US Energy Department panel endorses shale fracking, suggests pumping ground with millions of gallons of chemical water will help save environment

(NaturalNews) Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” for the purpose of extracting natural gas from the earth involves flooding it with millions of gallons of chemical-laden water, a practice that by all estimates is damaging the environment to some extent. But a US Energy Department (ED) advisory panel, which happens to be padded with members connected to the natural gas industry, insists that fracking is safe, and even contends that it will help to lower the carbon dioxide emissions allegedly responsible for so-called climate change. A recent report in The Washington Post (WP) explains the ED panel’s notion that, despite continual outcry over fracking operations polluting rivers and groundwater supplies, natural gas fracking can safely continue as long as fracking companies agree to be more open about their actions, and comply with monitoring requirements that track environmental impact and make this information publicly available. But in an industry that is already knowingly hiding the truth about its polluting activities — and secretly dumping its toxic waste directly into the environment, for instance — it is naive for ED committee members to purport that simply telling drilling companies to be more forthcoming is going to have a substantially beneficial impact. Fracking, no matter how closely monitored, pollutes the environment in devastating ways. In order to release oil and gas from shale rock deep underground, giant machines must force large amounts of water, sand, chemicals, and radioactive elements deep into the earth’s upper crust in order to crack the rock that potentially holds this valuable fuel. But in the process, the resultant radioactive chemical cocktail seeps into water tables, wells, rivers, and lakes, as well as the various drinking water supplies to which these sources are fed. Even if the fracking industry suddenly decides to be more open and honest about the fact that drilling fluids are severely contaminating soil and water, the only thing that will change is that now everyone will be aware of it. Thanks to an energy bill passed by Congress back in 2005 that exempts the natural gas drilling industry from having to comply with the US Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), fracking operations are free to pollute as much as they please — they just might have to disclose this fact at some point in the future. The Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SGS) which put out the recent report endorsing fracking does not even address this SDWA exemption. As a result, its recommendations are meaningless in all practical terms, as they will do absolutely nothing to stop the tide of environmental pollution being spewed by the fracking industry. Current water purification techniques are unable to capture methane and radon, for instance, both of which come from fracking. Consequently, drinking water supplies throughout Pennsylvania, which is a fracking hot spot due to its location in the Marcellus Shale Formation region, are becoming increasingly toxic with no end in sight. So as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues its ongoing investigation into the environmental impacts of fracking, the SGS committee comes along and makes a few useless recommendations that it says will address the problems with fracking, but that in reality will do absolutely nothing to solve them. At least six SGS committee members have ties to the natural gas industry The mindless recommendations made by SGS in support of the fracking industry make a lot more sense, however, in light of the industries to which many of its members are connected. According to a recent report issued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), at least six SGS committee members are known to have connections to the oil and gas industries. Signed by 28 scientists from 22 universities and institutions in 13 states, all of whom object to the SGS panel’s recommendations, the EWG report explains that Chairman John Deutch, Stephen Holditch, Kathleen McGinty, Susan Tierney, Daniel Yergin, and Mark Zoback all have financial ties to the oil and gas industries, a blatant conflict of interest for a committee that is supposed to offer unbiased counsel to the ED. SGS Chairman John Deutch, for instance, currently serves on the board of the natural gas firm Cheniere Energy. According to the WP, Deutch was paid more than $1.4 million by both Cheniere and Schlumberger, another oil and gas firm, between 2006 and 2009. And Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who was appointed directly by President Obama, chose Deutch for the SGS Chairman position knowing full well his connections to the oil and gas industries. So just like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is filled with officials connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is filled with officials connected to the biotechnology industry, the Energy Department, is filled with officials connected to the oil and gas industries. And so it goes in the “land of the free,” where special interests run the government and its powerful regulatory agencies. Driven by greed and an insatiable lust for power, corporate snakes have quietly infiltrated the very agencies that were designed to protect the interests of the people, and have restructured them to serve corporate interests instead. Sources for this story include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/energy-department-panel-to-endorse-shale-gas-exploration/2011/08/10/gIQAXqbh7I_story.html

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg pushing to eliminate conflict of interest laws, allow paid drug company shills to fill advisory positions

(NaturalNews) At a time when drug industry corruption is reaching a pinnacle of public exposure, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actually proposing eliminating one of the few pseudo-effective measures in place that restricts the agency from becoming a full-blown Big Pharma “rubber stamp” consultant. In a recent announcement, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg stated that the agency may next year loosen certain conflict of interest restrictions that prevent scientists with financial ties to the drug industry from becoming members of FDA advisory panels. There are 45 different FDA advisory committees that, according to the FDA’s own website, are supposed to obtain “independent expert advice on scientific, technical, and policy matters.” In other words, these panels are purportedly to be composed of objective, unbiased individuals that do not have financial or other ties to the very companies about which they are advising. Makes sense, right? Well, in the eyes of Commissioner Hamburg, these common sense restrictions, which at least give the illusion that the FDA conducts honest regulatory work on behalf of the people, are unreasonable and must be eliminated. Hamburg apparently believes that drug industry-funded “scientists” are vital to the FDA’s work, having stated publicly that allowing Big Pharma shills to serve on advisory committees is essential if the agency is to get the information it needs to make decisions. “We have to be sure that FDA has subject-matter experts that we need for our important decision making,” stated Hamburg. But expecting to receive “independent expert advice” from industry-sponsored consultants posing as scientists rather than actual independent scientists, however, is the epitome of inane — and this is precisely what Hamburg is suggesting as a correct form of FDA policy. Does the FDA have the power to change its own regulatory restrictions? Aside from Hamburg’s senseless and illogical opinions about how best to obtain crucial decision-making information, the other glaring elephant in the room is the fact that the FDA can apparently change its own regulatory restrictions at will. What is the point of an agency having conflict of interest restrictions placed on it when that very same agency can simply change them when they are no longer convenient? Last time we checked, Congress was still in charge of creating and passing laws, not the FDA. But Commissioner Hamburg seems quite sure of herself, presumably because of expressed congressional support, that the FDA’s conflict of interest laws will soon be history. And it appears, based on the FDA’s released draft guidance, that the FDA is actually the one in charge of amending its own policies (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126832.htm). The FDA claims that it needs to loosen or eliminate the conflict of interest policies from its advisory committee procedures because it is unable to find enough members to serve on its committees. According to a recent Bloomberg report, only 77 percent of FDA advisory committee positions were filled as of March 2011, which leaves 138 vacant positions out of 608 total. But if the FDA is having a hard time filling these positions, perhaps it would do best to begin looking for eligible candidates in other places. And Robert Weissman, president of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, agrees, having stated that the rules should not change because the FDA is unable, or unwilling, to find independent scientists to fill its ranks. “We need strong protection rather than less,” state Weissman, following Hamburg’s statements to his group about needed to relax or change the law. A study published back in March by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine discredits the FDA’s claim, having found that about 44 percent of cardiologists have no ties to the drug industry. Eric Campbell, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and one of the study’s authors, stated that the study “flat out dismisses this idea that there are no experts who don’t have relationships,” a claim being made by the FDA in support of its proposed new guidelines (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-fda-bias-idUSTRE7703R320110801). “There are lots of people out there who are smart and who don’t have conflicts of interest,” said Sid Wolfe, also with Public Citizen. “It just takes much more work for the FDA to find them. But the result is you have much less tainting of the panel discussion.” Tell the FDA to do its job, not tailor laws to suit the agenda of special interests According to the FDA’s draft guidance, the agency published a final rule on February 2, 1998, requiring clinical investigators who submit marketing applications for drugs or medical devices to also disclose whether or not they have financial ties to the companies who make the products they reviewed. Current guidelines also limit who can serve on advisory committee positions. Both of these policies can work, at least as long as the FDA is willing to put in the work necessary to find qualified individuals who are not on the payrolls of drug and medical device companies. But the agency is demonstrating a pure unwillingness to do this, and instead is planning to cave to the drug industry and to certain lawmakers who are pushing to have the law amended instead. Though the official comment period for the FDA’s proposed new guidance for financial disclosure by clinical investigators ended on July 25, it is still crucial to contact the FDA and tell it to stop catering to special interests, and to leave be the conflict of interest policies that help preserve what little integrity remains in the agency’s advisory committee process. You can contact the FDA to oppose the new draft guidance by writing to: Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 10-61 Rockville, MD 20857 Or calling: (888) 463-6332 Be sure to reference Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0792 To contact FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg directly, you can call her: (301) 796-5000 Or email her: Office: Margaret.Hamburg@fda.hhs.gov Personal: margaretahamburg@aol.com You can also contact your representatives by visiting: http://www.congress.org Sources for this story include: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/24/2011-12623/draft-guidance-for-clinical-investigators-industry-and-fda-staff-financial-disclosure-by-clinical http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/conflict-of-interest-rules-may-be-relaxed-in-2012-hamburg-says.html

Medical atrocities routinely committed against chimpanzees in the name of science

(NaturalNews) The question of whether chimpanzees and other primates should be used for biomedical research is an issue that has recently been reinvigorated thanks to 186 chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico who are waiting for their verdict of either life in a grassy sanctuary or a life of torture in the name of medical research. For years, these chimps were used for biomedical research, primarily for hepatitis and HIV. Lennie, once a space chimp, has been documented as suffering atrocities, including being infected with HIV and hepatitis as well as enduring four spinal taps, a bone-marrow biopsy and repeated blood draws, to name a few. All of these very stressful experiments, no doubt, contributed to his death, apparently from heart disease, in 2002. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a U.S. government entity, is interested in relocating these chimps from their “sanctuary” on an Air Force base in New Mexico, where they’ve been on a 10-year hiatus from invasive experimentation, to the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, where they’ll be put back into invasive research. Due to public outcry spearheaded by animal rights activists, such as the Humane Society, Animal Protection of New Mexico and In Defense of Animals, the NIH has commissioned a panel to determine the fate of chimpanzees in experimentation. An analysis – to be completed in seven months – is being conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the medical branch of the independent National Academy of Sciences, “to reassess the scientific need for the continued use of chimpanzees to accelerate biomedical discoveries.” According to Eric Kleiman, the Research Director for In Defense of Animals, the IOM process is illegitimate and the outcome a foregone conclusion because of the pro-experimentation make-up of the panel and the fact that the NIH deliberately omitted the topic of ethics from the panel’s charge. For Kleiman, who’s been fighting against chimpanzee experimentation for seventeen years now, it’s a frustrating scenario. He points to what he calls a “remarkable” editorial in Nature , one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. In its June 16 issue, the journal wrote that “[The NIH] may wish to divorce the science from the ethics, but society at large will not accept such a distinction. Nor is it intellectually defensible….” Consequently, Kleiman believes that the IOM report will not be definitive. The same Nature editorial wrote that the panel’s report will provide a “valuable starting point” for the much broader discussion of the use of chimpanzees in experimentation. In fact, many researchers now believe that animal testing isn’t necessary anymore. A Petri dish can hold just as much knowledge as a live animal. For the recently-published McClatchy Newspapers Special Report “Chimps: Life in the Lab,” Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania ethicist who chaired a government panel in the 1980′s that set guidelines for animal research stated that, “the burden of justifying the research is on the researcher, and it’s very high. For primate research, you had better be able to show me that you’ve got something that’s pretty promising: an HIV vaccine, a cancer drug.” “Chimpanzees have not been a universally satisfactory model for human diseases,” concluded the National Research Council (affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences) in a 1997 report; while Science Director, Jarrod Bailey, of the anti-animal testing New England Anti-Vivisection Society is quoted as saying, “100 vaccines had been tested in nonhuman primates, including chimpanzees, and success in animals didn’t translate to success in humans.” Of course, groups like the NIH stand by their beliefs that these animals are important to their research, however there are myriad factors to consider. So where do we draw the line? “When it comes to animal experiments, in general, we’re one of the most regressive countries in the world,” laments Kleiman as he explains that, “NIH is the largest funder of animal experiments.” America is the only country, besides Gabon, that allows for invasive experiments to be conducted on chimpanzees. As a country that should be leading the way, we are falling radically behind in the arena of ethics and animal rights. Still, America isn’t entirely at fault. Although it is true that most countries have outlawed such experimentation, their companies are still free to travel overseas to utilize American facilities. Such allowances are simply loopholes and should not absolve these countries of their culpability in the perpetuation of this heinous activity. After an hour-long conversation with Kleiman, it was clear that there was a whole lot more to the story than most people are aware of, quite literally enough to write a book about. The labyrinthine issue is a mine-filled mess of fabrications and deceptions. “They’ve [the NIH] violated the law, they’ve lied to Congress,” says Kleiman. “What they’re legally doing to these chimpanzees is appalling. The NIH shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand miles of them.” When asked what he expects to see change over the next ten years, Kleiman does not seem optimistic, even though he believes the NIH’s lack of use of these chimpanzees at the APF over the past ten years is a clear indication the agency’s claims that these chimps are vital for experimentation is false. The reality is “the research goes where the money goes,” and “the NIH still has an ‘animal-model’ mindset.” He explains that much of the research conducted on animals is for useless experiments that aren’t cited by anyone but the researchers themselves. “It’s a fundamentally broken system,” says Kleiman. At some point, when playing God with the creatures we cohabitate with on planet earth, we have to ask ourselves what our obligation is as caretakers, and how long can we keep declaring that the ends justifies the means. The Dalai Lama has said that, “Today more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life.” Even Einstein said, “Our task must be to free ourselves — by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.” From spirituality to science, the answer seems crystal clear. Let’s hope the panel sees it that way too. When asked what the general public can do to support this cause and the freedom of the Alamogordo chimpanzees, Kleiman suggests going to this link (which provides information on contacting your representatives/senators): http://ida.convio.net/site/MessageViewer/&printer_friendly=1?em_id=18201.0&dlv_id=20641. For More Information on this Issue: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474268a.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/24/v-print/112433/as-science-turns-from-chimp-research.html http://idausa.org/endchimpresearch http://idausa.org/rr http://nihchimpcruelty.com To Contact the NIH: http://www.nih.gov/about/contact.htm Texas Biomedical Research Institute – Chimpanzee Program Info: http://txbiomed.org/SNPRC/primates_chimpanzees.aspx Watch Papa Gorilla play with Baby Gorilla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKq-Tmxyly4 A Documentary Film (coming soon) on a Chimpanzee Raised by a Human Family: http://www.project-nim.com/

Greedy medical specialists refuse to treat most children with serious health problems if they have public insurance

(NaturalNews) Doctors are refusing to help sick kids — or delaying their treatment for weeks to months — if the children don’t have private insurance. That’s because private insurance pays docs bigger bucks in reimbursements than the public kind of insurance like Medicaid. What makes this startling finding especially disgusting is that the physicians in question are specialists needed by youngsters who are seriously ill. These facts were just revealed in an audit study conducted by researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine and the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. The findings, published in the June 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine , showed that 66 percent of publicly insured children were unable to get an appointment with a doctor for potentially life-threatening medical conditions — including diabetes and seizures — that required outpatient specialty care. But if youngsters with identical health problems and symptoms had the higher paying private insurance, they were turned away by doctors only 11 percent of the time. “We found disturbing disparities in specialty physicians’ willingness to provide outpatient care for children with public insurance — even those with urgent and severe health problems. This study shows a failure to care for our most vulnerable children,” senior author Karin V. Rhodes, MD, MS, director of Emergency Care Policy Research in Penn’s Department of Emergency Medicine and a senior fellow in the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, said in a media statement. What’s more, the study also uncovered facts indicating that some specialists apparently think they can thumb their noses at federal law which is supposed to require that Medicaid recipients have the same access to medical care as the general population in their community. Bottom line: the researchers found that Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)-insured children who were able to even get an appointment with a specialist had to wait far longer to be seen than kids with private insurance. It almost sounds like the specialists are inflicting a kind of punishment on kids who have the “wrong” kind of public insurance that doesn’t pay the doctors as much in reimbursements as private insurance. Sick kids with Medicaid or CHIP had to wait over a month, about 44 days, for help. But privately-insured children with similar urgent conditions were seen in less than three weeks. For the study, research assistants compiled facts by working undercover — they posed as moms of children with seven common medical that affect large numbers of children and are serious enough to need timely specialty care: severe body rashes, obstructed breathing during sleep, Type 1 diabetes, uncontrolled asthma, severe depression, new onset seizures and a fracture that could affect bone growth. The researchers, pretending to be mothers, placed calls to a random sample of 273 clinics representing eight medical specialties in Cook County, Pennsylvania. Each of the investigators placed two calls, separated by one month, to each clinic using a script that varied only by insurance status. Only 34 percent of callers with Medicaid-insured children were told they could even get an appointment with the specialist. But if the researchers-posing-as-moms claimed they were calling about a child with Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO insurance, 89 percent were given appointments. It was obvious that how the doctor was going to get paid — whether by higher paying private insurance or by lesser paying public insurance — was of far more importance to the specialists’ offices than the severity of the child’s reported symptoms. What’s the evidence for this? In more 50 percent of calls to clinics, the caller was first asked for the child’s specific type of insurance coverage before being told whether an appointment could be scheduled with the doctor. In fact, in 52 percent of the time, the type of insurance coverage was the very first question asked. The University of Pennsylvania researchers who carried out the study noted in a press statement that previous studies have found that reimbursement amounts are the main reason doctors decide whether or not to treat patients with public insurance. But the authors of the new study think the health systems in which the doctors work may play the biggest role of all — because medical centers may have incentives that encourage doctors to avoid patients who don’t have the higher paying private insurance. This has created policies based on making the most money rather than policies based on what’s best for seriously ill kids. “We studied the health system, not individual providers,” Dr. Rhodes said in a media statement. “To reduce disparities, we may need to restructure reimbursement strategies and reorganize the manner in which our health system provides specialty care. We can fix this problem, but it will not happen unless we are willing to make the health of American children a national priority.” For more information: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/

Your help needed to pass FRAC Act and hold drilling companies accountable for water pollution

(NaturalNews) In response to massive public outcry, the US Senate has finally reintroduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, or S. 587, which will once again hold natural gas drilling companies responsible for the environmental pollution they cause when fracturing and drilling for fuel. For years, the natural gas industry has gotten away with polluting rivers, streams, lakes, groundwater supplies, and farm land with “fracking” chemicals — and all without consequence — which is why it is crucial that you contact your Congressmen and urge support for S. 587 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.587:). The passage of the US Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974 established strict guidelines for ensuring that US drinking water supplies remained free of pollution, chemicals, and other harmful substances. But in 2005, Congress passed an energy bill that quietly exempted natural gas drilling operations from having to comply with SDWA, even though the extraction techniques used by the industry routinely contaminate ground and surface water supplies with sometimes hundreds of tons of toxic chemicals. Numerous reports have identified the frightening consequences of unregulated natural gas drilling, including flammable drinking water coming right from the tap (http://www.naturalnews.com/031071_drinking_water_natural_gas.html), radioactive waste water (http://blog.syracuse.com/green/2009/11/fracking_updates_radioactive_w.html), and millions of barrels of toxic fracking waste being dumped into the environment (http://www.naturalnews.com/030941_natural_gas_pollution.html). Current policy, in other words, allows the natural gas industry to freely pollute the world without consequence. Back in April, for example, a massive fracking accident in Pennsylvania sent tens of thousands of gallons of fracking fluid into farmland and streams, and contaminated water supplies, according to reports. Area residents both in this case and in many others must now contend with indefinitely-tainted water and a significant reduction in their property values, all while the natural gas industry is let off the hook (http://www.wnep.com/wnep-brad-leroy-gas-drillingemergency20110420,0,1884646.story). But thanks to the reintroduction of S. 587, there is hope that the hydraulic fracking exemption may soon be repealed, and the environmental destruction caused by the industry lessened, or perhaps even stopped. You can contact your representatives to urge support for the bill through this convenient Action Alert created by the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH): https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=800 Sources for this story include: http://www.anh-usa.org/you-asked-congress-for-help-on-fracking-and-they-heard-you/

The truth about fracking and how it is harming our environment

(NaturalNews) Oil and gas companies are engaged in fracking, a gas drilling process hailed as an economy booster, job creator and greener energy source. However, fracking has propelled hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous, carcinogenic and radioactive chemicals into gas wells in 13 states, according to the new House and Energy Commerce Committee report covered in the New York Times (http://nyti.ms/lDzSYo). The drilling method, also called hydraulic fracturing, uses a fluid consisting of water, sand and chemicals injected under high pressure to release oil and gas from cracks in shale rock 5,000 to 8,000 feet underground. The practice has been mired in controversy with claims that it is destroying the environment while some lawmakers work hand in hand with energy industry lobbyists. Economic motivation Natural gas is a key element in President Obama’s goal to have 80 percent of electricity produced from clean sources, like wind and solar, by 2035, according to a recent Business Week article (http://buswk.co/eq19Aa) — 90 percent of that gas is obtained through fracking. The Marcellus Shale, a rock formation in eastern North America where fracking is rampant, is thought to contain 490 trillion cubic feet of gas, making it the second-largest gas field in the world. It has enough gas to heat U.S. homes and power electric plants for twenty years. The “shale gas rush,” in pursuit of this massive energy reservoir, is creating thousands of jobs and reviving the economy in states such as Wyoming, Texas, and Louisiana, according to Business Week (http://buswk.co/eq19Aa). It created $389 million in tax revenue in Pennsylvania and 44,000 jobs in 2009. The benefits to politicians of supporting fracking, particularly in this economic climate, are clear. Business Week states: “the drilling is receiving little federal oversight from the EPA and state and local authorities are writing their own rules and having trouble keeping up.” Chemical cocktail Fracking fluids to date have been kept secret by the oil and gas companies that use them as proprietary information. They argue that making the ingredients public would hurt competition, according to a Reuters article (http://bit.ly/lt6wfa). But public fears surrounding the practice are due in large part to that secrecy. With the new HECC report, it is clear those fears are not unfounded. The report, which was written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado, found a mixture of ingredients in the fluid ranging from harmless to strange to dangerous. It also blamed the companies for “injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.” Harmless ingredients included salt and citric acid, while bizarre ingredients included instant coffee and walnut hulls. Many ingredients, however, were listed as “extremely toxic,” and included ingredients such as lead and benzene, which is a known carcinogen. The Environmental Protection Agency is attempting a national study on the dangers of fracking to public drinking water but the task is a difficult one with companies refusing to make their ingredients public, according to the EPA e-mails reported in the aforementioned New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/lDzSYo). Environmental and health concerns Harmful chemicals are already spreading into surrounding areas during drilling accidents such as well casing failures underground or spills above ground. Environmentalists and lawmakers are concerned, however, that these dangerous fracking chemicals may be seeping through the layers of shale and contaminating drinking water even under normal operating conditions. New information also shows that the process is releasing far more methane into the atmosphere than previously thought, according to a New York Times article (http://nyti.ms/g78RtJ). In a recent incident, thousands of gallons of fracking fluid leaked into Towanda Creek in Bradford County, Pennsylvania due to the failure of equipment at a Chesapeake Energy Corp. gas well, according to Associated Press (http://bit.ly/jzP2kP) and MSNBC (http://on.msnbc.com/lhaFP6). The fluid, which could not be contained initially, traveled across farmlands and into the stream. The energy company finally got the well under control on Monday, April 25, five days after the leak began. Legal action has been taken against Chesapeake Energy, Chesapeake Appalachia and Nomac Drilling on behalf of three Bradford County families who leased their land to the energy companies. The families claim that they are “experiencing daily suffering due to the negative effects of oil and gas drilling,” according to thedailyreview.com (http://bit.ly/gTcSuE). The papers, filed by The Marcellus Shale Oil and Gas Litigation Group, claim that the “negligent and grossly negligent oil and gas drilling activities” have contaminated the individuals’ properties and water supply. See it with your own eyes After being offered approximately $100,000 to lease his land to gas companies and allow them to use his land for fracking, Josh Fox said no to the money and decided, instead, to produce the HBO documentary “Gasland” (http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/trailer/) and discover what exactly fracking entailed. He found water flowing from kitchen faucets that could be set on fire due to high levels of methane, large pools of toxic waste that kill cattle and vegetation, chronically ill residents with the same unusual symptoms living in drilling areas in disparate locations around the U.S., and well blowouts and gas explosions that are routinely covered up. In a PBS interview (http://to.pbs.org/de6oUK), Fox said the drilling is happening in 34 states and has been going on for the last 10 years. Political antics Investigative news outlet, DCBureau.org, uncovered indirect conflicts of interest with New York lawmakers and fracking in its documentary “The Marcellus Shale: The Politics of Gas” (http://bit.ly/ifs8hP). In one instance, DC Bureau found that U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York was advocating strict control over hydraulic fracturing while his wife lobbied for the American Association of Professional Landmen, whose members acquired gas leases in the state for energy companies. Another instance, found that Republican State Senator George Winner endorsed revisions by the gas industry to gas mining laws at the same time his law firm represented the largest natural gas producer in New York. DC Bureau also discovered an industry-drafted law that aides the energy industry in continuing the controversial practice of fracking. The compulsory integration law allows energy companies to drill beneath private property even without landowners’ permission. Independent Oil and Gas Industry of New York crafted the law, said Christopher Denton, an attorney representing dozens of landowners in cases regarding the law. “This is IOGA’s statute,” Denton said. “They drafted it, introduced it, got a sponsor for it and pushed it through with no legislative hearings whatsoever.” Compulsory integration can only be used if the gas company signs leases on properties totaling at least 60 percent of the proposed land total, which is usually a required minimum of 640 acres. After that threshold is reached, the company can force the remaining property owners to join, according to the DC Bureau article (http://bit.ly/hDsbY3). The energy companies are surging ahead with the “shale gas rush” and politicians can clearly see the benefits, but whether they will stop to consider the costs to the environment and the health and rights of the landowners remains to be seen. Sources for this article include: Fracking: The Great Shale Gas Rush — http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_11/b4219025777026_page_2.htm NY Times: Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says — http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/science/earth/17gas.html?scp=3&sq=Congressional%20probe%20finds%20carcinogens%20in%20fracking%20fluids&st=cse HBO ‘Gasland’ documentary — http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/trailer/ DCBureau: VIDEO: The Marcellus Shale: The Politics of Gas — http://www.dcbureau.org/20100720757/Natural-Resources-News-Service/video-the-marcellus-shale-the-politics-of-gas.html DCBureau: Marcellus Shale: The Real Price of Compulsory Integration In New York — http://www.dcbureau.org/201012071284/Natural-Resources-News-Service/marcellus-shale-the-real-price-of-compulsory-integration-in-new-york.html Reuters: Fracking regulations could ease public concerns: White House — http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-natgas-fracking-regulation-idUSTRE73P6DV20110426 MSNBC: Gas Well Incident Sends Fracking Water into Towanda Creek — http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42691967/ns/local_news-wilkes-barre_pa/ NY Times: Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems — http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/business/energy-environment/12gas.html?_r=1 Reuters: US Interior considering fracking disclosure rule — http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN3029369420101130?sp=true AP: Driller temporarily stops operations at pa. wells — http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghITb4WhrytdgW4lcE2grzGUdtZQ?docId=2c049138dbc14ead91568c2fa16288a2 Thedailyreview.com: Group petitions court in Chesapeake matter; Wyalusing residents involved — http://thedailyreview.com/news/group-petitions-court-in-chesapeake-matter-wyalusing-residents-involved-1.1138015

National bipartisan caucus emerges to combat unconstitutional abuse by TSA

(NaturalNews) Several state legislators are outraged over the US Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) continued and escalating assaults against individual freedom, personal privacy, and even the Constitution itself, through the use of naked body scanners and full-body pat downs. So these lawmakers from Hawaii and several other US states are banding together to form the “United States for Travel Freedom” (USTF) caucus, whose aim is to pass state laws that combat TSA tyranny (http://www.akhealthcaucus.org/TSA.php). When Alaska Representative Sharon Cissna, a breast cancer survivor, was recently pulled aside after going through the naked body scanner at a Colorado airport, agents insisted that she also undergo a full-body pat down. TSA agents had detected Cissna’s breast implant, which was the result of a mastectomy she underwent, and insisted that she also be felt up by a TSA agent. When she refused, agents would not let her proceed, and instead she had to find an alternate form of travel. Similar incidents in other states, including the recent, inappropriate full-body pat down of a six year old girl (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20054000-503544.html), have been the tipping point for many states that have decided, enough is enough. Thus, legislators in several US states are fighting back against the TSA’s gross violation of privacy and freedom by working to pass airport security legislation that bars the TSA from certain invasive protocols. In Hawaii, Sen. Sam Slom introduced Senate Bill 1150, “Relating to the use of Body Imaging Scanners at Airports,” which would prohibit the use of non-consensual naked body scanners at Hawaii airports. The bill was never given a proper hearing at the time it was introduced, but Sen. Slom has said it will be reintroduced again in 2012. In Michigan, Rep. Eileen Kowall introduced the latest version of House Resolution 368 in 2010, which would fully prohibit the use of naked body scanners and full-body pat downs in airports, citing the procedures’ explicit constitutional violations. Other states with TSA legislation include Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Sources for this story include: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-other-states-form-caucus-to-oppose-tsa-intrusions/123

Public school bans students from bringing lunches from home, forces them to eat cafeteria food

(NaturalNews) Individual responsibility and personal freedom are becoming a thing of the past in the nation’s public schools, as strict control over what students can and cannot eat — or bring to school to eat — escalates to near-dictatorial levels. The Chicago Tribune reports that for the past six years, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side has prohibited students from bringing their own lunches from home, a policy that many say subverts parental authority and violates students’ rights. Principal Elsa Carmona first enacted the food policy after observing some of her students drinking sodas and eating chips for lunch, instead of eating a well-balanced meal. By both mandating that students eat lunch at school and improving the quality of food served, she hoped to improve the health of her students. While they appear to be good intentioned, Carmona’s efforts have actually angered many students who say they would prefer to bring their own lunches from home. And ironically, the policy has had the opposite effect, in some cases, of actually causing students not to eat anything at all, which is even worse for their health. Students that have food allergies or other medical conditions that require them to eat something other than what is served in the cafeteria are able to be exempted from the policy. Most students, however, still end up being forced to eat whatever is served. And many students that do not have medical conditions, but that would prefer a meal from home, are stuck without a choice in the matter. “This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility,” said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) in Washington, to the Chicago Tribune . “Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal? This is the perfect illustration of how the government’s one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again.” Last year, a non-profit group known as “Mission: Readiness” came on the record accusing school cafeterias of being a threat to national security because they are allegedly making children “too fat to fight” in the military. The group has called for strict federal food legislation to control what children can and cannot eat (http://www.naturalnews.com/029226_school_lunches_national_security.html). And late last year, the state of Pennsylvania’s board of education actually proposed banning all sweets from school functions, including birthday parties (http://www.naturalnews.com/030365_junk_foods_schools.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

Japan radiation detected in at least 15 states and in milk samples in Washington state

(NaturalNews) Radioactive isotopes unique to the Fukushima disaster are now being detected in at least 15 US states, according to recent reports from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/28/radiation.us/index.html). And the Associated Press (AP) has issued a report claiming that milk samples taken in Washington state have tested positive for low levels of the same radioactive component, Iodine-131, raising concerns about the true widespread effects of the Fukushima nuclear fallout (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/03/30/state/n145310D86.DTL&tsp=1). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various state and local authorities continue to repeat the same empty reassurances that all detected levels of radiation — whether they be in air, water, or food — are far below levels of concern, and that people do not need to worry or do anything in response. But is this sound advice? Earlier in the week, several nuclear facilities in North and South Carolina, as well as in Florida, reportedly detected low levels of Iodine-131 in the air (http://www.naturalnews.com/031881_radiation_Fukushima.html). That same radiation has also been detected across the West Coast, as well as in northeastern states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, which clearly indicates that Fukushima radiation has made its way throughout the US, at least in very low levels. But now, reports have been issued claiming that milk samples from Washington state have also turned up contaminated with Iodine-131. The levels were allegedly far lower than the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concern limits for the radioactive particles, but they are not necessarily safe even at the levels being detected. According to the FDA “Radiation Safety” website, the Derived Intervention Level (DIL) for Iodine-131 is 170 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) (http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm). A Wall Street Journal report of the milk incident explains that the Washington samples contained only 0.8 picocuries per liter (pCi/l), or 0.03 Bq/kg. That level is clearly far lower than the FDA’s DIL for Iodine-131, but is any level of this radiation actually “safe”? And what about the other more serious types of radioactive particles being emitted from Fukushima that authorities appear to not even be looking for? Based on Japanese guidelines for radiation safety, Iodine-131 is the least of our worries. Cesium, uranium, and plutonium all have much lower maximum “concern” thresholds, with plutonium being the most serious. A Bloomberg report explains that just one Bq/kg of plutonium is enough to cause major concern if found in water or milk (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/japan-sets-safe-limits-for-consuming-radiation-contaminated-food-table-.html). Are authorities testing for plutonium and the other serious radioactive particles that we know have escaped from the Fukushima plant? The mainstream media has mostly abandoned the Fukushima incident in favor of the newly-instigated war in Libya. And yet reports are still continuing to trickle in — though mostly without much fanfare — concerning Japan radiation popping up across the US in air, water, and now food. But all the while, the EPA and others repeatedly dismiss the situation as being no big deal, despite the fact that conditions at Fukushima have basically reached a frightening dead end (http://www.naturalnews.com/031894_Fukushima_meltdown.html). As we keep saying here at NaturalNews, preparedness is key. And preparedness, of course, does not involve panic. It does, however, involve using your critical thinking skills to evaluate the seriousness of the situation, consider the anomalies surrounding the official US government position on it, and take appropriate steps to prepare you and your family for whatever may soon come as a result.

Fukushima radiation plumes have now struck the Carolinas and Florida, say reports

(NaturalNews) Several nuclear power plants in the southeastern US have begun to detect low levels of radioactive iodine-131 in the air, which is the same type of radiation now being found all over the place as a result of the mega-earthquake and tsunami that struck the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011. Reuters has indicated that power plants in both North and South Carolina, as well as one in Florida, have all detected what they say are “low levels” of the non-native radioactive substance. “If there were radiation coming from one our own sites, we would be seeing other types of radiation than iodine-131,” said Drew Elliot, a spokesman for Progress Energy. “Other nuclear stations throughout the East Coast all started picking this up within the last week. It all points to something coming from overseas. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both say it poses no threat to public safety.” Progress Energy’s Hartsville, SC, plant and Crystal River, Fla., plant both detected what the company says are low levels of radioactive iodine-131. And Duke Energy’s two plants in South Carolina, as well as its plant in Huntersville, NC, all reported levels of the non-native radioactive substance as well. The report ties in to various others that have detected radioactive particles in rainwater in Massachusetts, California, Pennsylvania, and Washington state. It appears that all across the US, evidence of the Fukushima nuclear fallout is gradually beginning to turn up, and yet with every report comes empty assurances from government officials that everything is fine, and that the levels being detected are supposedly harmless to humans (http://www.naturalnews.com/031871_radiation_rainwater.html). Meanwhile, continued reports are trickling in that indicate a rapidly-escalating crisis at the Fukushima plant. Deadly plutonium is beginning to show up in soil samples near the plant, and dangerously-high levels of radiation are now being detected in seawater nearly a mile from where the nuclear plant dumps water into the ocean. And this is only the information that is being publicly released, sometimes days after officials have become aware of it. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-radiation-south-idUSTRE72R4Z620110328

« Previous Page — Next Page »