This weather is soooo strange - from 70's a day ago - to snow today - and back to the 80's predicted a day away. The snow is having a hard time of it - it's almost 40 degrees outside.
Can't wait till Spring really arrives! Will be interesting seeing what type of season Mother Nature has planned for us.
Today went to visit my store and coworkers - they are so cool - bought peninni fixins' - then dropped off a bunch of clothes and other nice things at the Goodwill Store - am home and feeling a bit more like myself after a large lunch with iced coffee. And NO SMOKING still...
Am taking a weeks vacation beginning Sunday to make sure by the time i begin work again, the flu/phnemonia/and whatever else germs/ will have gone wherever it is they go after attacking people...{where do those danged pesky peskles go???}
Hopefully away from all the wildclickers and their families!!!!
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
You and your 300 friends have supported 2,869,923.9 square feet!
~~~
the storm has started
...
another cloud of white fluffy stuff - hope it stays like this
We just got another really good rain, after one a week ago. Glad you are feeling better, Stradee.
Hey, Danon. This one is for you. Papa Bush and his cronies getting (or not) some of their just deserts.
Carlyle-Managed Fund In Default to Lenders
By Thomas Heath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 7, 2008; D01
Carlyle Capital, a publicly traded financial fund managed by the Carlyle Group, failed to meet lenders' minimum requirements on its $21.7 billion portfolio yesterday, sending ripples through markets.
Carlyle Capital, listed on the Euronext in Amsterdam, said it received notices from banks that it was in default on its loans, which were used to buy AAA-rated home-mortgage-backed bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Banks essentially issued what are known as margin calls. A lender issues a margin call to require a borrower to add money to an account when a stock's or bond's value drops below a certain level.
The margin calls also reflect the spreading turmoil in the capital markets, which is infecting even the highest-rated securities.
Carlyle Capital is run by Carlyle Group, the District-based private-equity firm that has earned outsize returns for its investors over the past two decades.
"This may be the first of many negatives for blue-chip firms," said William L. Walton, chairman of Allied Capital, a business-development company in the District. "I don't see this as a Carlyle-specific issue particularly. The larger issue is that most small, publicly traded financial firms are seeing their liabilities under pressure. I would expect Carlyle will manage their way through this."
James J. Angel, associate professor of finance at Robert E. McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, said the extent to which Carlyle's brand is damaged will depend on Carlyle Capital's outcome.
"Just getting a margin call is not that big a deal," Angel said. Carlyle Capital "may have losses on paper at the present, but it could be a very good investment in the long run. If they can meet the margin calls and if history shows it was a good trade after the fact, this situation may actually burnish [Carlyle Group's] reputation."
Margin calls at Carlyle Capital and other financial institutions helped send stock prices down significantly yesterday, with the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index falling 2.2 percent. Shares of Carlyle Capital fell 58 percent yesterday, to $5.
A financial rescue may have to come from Carlyle Group, which has put $150 million into Carlyle Capital in the past year. The world credit crisis first hit Carlyle Capital last summer.
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman said yesterday that while the outlook for Carlyle Capital is unclear, the private-equity firm has limited exposure.
Money from Carlyle Group investors, mostly pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and wealthy individuals, is not at risk in Carlyle Capital, Ullman said. Only owners' money, not buyout fund money, goes into Carlyle Capital, he said. Carlyle Group has $75 billion under management from investors around the world.
Carlyle Capital has used about $670 million in cash equity to finance its $21.7 billion portfolio of securities issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Similar securities are being traded on markets at below their face value, which has caused Carlyle Capital's banks to ask the company to inject more cash.
Lenders have increased the fees they charge Carlyle Capital over the past year, which has also hurt its ability to pay. Some fees have risen from 1 percent of the loan to 3 percent, which can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars more on $20 billion in debt.
Donald B. Marron, founder of Lightyear Capital in New York and former chairman of PaineWebber Group, said Wall Street legends are made during crises like Carlyle's.
"Reputations in this business are made in the long term and . . . enhanced by how you deal with troubled times because everyone has trouble at one time or another," Marron said. "I expect [Carlyle] to deal with this extremely responsibly."
National Geographic News: NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM/NEWS
Maya May Have Caused Civilization-Ending Climate Change
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
February 29, 2008
Self-induced drought and climate change may have caused the destruction of the Maya civilization, say scientists working with new satellite technology that monitors Central America's environment.
Researchers from the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, launched the satellite program, known as SERVIR, in early 2005 to help combat wildfires, improve land use, and assist with natural disaster responses.
The researchers occasionally refer to the project as environmental diplomacy.
But the program also found traces of the Maya's hidden, possibly disastrous agricultural past?-and is now using those lessons to help ensure that today's civilizations fare better in the face of modern-day climate change.
SERVIR stands to warn leaders in Central and South America where climate change might deliver the hardest hits to their ecosystems and biodiversity, say developers Tom Sever and Daniel Irwin.
If the governments heed the warnings, the data may truly save lives, the experts add.
Secret Farms
More than a hundred reasons have been proposed for the downfall of the Maya, among them hurricanes, overpopulation, disease, warfare, and peasant revolt. (Read "Maya Rise and Fall" in National Geographic magazine (August 2007).
But Sever, NASA's only archaeologist, adds to evidence for another explanation.
"Our recent research shows that another factor may have been climate change," he said during a meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month.
One conventional theory has it that the Maya relied on slash-and-burn agriculture. But Sever and his colleagues say such methods couldn't have sustained a population that reached 60,000 at its peak.
The researchers think the Maya also exploited seasonal wetlands called bajos, which make up more than 40 percent of the Petén landscape that the ancient empire called home.
In most cases, Maya cities encircled the bajos, so archaeologists thought the culture made no use of them. But groundbreaking satellite images show that the bajos harbor ancient drainage canals and long-overgrown fields.
That ingenious method of agriculture may have backfired.
The data suggest that the combination of slash-and-burn agriculture and conversion of the wetlands induced local drought and turned up the thermostat. (Related: "Climate Change Killed off Maya Civilization, Study Says" [March 13, 2003].)
And that could have fueled many of the suspected factors that led to the Maya decline?-even seemingly unrelated issues like disease and war.
Proven Success
The SERVIR researchers are now taking their theories to the people, showing tabletop-size satellite images to villagers and national leaders that reveal deforestation in some cases and still-lush landscapes in others.
In one instance the Guatemalan congress was inspired to create the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Central America's largest protected area, after viewing satellite imagery and seeing striking differences between their forests and those that had been clear-cut to the north.
SERVIR, which is being supported in part by USAID and the World Bank, has also proved its worth in other ways since the program's headquarters was opened in Panama at the Water Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean (CATHALAC).
In 2006 Panamanian President Martin Torrijos used the SERVIR office as his command post during widespread flooding?-and when SERVIR technology forewarned of landslides, he paid attention.
CATHALAC senior scientist Emil Cherrington has never deleted the text message the government sent out that day?-a red alert about the landslides SERVIR said were imminent. Cherrington called the cooperation "inspiring."
"It was a pretty neat example of the decision makers acting on information when it was provided," he said.
Last year Central American governments also consulted SERVIR for predictions about Hurricanes Dean and Felix and Tropical Storm Noel.
Heavy Burden
Despite these local efforts in environmental stewardship, however, Latin American countries are facing a heavy burden from worldwide climate change.
Already, rains don't come as predictably to the Petén region, NASA archaeologist Sever said.
Local residents say their chicle trees are yielding fewer harvests, and clouds are forming higher and later in the day, sometimes not sending down rain at all, he pointed out.
Through SERVIR, Sever and his team are monitoring soil and plant responses to the changing conditions. They're also making maps for the ministries of environment and agriculture in several countries.
And CATHALAC's Cherrington, who is from Belize, is using the information to predict how climate change will alter his home country into the future.
"Belize is really a country where biodiversity conservation is possible," he said, speaking at the AAAS meeting.
Cherrington said precipitation will be disrupted most in the mountains, and temperatures will increase the most on the coasts. SERVIR data is predicting that some bird and mammal species will be lost, but amphibians will be the hardest hit.
If satellite precipitation forecasts can be passed to farmers, they'll be able to make decisions about crops based on how much water they'll require, he added.
The SERVIR scientists also hope to expand the space-based technology into other realms. They're looking to develop the kind of air quality index for Central America that is standard on United States weather reports.
And industry has already suggested applications that the SERVIR scientists didn't originally have in mind. A Panamanian company seeking to build solar panels asked recently if SERVIR could show them where to find the best sun exposure.
"It's kind of astounding," Cherrington said, "how space-based information can lead to making better decisions."
sumac,
You are soooo superb at bringing our attention to the matters that really count in our society.
Everyone is familiar with Halliburton and Cheney - that company - amidst a lot of public controversy and alledged crime in Iraq - earned approximately NINE BILLION American TAX Dollars each year the Iraq War has been waged.
Not one mention of the Carlyle Group was EVER mentioned - or, alluded to. So, it must be a SECRET Group - and, WHO is in charge of this group??
While Halliburton made NINE BILLION American tax dollars - the CARLYLE GROUP made approx. EIGHTEEN BILLION American TAX dollars PER year in the so called war in Iraq.
George Herbert Walker Bush is one of the establishing members of the Carlyle Group. His son - our current president of the USA - was a member of that group for two years. All he did was sit on the side and play games. After that he was dismissed from the group. Actually, for doing nothing.
Our president, George Walker Bush - during the Vietnam era - is said by his compatriates to have sat alone looking at magazines during his spell as a Texas Aviation National Guard member. He also is an AWOL for approx ONE year. And, never questioned..
Like his brother in Florida - JEB. who after stealing TWO BILLION dollars from the Medicare - was - after a FEDERAL????? Investigation declared - quote. "Too stupid to procecute."
And, his brother Neil - in Colorado - during the Savings and Loan specktacle - which cost the American Tax Payers approx. TWO BILLION American TAX Dollars.
JEB came out with FOUR Million American Tax dollars free and clear - duhhhh??????
Neil - came out with TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION American Tax dollars. Double DUHHHH.
All free and clear by law. ??????????????
Now - Just how did that happen????
Papa Bush did it.
He - and all his ONE PER CENT of the population SKULL and BONES friends - actually, I would not call them friends. They are slaves.
Our current - so called President - 'thu Dub' - who pretends to be a Texan - but, is from actually above the Mason-Dixon line - is a pretender to everything we Texans believe in. He is a Hammered **** for Brains person.
And, that's my personal opinion.
And a good one it is, Danon.
Clicked and going to have breakfast.
Thanks, sumac.
Weathers really very nice again today, plan staying outdoors doing a bit of gardening, not strenuous though - plus adding to the donation bin- more stuff from the garage - sweeping, and sprucing...wildlife feeders replenished, etc.
Wow...poignant article and wondering why the Carlyle Group isn't sitting in jail somewhere and what laws protect U.S. companies from arms dealing and funding wars for profit. The best enemies money can buy, eh George?
Meet The Carlyle
Group...http://www.angelfire.com/indie/pearly/htmls/bush-carlyle.html
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
That's a good site and informative, Stradee.
If ANYONE would care to take the time to read it and also look at some of the suggested sites - I can't believe anyone would not think the Bush family and the current president should not be in jail for stealing America from Americans.
Dan, if those responsible for the conflict of interest policies set forth by the current administration were indicted and convicted - the sounds of cell doors being slammed and locked would be deafening.
Wonder what sort of 'margin' call Congress has planned for the Carlyle Group...
Excellent material at that site, Stradee. Spells things out very clearly. Someone (Seymour Hersch?) should write a long article for The New Yorker, as I doubt that the Council on Foreign Policy would have the guts to print it. Don't know if there is enough for a full length book.
Yet another Sunday morning - my 3,403rd in a row.
Great clicks, Wildclickers.
AP probe finds drugs in drinking water
By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writers1 hour, 3 minutes ago
A vast array of pharmaceuticals ?- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones ?- have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.
But the presence of so many prescription drugs ?- and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen ?- in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.
In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas ?- from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.
Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.
How do the drugs get into the water?
People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.
And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies ?- which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public ?- have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation's 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.
Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:
_Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.
_Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.
_Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.
_A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.
_The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.
_Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.
The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.
The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.
Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.
The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.
Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water ?- Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.
The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.
City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" ?- regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.
In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the sex hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.
Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.
The AP also contacted 52 small water providers ?- one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas ?- that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.
Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.
The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City's upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.
He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. "Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail," Aufdenkampe said.
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.
Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe ?- even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.
For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.
In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.
Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs ?- and flushing them unmetabolized or unused ?- in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.
"People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.
Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.
One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.
Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.
Human waste isn't the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.
Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.
Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity ?- sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.
Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby ?- director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. ?- said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."
Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.
Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life ?- such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.
Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.
"It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?" EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. "It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven't gotten far enough along."
With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.
"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health," said Snyder. "They need to just accept that these things are everywhere ?- every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental."
To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater. "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."
While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it's being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.
So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.
There's growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs ?- or combinations of drugs ?- may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.
Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.
Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.
For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants ?- pesticides, lead, PCBs ?- which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.
However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.
And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That's why ?- aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies ?- pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.
"We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.
____
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org
March 9, 2008
Editorial
Oceans at Risk
There is no shortage of scientific studies documenting the degradation of the world's oceans, the decline of marine ecosystems and the collapse of important fish species. Several have appeared in the last month. What is in short supply is a sustained effort by world governments and other institutions to do something about it.
Last month, a team of American, British and Canadian researchers concluded that not a single square foot of ocean had been left untouched by modern society, and that humans had fouled 41 percent of the seas with polluted runoff, overfishing and other abuses.
A narrower but no less scary study from the University of Oregon found that a dead zone off the Oregon coast had spread south to California and north to Washington and devastated marine life in one of the world's most productive fisheries. The culprit is believed to be global warming, which has changed the interaction between wind and sea in ways that rob the fish of oxygen.
A third study is the latest legislative report card from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, established to push Congress and the administration to do a better job of protecting America's waters and to play a more active role globally. Washington policy makers get no grade higher than a "C" in any category, ranging from financing for scientific research to fisheries management.
The United States has to do better but so, too, must the rest of the world. A case can be made that the United States has been more sensitive to ocean issues than other major fishing nations, including Japan and the maritime members of the European Union. The problems are global and so, in the end, are the solutions.
The United Nations could do far more. Successful in banning huge drift nets, it has made few inroads on bottom trawling, a ruthless form of industrial fishing. And it has gone nowhere in its effort to persuade Japan and the European Union to stop their assault on the world's shark populations, which have been decimated beyond belief. The World Trade Organization could also usefully limit the huge government subsidies that allow most of the world's industrial fleets to stay afloat.
Last year, President Bush, who is weak on many environmental issues, created one of the largest protected marine reserves in the world ?- 138,000 square miles of largely unspoiled reefs and shoals near Hawaii. He should replicate that achievement elsewhere in American waters and persuade other leaders to do the same.
And he must keep the pressure on Congress to approve, finally, the Law of the Sea. Without that approval, the United States will have no voice when decisions are made about rights of passage, exploring the ocean floor and fishing. The United States should have that voice, and the rest of the world needs to hear it.
Good information, sue!
For many years we've attempted alerting the general public regarding farm animals and the tons of toxins given the animals each year. If we just concentrated on the amount of antibiotics, sterioids, and other inoculations given the animals, toxins from farms seeping into ground water, and the foods contaminants ingested by people {physical development of children begin earlier and earlier - caused by the growth hormones fed to livestock} Says much for not purchasing anything that isn't organically grown.
Americans though are making better choices, even if we arn't seeing a decrease in the amount of factory farms - although it is getting tougher for factory farms to set up business here in the United States.
Not good enough for me though. No factory farms will do wonders for the enviornment.
Yeah - 9/11 this whenever i read where a company cites 'national security reasonings' for not releasing data when toxins and pollutants are innundating drinking water - as if there wearn't enough of that from gross polluters - hill top mining - oil rigs - the list endless...will take an investigative report of the highest order.
Thanks for the articles, sue. Very informative and good reading. Disturbing though is the amount of politics involved - the oceans don't have much time for votes - neither do the sea mammals depending upon habitat for life.
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
You and your 300 friends have supported 2,870,696.6 square feet!
~~~
What a heap of snow we got! the drifts are over 3 feet high in many spots - past my car's door handles. I'm not going to bother digging it out for a bit.
~~~
Wow! Sunday and I'm all clicked! Been clicking every day, but not getting the messages. Oh well! It's windy but sunny today!
This is the lead story in today's Washington Post:
Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 10, 2008; A01
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising.
For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."
James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).
But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."
While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt.
Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent.
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said.
The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years.
But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales.
"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."
Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said.
Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time.
Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all."
Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales."
Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations."
When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."
sumac, thanks for the articles. I had seen a news segment concerning the water situation. It's not suprising, considering how negligent we humans are with our trash.
ehBeth, I do believe you have the Northern end of the cold front that gave us Texans our snow - - -
Have a great week folks.
