'Cash for Clunkers" won't single-handedly save the environment, rescue the beleaguered auto industry, or spare consumers from financial distress.
But the new $1 billion federal program promises a little help in all three areas, a bit of political symbiosis that explains why the plan motored through Congress three weeks ago on the back of an Iraq war-funding bill.
Once it gets rolling later this month, the program will offer incentives of $3,500 or $4,500 to those who buy or lease a more energy-efficient new vehicle. The goal is to get people to trade in a qualifying gas-guzzler - car, SUV, or light truck - for a comparable vehicle that gets substantially more miles per gallon.
The program's narrow focus has drawn criticism. Still, lawmakers are hopeful that it will make a small dent in energy use and pollution, as well as jump-start depressed auto sales. Without it, automakers are on pace to sell just 10 million new vehicles in the United States this year - down dramatically from 16 million in 2007 and 13 million in 2008, according to Edmunds.com, which compiles data on the industry.
One limitation is the window of opportunity. Although the rebates theoretically became available Wednesday, they are unlikely to spur sales until final procedures are announced, probably around July 24. Until then, car dealers could be on the hook if they credit buyers with incentives and are unable to collect from the government.
At the other end, the program expires Nov. 1 - or whenever the money runs out. Given that its backers initially proposed spending $4 billion to promote the purchase of a million vehicles, and that a similar program boosted Germany's car sales 40 percent in May, the spigot could run dry before November.
Of course, Congress might relent and extend the program. And meanwhile, the funding cap may help by pushing fence-sitters to act. Area dealers say Cash for Clunkers already has captured buyers' attention and may even be dampening sales as vehicle-shoppers await the help.
"We're having customers come in and ask about it every day, or say that they're waiting for it every day," said Ross Choate, managing partner for the John Kennedy Ford, Mazda, and Subaru dealerships in Philadelphia's suburbs.
After a relatively good May and early June, Choate said, sales slowed as Cash for Clunkers drew headlines.
"I do think it's holding people up," he said.
Here are answers to some key questions about the program, formally called the Car Allowance Rebate System:
Which cars qualify? To be eligible for the incentive, a buyer must bring in an operable car that is less than 25 years old and that gets a combined EPA city-highway average of 18 m.p.g. or less. The buyer must have owned and insured the car for the last year - you cannot buy a clunker just to make the trade.
Economically speaking, the car also must be suitable for scrapping - if it is valued at more than $4,500, it may be worth more as an ordinary trade-in, since any car turned in under the program must be junked.
Kelley Blue Book has a online calculator at http://www.kbb.com/kbb/cash-for-clunkers/default.aspx.
What do I do next? To get any incentive, you must buy a new vehicle that averages at least 22 m.p.g., and also at least 4 m.p.g. more than the "clunker." To get the larger $4,500 incentive, the new car must beat the old one by 10 m.p.g.
One other requirement: The new vehicle's manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) cannot exceed $45,000.
Some new cars obviously qualify - think Toyota Prius, Mini Cooper, or Pontiac Vibe. So do most smaller cars.
But, depending on your current vehicle, so may some midsize or larger sedans, and plenty of non-hybrids, such as Toyota Camrys, Hyundai Sonatas, and four-cylinder versions of the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan. To check models' mileage, go to www.fueleconomy.gov.
Can I junk an SUV or minivan? Yes, and you may be able to use the incentive for a new one, too, which is one of the law's provisions that angers some critics. New SUVs and other vehicles classified as "light-duty trucks" under the law are eligible if they get at least 18 m.p.g.
For the $3,500 incentive, the new light truck must get at least 2 m.p.g. more than the old one. For $4,500, it must get at least 5 m.p.g. more.
Certain larger trucks weighing up to five tons also may qualify. For more information on eligibility and answers to other questions, go to www.cars.gov.
Will this truly help the environment? Yes, but only at the margin.
House backers estimate average savings per vehicle of 250 gallons a year - plausible if you consider that a car averaging 15 m.p.g. needs 1,000 gallons of gas to travel 15,000 miles a year, compared with 600 gallons for a car that gets 25 m.p.g.
At that rate, replacing 250,000 gas-guzzlers should yield an annual savings of 62 million gallons, assuming drivers will not drive more in more efficient vehicles, a premise some critics contest.
But if it is a step in the right direction, it is a small one. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. motorists consume 390 million gallons of gasoline each day.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Next Generation of Fireworks May All Be Green
Despite being a centerpiece of celebrations the world over, fireworks displays often release toxic chemicals into the environment, from heavy metals to perchlorate.tweetmeme_url = 'here’; digg_url = here’; An article published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology in 2009 found that, following a fireworks display, the amount of perchlorate in nearby bodies of water could increase by anywhere from 24 to 1,068 times the amount present before the fireworks, and that it takes 20 to 80 days for the chemical levels to subside. Fireworks: More dangerous than they look. Photo CC-licensed by mugley. In an article published in the Earth Island Journal in 2000, author Gar Smith writes:
In addition to the charges of blackpowder (containing carcinogenic sulfur-coal compounds) that send skyrockets airborne and blast them into patterns of glowing sparks, fireworks contain a number of toxic metals that produce a range of dazzling colors. Strontium produces blazing reds, copper compounds burn blue, magnesium, titanium and aluminum create brilliant white sparks. Sodium chloride produces orange-yellow fire, boric acid burns green, potassium and rubidium compounds produce purples and burning lithium glows red. Glittering greens are produced by radioactive barium.During the Stockholm Water Festival in 1996, air pollutant levels were measured before and after the fireworks display. Levels of airborne arsenic were found to be twice normal, while levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, copper, zinc and chromium were as high as 500 times above normal. But researchers are developing a new generation of fireworks that can shine just as brightly without having the same impact on the environment or human health. In an article in Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society, Bethany Halford says these nitrogen-rich formulas also use fewer color-producing chemicals, dramatically cutting down on the amount of heavy metals used and lowering their potentially toxic effects.And new firework formulas can replace perchlorate -- which has been shown to pollute nearby bodies of water [PDF] -- with nitrocellulose or other nitrogen-rich materials, allowing them to produce less smoke and burn cleaner than perchlorate-based fireworks.Although some big events have put them to use, higher cost for lower impacts remains a barrier for wider adoption of these greener fireworks, according to the article.
In addition to the charges of blackpowder (containing carcinogenic sulfur-coal compounds) that send skyrockets airborne and blast them into patterns of glowing sparks, fireworks contain a number of toxic metals that produce a range of dazzling colors. Strontium produces blazing reds, copper compounds burn blue, magnesium, titanium and aluminum create brilliant white sparks. Sodium chloride produces orange-yellow fire, boric acid burns green, potassium and rubidium compounds produce purples and burning lithium glows red. Glittering greens are produced by radioactive barium.During the Stockholm Water Festival in 1996, air pollutant levels were measured before and after the fireworks display. Levels of airborne arsenic were found to be twice normal, while levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, copper, zinc and chromium were as high as 500 times above normal. But researchers are developing a new generation of fireworks that can shine just as brightly without having the same impact on the environment or human health. In an article in Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society, Bethany Halford says these nitrogen-rich formulas also use fewer color-producing chemicals, dramatically cutting down on the amount of heavy metals used and lowering their potentially toxic effects.And new firework formulas can replace perchlorate -- which has been shown to pollute nearby bodies of water [PDF] -- with nitrocellulose or other nitrogen-rich materials, allowing them to produce less smoke and burn cleaner than perchlorate-based fireworks.Although some big events have put them to use, higher cost for lower impacts remains a barrier for wider adoption of these greener fireworks, according to the article.
E.P.A. Grants California the Right to Enforce Emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday that it had granted California the right to enforce its first-in-the-nation standards controlling greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks. The move reverses a 2008 ruling by the Bush administration and effectively ends a seesaw political battle between automakers and environmental regulators that began in Sacramento eight years ago when the California Legislature first took up the issue.
Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had reversed the ruling by her predecessor, Stephen L. Johnson, because the traditional presumption had been that California, with its history of air pollution, had grounds to establish rules that exceed federal requirements.
“The burden is on those that object,” Ms. Jackson said.
The immediate impact of the decision, which had been widely anticipated, is more symbolic than practical. The 2009 fleet of new vehicles is already in compliance with the California rules and the 2010 fleet is also expected to meet the requirements, said Tom Cackette, deputy director of California’s Air Resources Board.
“Auto manufacturers have been making changes to vehicles both because they anticipated they might have to meet California standards and because there was a general interest in public in buying more efficient cars,” Mr. Cackette said.
Nationally, about one-third of the greenhouse-gas emissions contributing to climate change come from the transportation sector, most of it from cars and light trucks.
The rules in California will cut emissions from new vehicles by 14 percent from 2008 levels in 2011. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have also adopted the California rules in an effort to combat climate change.
California’s emissions rules are also expected to be congruent with new federal fuel economy standards announced in May by the Obama administration. Both standards envision that emissions will be cut by 30 percent in 2016.
The aligning of California’s rules and the federal mileage standards is intended to ensure that automakers comply with a single standard. This “moves us toward a policy that ensures that consumers in all 50 states have access to highly fuel-efficient vehicles at an affordable price,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Carmakers have accepted the fuel economy and emission standards that they long opposed, at a time when their industry is in crisis and accepting billions of dollars in federal money.
In the interview, Ms. Jackson of the E.P.A. praised Fran Pavley, the state senator from California who originally crafted the early blueprint for the state standards in 2001.
Ms. Pavley was jubilant Tuesday.
“It took eight years, multiple federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, two presidents, two governors and a partridge in a pear tree,” she said in an interview. “What a difference that last presidential election made.”
Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had reversed the ruling by her predecessor, Stephen L. Johnson, because the traditional presumption had been that California, with its history of air pollution, had grounds to establish rules that exceed federal requirements.
“The burden is on those that object,” Ms. Jackson said.
The immediate impact of the decision, which had been widely anticipated, is more symbolic than practical. The 2009 fleet of new vehicles is already in compliance with the California rules and the 2010 fleet is also expected to meet the requirements, said Tom Cackette, deputy director of California’s Air Resources Board.
“Auto manufacturers have been making changes to vehicles both because they anticipated they might have to meet California standards and because there was a general interest in public in buying more efficient cars,” Mr. Cackette said.
Nationally, about one-third of the greenhouse-gas emissions contributing to climate change come from the transportation sector, most of it from cars and light trucks.
The rules in California will cut emissions from new vehicles by 14 percent from 2008 levels in 2011. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have also adopted the California rules in an effort to combat climate change.
California’s emissions rules are also expected to be congruent with new federal fuel economy standards announced in May by the Obama administration. Both standards envision that emissions will be cut by 30 percent in 2016.
The aligning of California’s rules and the federal mileage standards is intended to ensure that automakers comply with a single standard. This “moves us toward a policy that ensures that consumers in all 50 states have access to highly fuel-efficient vehicles at an affordable price,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Carmakers have accepted the fuel economy and emission standards that they long opposed, at a time when their industry is in crisis and accepting billions of dollars in federal money.
In the interview, Ms. Jackson of the E.P.A. praised Fran Pavley, the state senator from California who originally crafted the early blueprint for the state standards in 2001.
Ms. Pavley was jubilant Tuesday.
“It took eight years, multiple federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, two presidents, two governors and a partridge in a pear tree,” she said in an interview. “What a difference that last presidential election made.”
Judge Tosses Bush-Era Forest Management Regulations
A federal judge sided with environmentalists yesterday and threw out Bush-era Forest Service regulations that govern management plaJudge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the service failed to analyze the effects from removing requirements guaranteeing viable wildlife populations. The planning rule determines how 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands develop individual forest plans, governing activities from timber harvests to recreation and protecting endangered plants and animals.
Wilken's decision (pdf) marks the third time a court has rejected revisions of the regulations over the past decade.
"We hope it's the last gasp of the Forest Service under the Bush administration and that we can now move forward with the Obama administration and try to come up with rules that will actually protect the forests," said Marc Fink, attorney for Center for Biological Diversity and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Conservation groups hope the Forest Service will reinstate the 1982 rule while coming up with new regulations, Fink said. Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh said the decision is under review. "The review will help them decide what direction to go in," he added.
Wilken said the 2008 rule violated both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. The environmental impact statement prepared by the Forest Service for the 2008 rule, she wrote, "does not actually analyze the environmental effects of implementing the Rule."
Although the environmental impact statement "repetitively insists" that the rule will have no effect on the environment because it merely sets out the process for developing land resource management plans, Wilken noted that argument was rejected twice before by courts and that she rejects it, too.
For example, she wrote, the 2008 rule does not require that plans "insure" the viability of vertebrate species, as the 1982 rule did, or even provide a "high likelihood" of viability, as a 2000 revision did. Instead, the 2008 rule states a goal of providing a framework to contribute to sustaining ecological systems.
"Although the [environmental impact statement] discusses the differences between the various standards, it fails to acknowledge the effect of eliminating the viability requirement," Wilken wrote. "Because the [statement] does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the 2008 Rule, it does not comply with NEPA's requirements."
The Forest Service had cited the Supreme Court's recent Summers v. Earth Island Institute decision that advocacy groups cannot challenge federal regulations on public lands unless they can prove they are themselves directly threatened by the proposed rules. But Wilken said that decision does not bear on yesterday's case. The overarching nature of the planning rule makes it impossible to link the procedural arguments of this case to any particular site-specific project, she said.
"The present case involves a challenge, not to the substance of any particular regulation, but to the Forest Service's failure to follow proper procedures when promulgating the 2008 Rule," the judge wrote.
In 2007, a federal judge in San Francisco stopped the Forest Service from using a planning rule put in place in 2005, siding with 19 environmental groups and the state of California, which argued that the Bush administration removed environmental protections without providing for proper public comment or considering the effect on endangered species.
Several environmental groups also challenged an attempt in 2000 by the Clinton administration to revise the planning rule, even though the Clinton rule was endorsed by many environmentalists and opposed by the timber industry. That rule was suspended by the Bush administration in early 2001 and never implemented, but the court case continued in part. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmental groups and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The groups in yesterday's case are Citizens for Better Forestry, Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild West Institute, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Idaho Sporting Congress, Friends of the Clearwater, Utah Environmental Congress, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Wild South, the Lands Council, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians. A separate lawsuit by Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and Vermont Natural Resources Council challenging the same rule was consolidated with the case.
An official with industry group American Forest Resource Council said they are reviewing the decision and could not yet comment.ns for national forests.
Wilken's decision (pdf) marks the third time a court has rejected revisions of the regulations over the past decade.
"We hope it's the last gasp of the Forest Service under the Bush administration and that we can now move forward with the Obama administration and try to come up with rules that will actually protect the forests," said Marc Fink, attorney for Center for Biological Diversity and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Conservation groups hope the Forest Service will reinstate the 1982 rule while coming up with new regulations, Fink said. Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh said the decision is under review. "The review will help them decide what direction to go in," he added.
Wilken said the 2008 rule violated both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act. The environmental impact statement prepared by the Forest Service for the 2008 rule, she wrote, "does not actually analyze the environmental effects of implementing the Rule."
Although the environmental impact statement "repetitively insists" that the rule will have no effect on the environment because it merely sets out the process for developing land resource management plans, Wilken noted that argument was rejected twice before by courts and that she rejects it, too.
For example, she wrote, the 2008 rule does not require that plans "insure" the viability of vertebrate species, as the 1982 rule did, or even provide a "high likelihood" of viability, as a 2000 revision did. Instead, the 2008 rule states a goal of providing a framework to contribute to sustaining ecological systems.
"Although the [environmental impact statement] discusses the differences between the various standards, it fails to acknowledge the effect of eliminating the viability requirement," Wilken wrote. "Because the [statement] does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the 2008 Rule, it does not comply with NEPA's requirements."
The Forest Service had cited the Supreme Court's recent Summers v. Earth Island Institute decision that advocacy groups cannot challenge federal regulations on public lands unless they can prove they are themselves directly threatened by the proposed rules. But Wilken said that decision does not bear on yesterday's case. The overarching nature of the planning rule makes it impossible to link the procedural arguments of this case to any particular site-specific project, she said.
"The present case involves a challenge, not to the substance of any particular regulation, but to the Forest Service's failure to follow proper procedures when promulgating the 2008 Rule," the judge wrote.
In 2007, a federal judge in San Francisco stopped the Forest Service from using a planning rule put in place in 2005, siding with 19 environmental groups and the state of California, which argued that the Bush administration removed environmental protections without providing for proper public comment or considering the effect on endangered species.
Several environmental groups also challenged an attempt in 2000 by the Clinton administration to revise the planning rule, even though the Clinton rule was endorsed by many environmentalists and opposed by the timber industry. That rule was suspended by the Bush administration in early 2001 and never implemented, but the court case continued in part. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmental groups and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The groups in yesterday's case are Citizens for Better Forestry, Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild West Institute, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Idaho Sporting Congress, Friends of the Clearwater, Utah Environmental Congress, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Wild South, the Lands Council, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians. A separate lawsuit by Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and Vermont Natural Resources Council challenging the same rule was consolidated with the case.
An official with industry group American Forest Resource Council said they are reviewing the decision and could not yet comment.ns for national forests.
Researchers find possible environmental causes for Alzheimer's, diabetes
A new study by researchers at Rhode Island Hospital have found a substantial link between increased levels of nitrates in our environment and food with increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer's, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson's. The study was published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (Volume 17:3 July 2009).
Led by Suzanne de la Monte, MD, MPH, of Rhode Island Hospital, researchers studied the trends in mortality rates due to diseases that are associated with aging, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cerebrovascular disease, as well as HIV. They found strong parallels between age adjusted increases in death rate from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes and the progressive increases in human exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines through processed and preserved foods as well as fertilizers. Other diseases including HIV-AIDS, cerebrovascular disease, and leukemia did not exhibit those trends. De la Monte and the authors propose that the increase in exposure plays a critical role in the cause, development and effects of the pandemic of these insulin-resistant diseases.
De la Monte, who is also a professor of pathology and lab medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, says, "We have become a 'nitrosamine generation.' In essence, we have moved to a diet that is rich in amines and nitrates, which lead to increased nitrosamine production. We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture." She continues, "Not only do we consume them in processed foods, but they get into our food supply by leeching from the soil and contaminating water supplies used for crop irrigation, food processing and drinking."
Nitrites and nitrates belong to a class of chemical compounds that have been found to be harmful to humans and animals. More than 90 percent of these compounds that have been tested have been determined to be carcinogenic in various organs. They are found in many food products, including fried bacon, cured meats and cheese products as well as beer and water. Exposure also occurs through manufacturing and processing of rubber and latex products, as well as fertilizers, pesticides and cosmetics.
Nitrosamines are formed by a chemical reaction between nitrites or other proteins. Sodium nitrite is deliberately added to meat and fish to prevent toxin production; it is also used to preserve, color and flavor meats. Ground beef, cured meats and bacon in particular contain abundant amounts of amines due to their high protein content. Because of the significant levels of added nitrates and nitrites, nitrosamines are nearly always detectable in these foods. Nitrosamines are also easily generated under strong acid conditions, such as in the stomach, or at high temperatures associated with frying or flame broiling. Reducing sodium nitrite content reduces nitrosamine formation in foods.
Nitrosamines basically become highly reactive at the cellular level, which then alters gene expression and causes DNA damage. The researchers note that the role of nitrosamines has been well-studied, and their role as a carcinogen has been fully documented. The investigators propose that the cellular alterations that occur as a result of nitrosamine exposure are fundamentally similar to those that occur with aging, as well as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
De la Monte comments, "All of these diseases are associated with increased insulin resistance and DNA damage. Their prevalence rates have all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau. Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies."
The researchers recognize that an increase in death rates is anticipated in higher age groups. Yet when the researchers compared mortality from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease among 75 to 84 year olds from 1968 to 2005, the death rates increased much more dramatically than for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, which are also aging-associated. For example, in Alzheimer's patients, the death rate increased 150-fold, from 0 deaths to more than 150 deaths per 100,000. Parkinson's disease death rates also increased across all age groups. However, mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease in the same age group declined, even though this is a disease associated with aging as well.
De la Monte notes, "Because of the similar trending in nearly all age groups within each disease category, this indicates that these overall trends are not due to an aging population. This relatively short time interval for such dramatic increases in death rates associated with these diseases is more consistent with exposure-related causes rather than genetic changes." She also comments, "Moreover, the strikingly higher and climbing mortality rates in older age brackets suggest that aging and/or longer durations of exposure have greater impacts on progression and severity of these diseases."
The researchers graphed and analyzed mortality rates, and compared them with increasing age for each disease. They then studied United States population growth, annual use and consumption of nitrite-containing fertilizers, annual sales at popular fast food chains, and sales for a major meat processing company, as well as consumption of grain and consumption of watermelon and cantaloupe (the melons were used as a control since they are not typically associated with nitrate or nitrite exposure).
The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing company increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.
The authors state that the time course of the increased prevalence rates of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes cannot be explained on the basis of gene mutations. They instead mirror the classical trends of exposure-related disease. Because nitrosamines produce biochemical changes within cells and tissues, it is conceivable that chronic exposure to low levels of nitrites and nitrosamines through processed foods, water and fertilizers is responsible for the current epidemics of these diseases and the increasing mortality rates associated with them.
De la Monte states, "If this hypothesis is correct, potential solutions include eliminating the use of nitrites and nitrates in food processing, preservation and agriculture; taking steps to prevent the formation of nitrosamines and employing safe and effective measures to detoxify food and water before human consumption."
###
Other researchers involved in the study with de la Monte include Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton, from the departments of pathology, neurology and medicine at Rhode Island Hospital and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.
The study was funded through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Two subsequent papers have been accepted for publication in the near future that demonstrate experimentally that low levels of nitrosamine exposure cause neurodegeneration, NASH and diabetes.
De la Monte, Suzanne M., Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton. "Epidemilogical Trends Strongly Suggest Exposures as Etiologic Agents in the Pathogenesis of Sporadic Alzheimer's Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis." Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 17:3 (July 2009) pp 519-529.
The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (http://www.j-alz.com) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer's disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. Groundbreaking research that has appeared in the journal includes novel therapeutic targets, mechanisms of disease and clinical trial outcomes. The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease has an Impact Factor of 5.101 according to Thomson Reuters' 2008 Journal Citation Reports. The Journal is published by IOS Press (http://www.iospress.nl).
Founded in 1863, Rhode Island Hospital (www.rhodeislandhospital.org) in Providence, RI, is a private, not-for-profit hospital and is the largest teaching hospital of the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. A major trauma center for southeastern New England, the hospital is dedicated to being on the cutting edge of medicine and research. Many of its physicians are recognized as leaders in their respective fields of cancer, cardiology, diabetes, emergency medicine and trauma, neuroscience, orthopedics, pediatrics, radiation oncology and surgery. Rhode Island Hospital receives nearly $50 million each year in external research funding. It is home to Hasbro Children's Hospital, the state's only facility dedicated to pediatric care, which is ranked among the top 30 children's hospitals in the country by Parents magazine. Rhode Island Hospital is a founding member of the Lifespan health system
Led by Suzanne de la Monte, MD, MPH, of Rhode Island Hospital, researchers studied the trends in mortality rates due to diseases that are associated with aging, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cerebrovascular disease, as well as HIV. They found strong parallels between age adjusted increases in death rate from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes and the progressive increases in human exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines through processed and preserved foods as well as fertilizers. Other diseases including HIV-AIDS, cerebrovascular disease, and leukemia did not exhibit those trends. De la Monte and the authors propose that the increase in exposure plays a critical role in the cause, development and effects of the pandemic of these insulin-resistant diseases.
De la Monte, who is also a professor of pathology and lab medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, says, "We have become a 'nitrosamine generation.' In essence, we have moved to a diet that is rich in amines and nitrates, which lead to increased nitrosamine production. We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture." She continues, "Not only do we consume them in processed foods, but they get into our food supply by leeching from the soil and contaminating water supplies used for crop irrigation, food processing and drinking."
Nitrites and nitrates belong to a class of chemical compounds that have been found to be harmful to humans and animals. More than 90 percent of these compounds that have been tested have been determined to be carcinogenic in various organs. They are found in many food products, including fried bacon, cured meats and cheese products as well as beer and water. Exposure also occurs through manufacturing and processing of rubber and latex products, as well as fertilizers, pesticides and cosmetics.
Nitrosamines are formed by a chemical reaction between nitrites or other proteins. Sodium nitrite is deliberately added to meat and fish to prevent toxin production; it is also used to preserve, color and flavor meats. Ground beef, cured meats and bacon in particular contain abundant amounts of amines due to their high protein content. Because of the significant levels of added nitrates and nitrites, nitrosamines are nearly always detectable in these foods. Nitrosamines are also easily generated under strong acid conditions, such as in the stomach, or at high temperatures associated with frying or flame broiling. Reducing sodium nitrite content reduces nitrosamine formation in foods.
Nitrosamines basically become highly reactive at the cellular level, which then alters gene expression and causes DNA damage. The researchers note that the role of nitrosamines has been well-studied, and their role as a carcinogen has been fully documented. The investigators propose that the cellular alterations that occur as a result of nitrosamine exposure are fundamentally similar to those that occur with aging, as well as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
De la Monte comments, "All of these diseases are associated with increased insulin resistance and DNA damage. Their prevalence rates have all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau. Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies."
The researchers recognize that an increase in death rates is anticipated in higher age groups. Yet when the researchers compared mortality from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease among 75 to 84 year olds from 1968 to 2005, the death rates increased much more dramatically than for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, which are also aging-associated. For example, in Alzheimer's patients, the death rate increased 150-fold, from 0 deaths to more than 150 deaths per 100,000. Parkinson's disease death rates also increased across all age groups. However, mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease in the same age group declined, even though this is a disease associated with aging as well.
De la Monte notes, "Because of the similar trending in nearly all age groups within each disease category, this indicates that these overall trends are not due to an aging population. This relatively short time interval for such dramatic increases in death rates associated with these diseases is more consistent with exposure-related causes rather than genetic changes." She also comments, "Moreover, the strikingly higher and climbing mortality rates in older age brackets suggest that aging and/or longer durations of exposure have greater impacts on progression and severity of these diseases."
The researchers graphed and analyzed mortality rates, and compared them with increasing age for each disease. They then studied United States population growth, annual use and consumption of nitrite-containing fertilizers, annual sales at popular fast food chains, and sales for a major meat processing company, as well as consumption of grain and consumption of watermelon and cantaloupe (the melons were used as a control since they are not typically associated with nitrate or nitrite exposure).
The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing company increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.
The authors state that the time course of the increased prevalence rates of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes cannot be explained on the basis of gene mutations. They instead mirror the classical trends of exposure-related disease. Because nitrosamines produce biochemical changes within cells and tissues, it is conceivable that chronic exposure to low levels of nitrites and nitrosamines through processed foods, water and fertilizers is responsible for the current epidemics of these diseases and the increasing mortality rates associated with them.
De la Monte states, "If this hypothesis is correct, potential solutions include eliminating the use of nitrites and nitrates in food processing, preservation and agriculture; taking steps to prevent the formation of nitrosamines and employing safe and effective measures to detoxify food and water before human consumption."
###
Other researchers involved in the study with de la Monte include Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton, from the departments of pathology, neurology and medicine at Rhode Island Hospital and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.
The study was funded through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Two subsequent papers have been accepted for publication in the near future that demonstrate experimentally that low levels of nitrosamine exposure cause neurodegeneration, NASH and diabetes.
De la Monte, Suzanne M., Alexander Neusner, Jennifer Chu and Margot Lawton. "Epidemilogical Trends Strongly Suggest Exposures as Etiologic Agents in the Pathogenesis of Sporadic Alzheimer's Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis." Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 17:3 (July 2009) pp 519-529.
The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (http://www.j-alz.com) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer's disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. Groundbreaking research that has appeared in the journal includes novel therapeutic targets, mechanisms of disease and clinical trial outcomes. The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease has an Impact Factor of 5.101 according to Thomson Reuters' 2008 Journal Citation Reports. The Journal is published by IOS Press (http://www.iospress.nl).
Founded in 1863, Rhode Island Hospital (www.rhodeislandhospital.org) in Providence, RI, is a private, not-for-profit hospital and is the largest teaching hospital of the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. A major trauma center for southeastern New England, the hospital is dedicated to being on the cutting edge of medicine and research. Many of its physicians are recognized as leaders in their respective fields of cancer, cardiology, diabetes, emergency medicine and trauma, neuroscience, orthopedics, pediatrics, radiation oncology and surgery. Rhode Island Hospital receives nearly $50 million each year in external research funding. It is home to Hasbro Children's Hospital, the state's only facility dedicated to pediatric care, which is ranked among the top 30 children's hospitals in the country by Parents magazine. Rhode Island Hospital is a founding member of the Lifespan health system
ENVIRONMENT: Shades of green —Mark Hertsgaard
America’s environmentalists were torn about whether to support the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which passed the House on June 26 — and for good reason. On the one hand, passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act was a historic achievement. After twenty years of denial, deception and delay, Washington had at last ordered reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming. On the other hand, the bill’s specifics fell far short of what science says is necessary to (perhaps) prevent catastrophic climate change.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that global emissions must fall by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. The cap-and-trade provisions of Waxman-Markey will cut US emissions by only 1 percent by 2020, a shortcoming backers disguise with creative accounting. They claim the bill will cut emissions by 17 percent — which it might, if one measures against the higher baseline of 2005 — and includes credits for halting deforestation overseas, though of course the earth’s atmosphere would not be tricked by such manoeuvres.Adding insult to injury, most of the bill’s pollution permits will be given away rather than sold, thus subsidising today’s polluters and delaying the transition to low-carbon energy sources. Finally, the bill cancels the president’s current authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse emissions, a clear step backward.Supporters argued that such dilutions were necessary to gain enough votes to pass the bill (the vote was still close — 219 to 212) and that Congressional backing of emissions cuts is essential to establish US credibility at the crucial global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. Doubtless these same arguments will be repeated when Waxman-Markey goes to the Senate, where the legislation is likely to be weakened further, if it passes at all.But why assume that US credibility in Copenhagen rests on Congress passing a climate bill, no matter how weak? The United States has other ways to send the world a message — and Barack Obama began exploring them even before he became president.In July 2008, shortly after securing his party’s presidential nomination, Obama sent representatives to Beijing for two days of high-level, off-the-record talks on climate change, held in a luxury hotel overlooking the Great Wall. Leading the Chinese side was Xie Zhenhua, China’s top climate negotiator. The US delegation included Republicans (though John McCain’s campaign declined to participate) and Democrats, notably John Holdren, now President Obama’s science adviser.The talks went so well that a second back-channel meeting was held in October, where unofficial agreement was reached on three points. Chief among them: China and the United States would “work together for a successful outcome” to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, according to William Chandler of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who helped organise the discussions.If that pledge becomes policy, it could rank as the most important breakthrough in the history of climate change diplomacy. Together, the United States and China produce 40 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. That gives them veto power over the rest of the world’s progress; no matter how much the European Union, which has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, and other governments might do, they cannot reverse global warming if the two carbon superpowers don’t do their part.Conversely, if China and the United States were to announce credible, ambitious plans to limit emissions, it would build momentum for reaching a strong agreement among all nations in Copenhagen, a meeting widely seen as humanity’s last chance to avoid catastrophic climate change.The turning point in the back-channel discussions came on their very first day, said Chandler. For more than ten years, Washington had refused to cut emissions unless China did too. But Beijing resisted, pointing out that it was US and other rich countries’ emissions during the past 200 years of industrialization that had caused global warming, and besides, China’s per capita emissions were one-fifth of America’s. The familiar impasse surfaced at the Great Wall gathering when one American asked what the Chinese were prepared to do if the next president promised to cut US emissions.“Xie started answering,” recalled Chandler, “and it was like he pushed the button on a tape recorder. Out came the same boilerplate we’d heard so many times before: the US bore historical responsibility for the problem, China was still a developing nation and had the right to use more energy and so forth. But after forty-five seconds, Xie stopped talking. It was as if he turned off the tape. And then he said, ‘But we have to move beyond all that now.’ That’s when we knew things had changed and a real breakthrough was possible.”No doubt China anticipated a shift in US policy with Bush’s exit, but having recently returned from two weeks of reporting in China, I suspect another reason for the new flexibility: The Chinese leaders have at last recognised how hard climate change will hit their country. One government study has warned that higher temperatures and volatile rainfall could cause production of rice, wheat and corn — the staples of the Chinese diet — to fall 37 percent by 2040 unless effective adaptation measures are taken. Such a decline would gravely endanger China’s ability to feed itself and thus the Communist Party’s hold on power.Obstacles to a formal US-China climate agreement remain. Publicly China is demanding that we cut US emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and provide tens of billions of dollars to developing nations to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Obama administration rebuffs these demands as “not serious” while continuing to insist that China accept reduction targets too. Beijing still rejects this.But the back-channel talks suggest a way around the impasse. Recall that there was agreement during the talks. In addition to a successful outcome in Copenhagen, the US and Chinese delegations agreed, according to Chandler, “to rapidly deploy existing technologies to boost energy efficiency” — the quickest path to large emissions cuts. A leading Chinese think tank has concluded that better efficiency could reduce China’s emissions by one-third by 2050; the United States could cut its energy use 30 percent if all states emulated California’s efficiency. Such reductions could buy time for a second back-channel agreement to bear fruit: a joint US-China programme to develop low-carbon technologies for vehicles and coal plants, which would enable China to continue burning coal, the source of three-quarters of its energy consumption.President Obama could sign such an agreement regardless of what Congress does (besides, there is considerable support on Capitol Hill for energy efficiency and green-tech R&D), and in the short to medium term the results could match the IPCC’s recommendations. To be sure, binding emissions targets are important. But if Washington and Beijing can’t agree on them yet, at least the two carbon superpowers could launch a green efficiency revolution that can achieve many of the same ends. In that case, Copenhagen might have “a successful outcome” after all.
Wind power has its own environmental problems
Wind power generation is expected to be a clean and environmentally friendly natural energy source, but a new kind of environmental problem has surfaced as infrasonic waves caused by windmills are suspected of causing health problems for some people.
Shinjuro Kondo, 76, who moved into his Japanese neighborhood 17 years ago, said, "Stiff shoulders, headaches, insomnia, hand tremors...Since February last year, soon after the test operation of windmills started, I developed various kinds of symptoms."
Kondo's neighborhood is about 350 meters away from a group of windmills.
More than 20 percent of about 100 neighbors also complain of similar physical disorders. They said their symptoms become less severe when the windmills stop due to mechanical troubles and other reasons.
Currently, the relationship between such physical disorders and the windmills is not clear. But infrasonic waves generated by the windmills' rotors is suspected to be the cause.
The sound waves oscillate once to 20 times a second, a frequency too low to be heard by human ears.
Similar complaints also have been reported in other parts of Japan, but it is not known whether these are connected to naturally occurring noise.
Operators of such windmills are very concerned about what measures should be taken. One of them said, "Even if we measure sounds from the windmills, no numerical differences are found from those in the natural environment."
Extrapolating the causal relationship is difficult for a number of reasons:
- Sensitivity to infrasonic noise differs among individuals.
- Effects are changed by psychological factors. For example, unpleasant sounds make people more uncomfortable than pleasant sounds, even at the same volume.
- The causal relationship between the physical disorders and the sounds has not been clarified.
In 2004, Japan's Environment Ministry set guidelines for local governments on dealing with problems caused by infrasonic noise.
The guidelines were issued mainly because of reports of damage at factories and construction sites caused by infrasonic noise at the frequency of 20 hertz to 200 hertz.
The infrasonic noise from windmills is not covered by the guideline as the frequency is lower.
Windmills are not covered by the country's Noise Regulation Law, which regulates noise levels at factories and construction sites, or by the Law for Assessment of Environmental Impacts, which stipulates that effects to surrounding areas should be assessed prior to the start of a large development project.
There have been no research papers published, either at home or abroad, which analyzed the relationship between infrasonic noise and human health.
Fumitaka Shiomi, 85, a doctor in Wakayama, Japan, who has studied infrasonic noise problems for 30 years, said, "There is health damage caused by infrasonic noise. Unless measures are taken immediately, a serious problem will occur."
But Tomohiro Shishime, chief of the Environment Ministry's Air Environment Division, said, "First, we'll examine the real situation." The ministry is at the stage of asking local governments to collect complaints.
Izumi Ushiyama, dean of Ashikaga Institute of Technology, which is promoting the use of windmills, said, "While listening to opinions of both business operators and residents, we'll search for a solution."
Wind power generation also poses a danger to birds, which are often struck and killed by the spinning vanes of the windmills. The Japanese Environment Ministry confirmed 13 such bird strikes in which white-tailed eagles, a rare species, were killed since fiscal 2003.
More white-tailed eagles have been killed in bird strikes by windmills than by running trains. A golden eagle was found dead near wind power facility in Iwate Prefecture last year - the first death of a rare species confirmed near the facility.
Yukihiro Kominami, deputy chief of the nature conservation office at the Wild Bird Society of Japan, said those cases are just the tip of the iceberg. "We have to find out the problem of the locations as soon as possible, or we will see the damage to the bird population continuing," he said.
Some people argue a windmill twirling around on a column dozens of meters high spoils the scenery in the area.
Residents in Nagano, Japan, organized to oppose the building of wind farm there. The prefectural government then made a map showing the effects on nature and scenery of the proposed windmills. An official in charge said "We want the businesses to assess environmental issues and to explain them well to local residents, using this map."
There is a growing consensus among experts that wind-power generation projects should be subject to the environment impact assessment law. The ministry plans to consider the idea, including the possibility of amending the law, at the Central Environmental Council.
"Wind-power generation has been a business success, costing less than solar power generation," said Tetsuya Iida, head of Japan's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a nonprofit environmental organization. "There must be a path for residents and nature to coexist. The central government must consider establishing a framework to support finding that way."
Shinjuro Kondo, 76, who moved into his Japanese neighborhood 17 years ago, said, "Stiff shoulders, headaches, insomnia, hand tremors...Since February last year, soon after the test operation of windmills started, I developed various kinds of symptoms."
Kondo's neighborhood is about 350 meters away from a group of windmills.
More than 20 percent of about 100 neighbors also complain of similar physical disorders. They said their symptoms become less severe when the windmills stop due to mechanical troubles and other reasons.
Currently, the relationship between such physical disorders and the windmills is not clear. But infrasonic waves generated by the windmills' rotors is suspected to be the cause.
The sound waves oscillate once to 20 times a second, a frequency too low to be heard by human ears.
Similar complaints also have been reported in other parts of Japan, but it is not known whether these are connected to naturally occurring noise.
Operators of such windmills are very concerned about what measures should be taken. One of them said, "Even if we measure sounds from the windmills, no numerical differences are found from those in the natural environment."
Extrapolating the causal relationship is difficult for a number of reasons:
- Sensitivity to infrasonic noise differs among individuals.
- Effects are changed by psychological factors. For example, unpleasant sounds make people more uncomfortable than pleasant sounds, even at the same volume.
- The causal relationship between the physical disorders and the sounds has not been clarified.
In 2004, Japan's Environment Ministry set guidelines for local governments on dealing with problems caused by infrasonic noise.
The guidelines were issued mainly because of reports of damage at factories and construction sites caused by infrasonic noise at the frequency of 20 hertz to 200 hertz.
The infrasonic noise from windmills is not covered by the guideline as the frequency is lower.
Windmills are not covered by the country's Noise Regulation Law, which regulates noise levels at factories and construction sites, or by the Law for Assessment of Environmental Impacts, which stipulates that effects to surrounding areas should be assessed prior to the start of a large development project.
There have been no research papers published, either at home or abroad, which analyzed the relationship between infrasonic noise and human health.
Fumitaka Shiomi, 85, a doctor in Wakayama, Japan, who has studied infrasonic noise problems for 30 years, said, "There is health damage caused by infrasonic noise. Unless measures are taken immediately, a serious problem will occur."
But Tomohiro Shishime, chief of the Environment Ministry's Air Environment Division, said, "First, we'll examine the real situation." The ministry is at the stage of asking local governments to collect complaints.
Izumi Ushiyama, dean of Ashikaga Institute of Technology, which is promoting the use of windmills, said, "While listening to opinions of both business operators and residents, we'll search for a solution."
Wind power generation also poses a danger to birds, which are often struck and killed by the spinning vanes of the windmills. The Japanese Environment Ministry confirmed 13 such bird strikes in which white-tailed eagles, a rare species, were killed since fiscal 2003.
More white-tailed eagles have been killed in bird strikes by windmills than by running trains. A golden eagle was found dead near wind power facility in Iwate Prefecture last year - the first death of a rare species confirmed near the facility.
Yukihiro Kominami, deputy chief of the nature conservation office at the Wild Bird Society of Japan, said those cases are just the tip of the iceberg. "We have to find out the problem of the locations as soon as possible, or we will see the damage to the bird population continuing," he said.
Some people argue a windmill twirling around on a column dozens of meters high spoils the scenery in the area.
Residents in Nagano, Japan, organized to oppose the building of wind farm there. The prefectural government then made a map showing the effects on nature and scenery of the proposed windmills. An official in charge said "We want the businesses to assess environmental issues and to explain them well to local residents, using this map."
There is a growing consensus among experts that wind-power generation projects should be subject to the environment impact assessment law. The ministry plans to consider the idea, including the possibility of amending the law, at the Central Environmental Council.
"Wind-power generation has been a business success, costing less than solar power generation," said Tetsuya Iida, head of Japan's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a nonprofit environmental organization. "There must be a path for residents and nature to coexist. The central government must consider establishing a framework to support finding that way."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)