Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since - and was making them available to scientists for medical research. n "They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. " Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research. Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward.The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.Research projects are approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, only after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.But the states can still link each sample to an individual child - and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources."It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it.""I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is pending over what should be done with the samples on file.Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September."There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Monday, July 6, 2009
World's Largest Natural Gas Station for Heavy Trucks Opens At L.A. Port Complex
As part of the ongoing effort to clean up the air at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, truckers are being required to get rid of older, dirty diesel tractors and replace them with clean diesel or cleaner natural gas models.
Quite a few are opting for natural gas - which has far fewer particulate pollutants and a lot less carbon content that diesel - and to to serve the growing demand for the fuel, Clean Energy Corp. has just opened what it claims to be the world's largest natural gas truck fueling station
The company, one of the world's largest natural gas retailers, said the station, which is open 'round the clock, seven days a week, can store up to 50,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG), has eight pumps and can deliver the fuel as a liquid (right) in six of the pumps or as compressed natural gas (CNG) from two pumps, depending on the type of the fuel a truck is set up to use.
Clean Energy expects the station to provide fuel for several hundred trucks a day right now and plans to double the fuel storage capacity as demand increases with the number of natural gas trucks operating at he ports.
An older port-area station also operated by Clean Energy is presently pumping about 10,000 gallons of LNG a day.----------
Quite a few are opting for natural gas - which has far fewer particulate pollutants and a lot less carbon content that diesel - and to to serve the growing demand for the fuel, Clean Energy Corp. has just opened what it claims to be the world's largest natural gas truck fueling station
The company, one of the world's largest natural gas retailers, said the station, which is open 'round the clock, seven days a week, can store up to 50,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG), has eight pumps and can deliver the fuel as a liquid (right) in six of the pumps or as compressed natural gas (CNG) from two pumps, depending on the type of the fuel a truck is set up to use.
Clean Energy expects the station to provide fuel for several hundred trucks a day right now and plans to double the fuel storage capacity as demand increases with the number of natural gas trucks operating at he ports.
An older port-area station also operated by Clean Energy is presently pumping about 10,000 gallons of LNG a day.----------
Americans are driving less, and that's a good thing
Marylanders who took to their cars over the long July 4th weekend likely noticed the trend -- fewer fellow travelers on the roads. The dip in holiday traffic was a revealing reflection of the bigger picture: On a year-to-year average, Americans are driving about 4 percent less, the biggest drop since the invention of the automobile.A year ago that shift might have been blamed on high gasoline prices, but today a gallon of gas is about $1.45 cheaper than in 2008. The economic downturn and job losses have no doubt been a factor as well, but the U.S. has weathered recessions before -- and oil shortages in the late 1970s that forced rationing at the pump -- with less impact on American's driving habits.Admittedly, there are parts of the U.S. where traffic has been picking up in recent months (at least according to the most recent federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics report), but the shift appears to be a relatively minor blip on the radar compared to the two-year
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
Top UN climate official to AP: G-8 should help poor countries now with global warming
Developing countries need money now to grapple with global warming, and the Group of Eight summit this week could energize troubled climate negotiations if it decided to make "significant" funds available, the top U.N. climate official said Monday.The focus of U.N. climate talks over the past 18 months has been on an agreement to control greenhouse gases after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including cash for developing countries.But Yvo de Boer, who oversees the talks among 192 nations, says bumping up existing climate funds now would be a "practical, useful, tangible" signal to developing countries that the rich countries are serious about a deal. The accord is due to be completed in Copenhagen in December.De Boer declined to mention figures, but studies by the World Bank and other institutions suggest between $5 billion and $10 billion a year are needed to help countries deal with changing weather patterns affecting agriculture, fishing and the effects of severe storms and drought. That figure could grow to $100 billion annually by 2020.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO works on aspects of water, sanitation and hygiene where the health burden is high, where interventions could make a major difference and where the present state of knowledge is poor: :: Drinking-water quality :: Bathing waters :: Water resources :: Water supply and sanitation monitoring :: Water, sanitation and hygiene development :: Wastewater use :: Water-related disease :: Healthcare waste :: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Indoor air pollution
More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues
At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)