natural gas industry touts its product as cheap and "green", and yes its combustion is less polluting than petroleum and coal (but only 25% so). Plus it can be used in a variety of applications (from large scale electricity generation to vehicle fuel), extraction infrastructure is fairly compact, and we even have plenty of domestic reserves, so it sounds like a great energy source. But like ethanol, natural gas is dirtier than most of us know, and the companies tasked with its extraction have committed a litany of environmental and ethical violations. This controversy is not well publicized maybe because US natural gas reserves mostly exist in poorer, rural counties in the northeast, mountain states, and the southern Midwest. Much of the land is federally-owned, and those who live there don't have much of a political voice. The residents are generally less-educated and lower-income, so when a Halliburton-type drilling company approaches them with a fat check to buy the rights to drill on their land, they tend to sign. Companies give all sorts of guarantees that the drilling is safe and you won't even notice, and the rural residents are from the "my word is my bond" tradition, so they trust them without reading the dozens of pages of fine print. And if pollution problems are found and admitted to, the companies often pay off the victims into silence (or underpay for the true damage they inflict) and keep drilling the next day. But some short-changed victims were so mad that they broke their non-disclosure agreements to speak on camera. Even if landowners refuse to sign with drillers, they can still get screwed. If their neighbors agree to lease, their property value may sink because now they live next to an industrial site. By that stroke, drillers and your neighbors can collectively force you off your land by making your property virtually worthless if you resist.

Just as we are tapping new oil reserves with more sophisticated (and riskier) deep-sea drilling, we can now access deeper natural gas deposits using a technique called hydraulic fracture (nicknamed with a masculine moniker, "fracking"). Basically, the gas is trapped in dense rock (shale) over a mile underground and can't be cost-effectively harvested by a conventional well, so with the advent of horizontal drilling, we can bore into the shale and then pump in a high-pressure fluid mix. The mix of water, sand, and proprietary chemicals (that companies may or may not admit are included in the pumping fluid, and are currently not legally required to disclose) fractures the shale so the gas can percolate up to the wells. Through the work of the filmmaker and environmental activists, we now know that fracking fluid contains benzenes, sulfides, and other carcinogens banned by the EPA Clean Air, Water, and Safe Drinking Water Acts. 65 identified ingredients are known to be health hazards. It used to even contain diesel fuel, but Halliburton cut a deal with the EPA in 2005 to stop using it in exchange for a waiver to substitute benzene.

If you recall, 2005 was a big year for the industry with the passing of the Energy Policy Act. After VP Cheney's formed his energy task force and held secret meetings, industry lobbyists successfully convinced politicians to open up unprecedented tracts of federal land to energy exploration, and insert loopholes to exempt the oil and gas industries from many environmental rules. As you would expect, Halliburton is one of the biggest gas drillers, and the industry fracks a staggering 35,000 wells each year in the US. So far the EPA has shown interest and expertise in investigating and regulating fracking chemicals, but agency leaders have copped out, and pronounced that "the states should decide" how to regulate gas drilling. In response to calls for greater scrutiny, the industry has said that fracking is completely safe without providing much supporting evidence. They in turn threaten back that added regulation of drilling will only serve to increase the cost of natural gas to consumers. In response to criticism that "Gasland" paints a slanted picture with anecdotes only from angry anti-gas families, the filmmaker challenged an industry rep to provide him with just one example of a happy, healthy American community living alongside fracture drilling, and so far they haven't gotten back to him yet.

Fracking may sound good; we're tapping vast gas pockets that were previously inaccessible. But the fracking fluid has to go somewhere, and drilling sites are often near aquifers that supply well water to local residents (and in many drilling areas, there aren't big reservoirs or rivers, so people rely on wells to survive and farm/ranch). Some of the waste fluid returns to the surface and is collected in huge pits. If the company is conscientious, they will pump up the liquid and dispose of it safely. But often the drillers will just allow the fluid to evaporate, seep back into the soil, or even expedite evaporation by pumping the fuel through vaporizers. This is all legal apparently. But the poisons don't just disappear. They either accumulate in the water supply or become aerosols that get inhaled by living things nearby.

Fracking breaks up underground shale to release gas, but that gas isn't 100% collected by the wells either. It also seeps into the water supply, and there have been several documented accidents of tap water catching on fire and causing well or household explosions. Many residents were forced to buy bottled water or rely on rainwater cisterns instead. Poisons also contaminate the wildlife, making it harder for local farmers and ranchers to make a living, or even live healthily. The incidence of some cancers, asthma, and neurological disorders (all well-documented side effects of exposure to various fracking fluid base chemicals) is uncommonly high in communities near drilling areas. And as one interviewee in Wyoming said, viewers may think it's crazy but people like him really love what they do - 3rd or 4th generation ranchers who carry on the tradition of Western living that we usually relegate to nostalgia. Now they can't even water their herds enough to develop them for market. So in addition to the massive environmental and health effects of gas drilling, we may be losing a unique and precious feature of American history and culture also. Yes our supercharged economy needs energy to run, and gas is a precious resource. But potable water is also very precious, and although laws and subsidies make its price artificially low, humans are also fighting wars across the globe (either with guns or lawsuits) over water access. Ideally we should protect both our energy and water resources, and it makes no sense to destroy one while pursuing the other, unless you stand to make a lot of money in the process of course. 

Even if companies went beyond the porous rules and made sure their drilling waste didn't endanger local life (if that is even possible with fracking), how green and minimally-invasive is natural gas exploration anyway? Reserves are often in remote areas, so there has to be hundreds of diesel truckloads of equipment transported hundreds of miles to set up a well, and in many cases miles of new road to the site have to be paved beforehand. It's like clear-cutting in the Amazon, and may leave the land like a moonscape afterward. Fracking consumes 400-600 tanker truck loads worth of water, and only a fourth of that volume can be recovered and cleansed (if the company chooses to). If each well consumes 1-7M gallons of water per frack (and wells are sometimes fracked over 10 times), the industry creates trillions of gallons of contaminated water per year (the industry term for the waste is "produced water"). The drilling and refining processes also need to be powered by diesel generators, which collectively spew out tons of emissions. Combine that with gas leaks and chemical evaporation, and the air in microclimates near heavy drilling zones (even densely populated areas like Ft. Worth, which has 15,000 wells in its vicinity) is more unsafe than LA smog.

Most states are in very bad financial shape now, and thanks to the GOP blocking of the jobs bill, will get even less federal assistance in 2010. As consequence, they have had to trim down their environmental and regulatory workforce, and may be more open to allow gas drilling to reap royalties, taxes, and create jobs. As long as they don't live in drilling areas, what do those state legislators care? A major drilling expansion is planned in the Marcellus shale in upstate New York and Pennsylvania. But projected well sites are located in the upper Delaware River Basin and NYC watershed that collectively supply the drinking water to NYC, Philadelphia, and over 15M residents in between. NYC council members are trying to stop the expansion, and so far no wells have broken ground yet.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

More on the BP Gulf spill

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237651
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237619

Some interesting articles regarding the aftermath of the BP disaster. Incidents like the Gulf oil leak and the West Virginia mine deaths remind us of the question: how many lives and how much environmental damage are we willing to offer up on the altar of commerce and cheap energy? If we had a renewable energy economy, all of that harm could be avoided, unless a solar panel came loose in the Mojave and crushed a mouse. Unfortunately or not, very few Americans are directly affected by these industrial disasters, like the Middle East wars. So therefore it is a lot easier for the rest of us to ignore problems or even live in denial as long as the gasoline and electricity keep flowing. But although we don't see it, Alaskan fishing communities are still devastated two decades after the Valdez spill. Local ecosystems will probably never recover to pre-spill vitality, and fishing economies were decimated (suicides and domestic violence have risen significantly in those hard-hit communities too). Yet those victims have been swept under the rug, since oil is so vital to Alaska's economic survival (and provides hefty payouts and kickbacks to many in power), so Palin et al. up there are as pro-drilling as ever. Sacrifices for the "greater good", I suppose. I hope this sad narrative won't repeat in the Gulf, which is still struggling after Katrina, but I don't think their future is bright (in some cases, it has taken an entire year to finally plug a blown out well).

The recent NYC terror scare reminded us to be vigilant, and the government/law enforcement often state that we can't afford to be wrong even once - zero tolerance for terrorism. If only we could hold companies to the same standard regarding environmental harm (and we're not even talking about climate change yet, though the Kerry-Lieberman bill is sparking new discussion on the sausage making of energy reform: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201005130900). We're petrified of Abdul the crazy Muslim bomber, even though the chances of being a victim of terrorism are at lottery levels. 9/11 was a major human and economic disaster (though smaller than the subprime bust), but after 9/11 the US has suffered much more from environmental disasters than terrorism (domestically at least). So what should we really fear? As a society, we've almost tuned out eco-disasters. Yes the Gulf spill is huge in magnitude and may well spur a (watered down) overhaul of drilling and environmental regulations. But there were at least 5 major North American energy disasters since 2000, and I doubt many of us could name them. It's one of those "oh well, what a shame" tragedies, like the problems in Africa - we're sympathetic when asked but otherwise it's barely on our radar. I hope we don't become like the Iraqis, where a daily car bomb isn't even news anymore. Are WV and the Gulf just the price we pay to keep the economy humming? We only get mad when gas exceeds $4/gallon or our block gets a blackout.

If we don't care about the millions of dead avian and sea life, what about the human costs? The Texas City refinery explosion that I previously mentioned killed 15 and injured 180, so imagine the ripple effects for that community. Toxic fumes displaced 43,000 other shelter-seekers. It could happen in the dozens of US communities near refineries. BP was fined tens of millions, but it was a slap on the wrist considering the magnitude of the crime. And it's no accident that the federal investigation was weak at best. The EPA lawyers were chomping at the bit for a home run case, but the Justice Department suppressed their efforts or watered down the case to the point of futility. BP's strategy to stunt the investigation after their Alaska pipeline leak was creative: they responded to the federal subpoena by spamming the EPA with 62M pages of documents, fully aware that the government only had 3 or 4 employees on the case. They got off nearly Scot free. Last year, BP spent almost $16M on Washington lobbying (a record for them), and like Goldman Sachs, they want a return on their investment. In the past, BP has made consultants out of major government players: Leon Panetta (current CIA director), George Mitchell (Obama's special envoy to the Middle East), Christine Todd Whitman (Bush's EPA chief), and Tom Daschle (former House majority leader and Dancing with the Stars contestant). What do you think they discussed - geology and pipelines?

The current Federal cap for environmental damages is a paltry $75M, and the Gulf disaster will cost an order of magnitude more. Obama vows to hold BP accountable for every penny, and their CEO Tony Hayward promised to "honor all legitimate claims", which sounds like the health insurance industry. But BP is the #4 oil company in the world, and so we face the "too big to fail" problem with them. BP is a major employer/taxpayer/campaign contributor, and is the #1 oil supplier for the US wars in the Middle East, doing $2.2B in business with the Pentagon last year. If we lean on BP too much, don't you think they're going to play that card?

BP made over a $17B profit in 2007. Apart from the recession, they have done really well in the last 5 years. If we are serious about avoiding environmental disasters, ensuring safety at facilities, and holding energy companies accountable, we have to hit them where it hurts. Revoke their license to do business. Like the Pfizer Bextra email I sent out before, the FDA has the right idea by blocking medical companies convicted of fraud from doing business with Medicare (unfortunately they let Pfizer off the hook that time because they were "too big"). For energy companies convicted of skirting safety regulations and guilty of causing environmental/human disasters, we should revoke their permits and confiscate their assets. That will keep them on the wagon, or weed out the reckless companies that shouldn't be in business anyway. But of course it's not just the companies' fault. They do what makes business sense. They don't necessarily want to club baby seals, but if the benefits of skirting regulations to improve output outweigh potential government penalties from rare accidents, of course they will keep being reckless.

We people are to blame for our addiction to cheap energy. We should boycott polluters like we did to apartheid South Africa, but then where will we get our power? If we get tough with Big Oil, they will rebut with, "Sure we can reform our operations and become safer/cleaner, but it could cost American jobs and we're going to pass on those costs to the consumer". Then we shut up. The feds are to blame as well, with the Department of Interior is one of the most corrupt parts of our government. Finally the regulators are under fire after the recent coal and oil disasters, and some may have accepted bribes. Obama was right to separate the regulatory and royalty-collecting arms of the DOI due to the obvious conflicts of interest (obvious to anyone outside of Washington it seems). And even so, the US people are getting really shortchanged on energy royalties like we were a Third World shit hole. Oil companies build their offshore platforms just beyond the state waters limit to avoid taxes, yet their wells suck up oil from adjacent rock that the state owns (like "I drank your milkshake!" - Daniel Day Lewis). In Mexico, their constitution states that natural resources belong to the PEOPLE. Not so here. Of course the Mexican people get shortchanged from corruption as well, but they are more progressive than us on this front at least.

---------

Did we find out that BP is at fault for this particular leak?  Or that it was through skirting of regulations that this occured?  In theory there is a moderately low risk way to drill in the ocean, and i assume the regulations that exist are to hold you to that moderately low risk method.  I read, more so in the end, about how BP skirts regulations in favor of good business, but was that the case here?  I am asking as i have no clue, not as a rhetorical point.  And i believe that BP has most certainly, at least in other isntances, chosen money over "the right thing" but what about in this specific case?

---------

Well BP blames the rig owner they leased from (since the "fail safe" blowout preventer valve didn't close, in fact 4 of them failed), and the rig owner blames Halliburton for a leaky well head. And Halliburton blames BP because they were just carrying out BP's work order that BP designed. So the merry-go-round of BS continues.

I am not an expert, but drilling a mile underwater in a hurricane area is NOT low risk (industry/conservative propaganda: http://www.aei.org/article/101949). The BP rig was on one of the deepest oil wells on earth (see ABC article below, and actually BP is currently drilling THE deepest well off Texas: 4,000 ft water + 35,5000 ft rock, so cross your fingers). And because of the depth, the rig has to float instead of having fixed moorings, which exposes you to ocean drift. The long drilling pipe means that the oil needs to be pressurized more to reach the surface, which can heat up the oil to 250 F (also increasing the risk of blowout). And of course anything in salt water corrodes, and the deeper you go, the harder it is to monitor, maintain, and service your stuff (as we now see). But I guess they thought it was worth it because the Tiber reserve in the Gulf that BP owns 62% of is estimated to be as lucrative as AK's North Slope (4-6B barrels of gas/oil). But for these expensive, deep projects to pay off, the price of crude must stay above $70/barrel.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8476359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_drilling

American Enterprise Institute: The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969... To fear oil spills from offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of prop plane crashes in the 1950s.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Washing your hands could be bad for your health


Some studies suggest that antibacterial soaps don't even offer much added protection against microbes than regular soap anyway (and encourage bacterial resistance to those agents), so why risk these health problems too?

Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89871
Researchers See Potential Health Hazards; Manufacturers Say Products Are Safe

By Martin F. Downs
WebMD Health News

Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD

May 29, 2008 — Millions of Americans use antibacterial soaps and household cleaners every day, believing that their germ-killing ability will keep them and their families healthier. But could these same chemicals that fight germs also be hazardous to your health? That's a question being studied by a group of researchers at the University of California, Davis. In three separate studies, the researchers showed that the chemicals — triclosan and triclocarban — have potential to affect sex hormones and interfere with the nervous system. They also may become suspects in the search for causes of autism.

Dan Chang, PhD, a professor of environmental engineering at U.C. Davis and one of the researchers involved, says he doesn't want to cause a panic, but "the public should be aware of some of the concerns."

While Chang and the other researchers involved in the studies admit that it's too early to know whether the chemicals pose a serious health risk, it's already been shown that the cleaners don't work any better than regular soap and water — and may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria. So, they ask, why take the risk?

In October, the researchers will pose that question when they meet with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CDC, and some of the product manufacturers to talk about what they view as a potential public health problem. The stakes are high for the manufacturers: Antibacterial products account for about $1 billion in sales annually. Triclosan is found in 76% of all liquid soap sold in stores and is also added to toothpaste, mouthwash, cosmetics, fabrics, and plastic kitchenware. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. "These compounds should be voluntarily removed by consumer product manufacturers," Chang tells WebMD, or at least, consumers should "be provided precautionary information regarding their use."

Industry Reaction
Brian Sansoni, spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, an organization headquartered in Washington D.C. that represents manufacturers of all kinds of cleaning products, says studies have shown the products are safe. "They have been reviewed and analyzed and studied by scientists and government agencies for decades," Sansoni says. "We're disappointed at some of the alarmist conclusions made by the authors."

Sansoni confirms that a representative of the association plans to meet with U.C. Davis researchers. But he says their findings aren't too worrisome. "Consumers can continue to safely use antibacterial soap and hygiene products with confidence," he says.

The Government's Perspective
Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, triclocarban and triclosan were first used mainly as antiseptic agents in hospitals. Sales of consumer antibacterial products took off in the early 1990s, backed by multimillion-dollar ad campaigns for popular soap. By 2004, manufacturers were introducing hundreds of new antibacterial products every year. The EPA is in the process of re-evaluating triclosan. A draft report published in the Federal Register in May 2008 concludes that it doesn't pose any serious safety concerns for consumers. The European Commission reached the same conclusions about triclosan in 2002 and triclocarban in 2005.

The data on toxic effects cited in these reports primarily come from animal studies dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, which were not designed to detect the same kinds of effects that the U.C. Davis researchers are now studying in the lab and in animals. "The science itself I think is quite good," says Kevin Crofton, PhD, a neurotoxicologist with the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, when asked about the U.C. Davis research. "The conclusions are where it gets hard. They're pointing out something that's new. Does it require further study? Absolutely. But the thing that I think you have to keep in mind is that what we don't really know is the relationship between human exposures and the exposures in those studies."

The effects seen in the laboratory may not necessarily occur in people. "We need to follow that up," Crofton says.

What the Reseachers Found: Triclosan
Chang, who coordinates the university's studies on triclosan and triclocarban as part of the Superfund Basic Research Program, supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health, says the U.C. Davis research doesn't contradict findings that triclosan and triclocarban are safe for most people. But it does show that "there may be sensitive periods in development when these compounds could have a very subtle detrimental effect." Translation: If the compounds cause harm, they are most likely to do so during pregnancy, early childhood, and adolescence.

Chang argues that antibacterial soaps don't do enough good to risk this potential harm. In 2005, the FDA concluded that antibacterial soaps, as used by the general public, don't prevent illness any better than ordinary soap, and they may contribute to the rise of resistant bacteria.

In one study, recently accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and made available online, Isaac Pessah, PhD, director of the U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health, looked at how triclosan may affect the brain. Pessah's test-tube study found that the chemical attached itself to special "receptor" molecules on the surface of cells. This raises calcium levels inside the cell. Cells overloaded with calcium get overexcited. In the brain, these overexcited cells may burn out neural circuits, which could lead to an imbalance that affects mental development.

Some people may carry a mutated gene that makes it easier for triclosan to attach to their cells. That could make them more vulnerable to any effects triclosan may cause. This is one reason why Pessah named triclosan (and related compounds with similar properties) as a prime target for research into environmental factors that might cause autism. "These are the compounds you should be going after," he said last April at the Current Trends in Autism conference held in Boston.

While Pessah's new study does not link triclosan directly to autism, many scientists suspect that having certain genes, plus exposure to something in the environment, might trigger processes that lead to autism. "We already have a list of candidate genes," Pessah says These are genes commonly found in people with autism that may increase vulnerability to things that impact excitable brain cells.

What the Researchers Found: Triclocarban
Other researchers at U.C. Davis found that the other chemical under study, triclocarban, has an unusual effect on hormones. Triclocarban is a common additive in antibacterial bar soap and deodorant. For many years, some scientists have suspected that chemicals in the environment, known as "endocrine disruptors," may interfere with the human sex hormones and reproductive development. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, endocrine disruptors may cause reduced fertility in women and men, early puberty in girls, and increases in cancers of the breast, ovaries, and prostate.

In the March 2008 issue of Endocrinology, the researchers published results of studies in animals showing that triclocarban appears to amplify the effects of hormones, telling cells to keep doing something after they normally would have stopped. Researchers tested triclocarban on human cells grown in the lab. When exposed to estrogen and triclocarban together, the cells produced more of an enzyme than with estrogen alone. In a separate test published in the Environmental Health Perspectives study, the prostate glands of rats exposed to triclocarban and testosterone grew bigger than those given testosterone alone.

Such studies cannot be repeated in humans for ethical reasons, so researchers must infer that triclocarban could have the same effect in humans. Lathering up for a single bath with soap containing triclocarban gives a person the same dose of triclocarban that rats got in the study. "We do know that people, after a shower, or after an acute exposure, can have levels that could have an effect on their hormones," says Bill Lasley, PhD, a researcher in the department of population health and reproduction at U.C. Davis. "I have no doubt that it has a subtle effect, but I of course question whether it has a serious effect."

Chemical Buildup in Environment
The U.C. Davis researchers are the first to use cutting-edge molecular technology to study potential effects of triclosan and triclocarban on the human nervous system and hormones. Studies show that these chemicals are building up in the environment at an alarming rate. Americans dump more than 1 million pounds of triclosan and triclocarban into the environment every year. Rolf Halden, PhD, a scientist at Arizona State University, found that sewage treatment captures only about 50% of the triclosan and less than 25% of the triclocarban that goes down people's drains.

Halden published a study this month in Environmental Science and Technology showing that the chemicals don't quickly break down in the environment. He found these chemicals in sediment dating back 40-50 years. A recent CDC study detected triclosan in the urine of 75% of Americans aged 6 and older. "The disappointing news is that we continue to use these chemicals against better knowledge," Halden says. "They do not have an observable benefit. But we do know they persist in the environment, and now these more recent studies show that they are not as benign as we might have thought."

Antonia Calafat, PhD, a laboratory scientist at the CDC, says the agency does not know if any health problems in the population are linked to triclosan exposure. "We need additional research to determine whether or not, at the levels we have detected, triclosan can be a cause of concern," she says.

SOURCES: Dan Chang, PhD, professor emeritus, department of civil and environmental engineering, University of California, Davis. Isaac Pessah, PhD, professor, department of molecular biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis; director, U.C. Davis Children's Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention. Antonia Calafat, PhD, research chemist, division of laboratory sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC. Bill Lasley, PhD, professor emeritus, department of population health and reproduction, Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis. Brian Sansoni, vice president of communication, Soap and Detergent Association, Washington, D.C. Kevin Crofton, PhD, neurotoxicologist, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency. Rolf Halden, PhD, associate professor, Center for Environmental Biotechnology, The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University; adjunct associate professor, Center for Water and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

© 2008 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Fuel efficiency estimates


I thought this was a great article, not sure if anyone's heard about this guy. My company did a TV show about him last year. It takes almost fanatical dedication, but maybe this is the best way to combat gas costs (a gallon of regular gas costs $4.67 here in Emeryville...yikes). I've started driving with my FCD on, it's interesting to see where I am wasting fuel the most.


"But it was driving his wife's Acura MDX that moved Wayne up to the next rung of hypermiler driving. That's because the SUV came with a fuel consumption display (FCD), which shows mpg in real time. As he drove, he began to see how little things—slight movements of his foot, accelerations up hills, even a cold day—influenced his fuel efficiency. He learned to wring as many as 638 miles from a single 19-gallon tank in the MDX; he rarely gets less than 30 mpg when he drives it."



http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.html

----------

That is amazing driving! I guess the people behind him at a red light must be mad when he accelerates at a snail's pace! But good for him.

It's funny how the EPA fuel economy estimates are calculated. Apparently they are done by the car MANUFACTURERS themselves in their LAB (are their equipment and methods even validated?), and the EPA just reports the results (gotta love half-assed government oversight). They verify only 10-15% of those estimates in their own lab in Ann Arbor. So the automobiles for testing are in tip-top shape, with near-ideal tire pressure, tune up, ambient temperature, etc. Professionals (or maybe even computer controlled?) do the driving routines, so they rarely over-rev. Haha, the second link shows that the max acceleration during city/hwy testing is 3 MPH/sec, so 0-60 would take about 20 sec! I wonder if they even factor in air/road resistance, braking, turning, and such. No wonder why we can hardly ever reach their estimates during "normal, real" driving.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

The Senate will hear arguments from various viewpoints today on whether speculation is in fact driving up energy futures. As we discussed in previous emails, the CFTC claim that they have seen no evidence that speculation is affecting prices. But an interesting factoid - since Bush took office, budget cuts have forced the CFTC to trim 20% of its workforce (GOP's attitude is the market will work itself out!), while commodities trading has increase 6X over that same time span. So we have fewer already-overworked and underpaid regulators overseeing a much larger trading volume with higher stakes. Also the NY and London energy markets are trying to work out an agreement for better oversight and transparency.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080617/oil_trading_speculation.html?.v=1

---------

As a (former) proud owner of a 2001 Honda Insight (61/68 EPA MPG) I can tell you that "hyper-miling" does work: I was able to get as much as 75MPG driving to/from San Jose using regular unleaded gas and nothing more than a very light foot. I should mention the fact that there is a large community of Insight owners on the internet (e.g. http://www.insightcentral.net/) who are able to garner as little as 50MPG and as much as 100MPG from the same model automobile; however, most drivers would not find the techniques used while "hyper-miling" to be practical on a day-to-day basis and would be better served by simply using cruise control (not available as a standard feature on the Honda Insight) and keepinig a well-maintained, fuel-efficient vehicle.