3. The unprecedented changes in temperatures and rainfall are becoming serious problems for poorer regions. A greater concentration of land ownership, changes in water supplies, an expansion of deserts, and worsening social equality are some of the possible consequences of global warming. The change in rain patterns are making farm cycles unpredictable and land unusable for farming. These are crucial in poorer regions which depend mostly on agriculture for earning money. So the governments must take steps to fight the effects of global warming regardless of the finance issue.
4. ----------------------------------
5. Deccan Herald Friday, November 28, 2008
Poorer nations bear brunt of climate change
Santiago (Chile), DPA:
Delegates from nearly 200 countries meet in Poland Monday to work on a new global climate-saving pact, finding ways to help poorer regions ...
Extreme rainfall and spreading drought are signalling rapid climate change in Latin America, prompting concern that wrenching changes like migration will worsen social equality.
A greater concentration of land ownership, changes in water supplies and an expansion of deserts are the likely consequences as temperatures rise, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says.
"There have always been climate changes, but not with the current force," Jan van Wambeke, a FAO land and water officer for Latin American and the Caribbean, said.
Unprecedented changes in temperatures and rainfall are already being felt, while steps to fight them "will not be visible before 2050," he said.
When delegates from nearly 200 countries meet in Poland Monday to work on a new global climate-saving pact, finding ways to help poorer regions deal with global warming will once again be on the agenda.
In Latin America, melting glaciers along the Andean spine in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina spell trouble for the continent's water supply.
About 77 percent of the world's fresh water is in glaciers.
Meanwhile, changing rain patterns are making farming cycles unpredictable in a region that produces agricultural goods worth $120 billion per year.
"Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are suffering a drought they have not suffered for years," van Wambeke said.
In Chile, the desert frontier is expected to shift some 500 km south by 2050, threatening the country's lucrative wine industry, he said.
Last year, a glacial lake in Chile's Patagonia region simply disappeared over two months.
As land becomes unusable for farming, people will face pressure to move.
"In Guatemala there are documented experiences of this type," van Wambeke said.
At the same time, torrential rains caused flooding and hundreds of deaths across Central America in recent years.
Dozens have died in the Caribbean and Atlantic region, where the number of hurricanes has doubled from 100 years ago because sea surfaces have gotten warmer, a 2007 report by the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research concluded.
Cuba alone was hit by five hurricanes this season and faces rebuilding entire sectors of its agriculture.
Governments must take steps to fight the effects of global warming, even though budget constraints make it hard to finance such policies, van Wambeke said.
"The issue is slowly entering the agendas of governments in Latin America and the Caribbean," he said.
1. Haerang Park 2. Warm Winter major threat to crops 3. China has been suffering from prolonged periods of drought mainly resulted from warm winter. Relatively warm temperature has continued every winter for 23 years and this global warming effect is a major threat to China's crop yeilds. To look closer to the correlation between climate change and agriculture, warm winters create a good condition for plant diseases and pests to thrive and this decreases crop yeilds. Although some regions experience warm and dry weather during this winter, the middle reaches of the Yangtz River are expected to have extreme falls in temperature. This contrasting result from global warming puts more emphasis on an international agreement to take an urgent action to cope with the gobal issue. The United Nations summit on climate change is to open next week and I hope some process to be made to reduce greenhouse gases at global level.
4. From: China Daily Published November 26, 2008 09:52 AM Warm winter 'major threat' to crops RELATED ARTICLES Recycled Rain Barrels Last Tree-Sitters Descend From UC Berkeley Grove The 120MPG Electric Aptera Unveiled Amphibians disappearing from Yellowstone Park
/ecosystems/article/38737/print Prolonged periods of drought resulting from China's 23rd consecutive "warm winter" will pose a serious threat to the country's crop yields, the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) said in a report published Tuesday.
Some regions could experience droughts until the spring, the report said, adding that the warm weather might even continue until summer.
In contrast, extreme falls in temperature are forecast for the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, where "natural disasters such as snowstorms and freezing rains are likely to hit Hunan, Hubei, Sichuan and Guizhou provinces", the report said.
The CMA forecasts come just days ahead of the United Nations summit on climate change in Poznan, Poland, which opens on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
In its report, the CMA urged the Ministry of Agriculture to take steps to avoid agricultural losses caused by the warmer weather.
"Over the next three months, the average temperature in most parts of the country will be slightly higher than normal for the time of year," the report said.
"This winter will be warmer than last year," it said.
Spring and summer temperatures will also be higher than normal, it said.
Although last year's average winter temperature was the lowest since the mid-1980s, the season was still officially classed as "warm", the CMA said.
Experts have said the effects of global warming are becoming increasingly clear to see, and the threat to crop yields should not be understated.
Xiong Wei, an expert on the correlation between climate change and agriculture with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told China Daily Tuesday that prolonged periods of warm weather and drought are clear signs of climate change, and will have a huge impact on the country's agricultural output.
"Warm winters create an environment in which plant diseases and pests thrive, and these pose a serious threat to crops," he said.
Also, after decades of warm winters, some wheat varieties grown in the north of China have become less resistant to cold.
So if a spring freeze does occur, the crop is at risk and harvests are hit, Xiong said.
The CMA report also said that from next month until February, rainfall in western Liaoning, northeastern Hebei and northeastern Shandong provinces is forecast to be down by 20 to 50 percent on the seasonal average.
Some areas of the country, including the Northeast, the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, and south of the Yangtze could experience droughts throughout the whole of the winter and into next spring, the report said.
Droughts in the south will have a huge impact on the nation's agricultural output, Xiong said.
"I am very concerned the dry weather will seriously affect grain yields," he said.
2. The Legitimation and Protection of Toxic Melamine and bisphenol-A in the USA: Melamine and bisphenol-A as Raw Material Regimes
3. The symbolism and discourses around melamine are making many Americans mad. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration last month said "no level of melamine is safe we can't think about safety levels because of this", though when it appears in U.S. baby food in the next month, suddenly, they say "of course some levels are safe, etc. and we are not justified in removing the melamine we have found, etc."
I assume this is to avoid regulating the very pro-industrial pro-corporate world of risk assessment in the USA.
FDA (and USDA) defend corporate profit and business jurisdiction as supreme more than public human health in my opinion across many cases.
However, people are getting mad and delegitimating the statements of the FDA, discounting them. This is the contention I was talking about between legitimation/delegitimation involved in any raw material regime.
In short, the U.S. is quick to defend melamine toxicity as a regime it is tolerant of, while others attempt to stop the FDA as part of the defenders of the melamine flow now.
----------------------
FDA Draws Fire Over Chemicals In Baby Formula
Customers look at milk in a supermarket in Beijing Monday Nov. 24, 2008. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week opened an office in Beijing, days after U.S. health officials detained foods from China made with milk and other dairy ingredients as a precaution to keep out foods contaminated with melamine.
Dairy products tainted with the industrial chemical melamine have been blamed in the deaths of at least three babies in China, while tens of thousands of other children were sickened. (AP Photo/Greg Baker)
Chemist Michael Filigenzi demonstrates how vials of liquefied pet food are placed in trays for testing for the industrial chemical melamine at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, at the University of California, Davis, campus in Davis, Calif., Monday, Nov. 18, 2008.
Traces of melamine have been detected in samples of top-selling U.S infant formula.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Michael Filigenzi tests pet food for the chemical melamine at the University of California at Davis. Now melamine has been found in U.S. infant formula. (By Rich Pedroncelli -- Associated Press)
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 50 comments about this item. View All Comments »
By Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, November 27, 2008; Page A02
Public health groups, consumer advocates and members of Congress blasted the Food and Drug Administration yesterday for failing to act after discovering trace amounts of the industrial chemical melamine in baby formula sold in the United States.
"This FDA, this Bush administration, instead of protecting the public health, is protecting industry," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the FDA budget.
In an interview, DeLauro said she wants the agency to disclose its findings and to develop a plan to remove melamine from formula. [The FDA is keeping their tests secret.]
"We're talking about babies, about the most vulnerable. This really makes me angry."
The FDA found melamine and cyanuric acid, a related chemical, in samples of baby formula made by major U.S. manufacturers. [This is the two-step recipe to make deadly 'plastic kidney stones' as I talked about in class.]
Melamine can cause kidney and bladder stones and, in worst cases, kidney failure and death. If melamine and cyanuric acid combine, they can form round yellow crystals that can also damage kidneys and destroy renal function.
Melamine was found in Good Start Supreme Infant Formula With Iron made by Nestle, and cyanuric acid was detected in Enfamil Lipil With Iron infant formula powder made by Mead Johnson.
A spokesman for Nestle did not respond [scientific silence of the raw material regime, hoping it will go away as unsymbolic and unconstructed in the public] to repeated calls and e-mails for comment yesterday.
Gail Wood, a spokeswoman for transnational corporation] Mead Johnson, said the company does not think that cyanuric acid poses a health threat to infants. [lie, though the symbolism and legitimation is important for the raw material regime:] "Cyanuric acid is approved by the FDA to sanitize processing equipment," she said. [Then she turns it around and ignores how this mixture is now a poor choice of sanitizing choice chemicals, because of melamine mixing with it to make plastic kidney stones, though the legitimation continues as a front and she claims that she is legitimate by talking about another issue altogether and ignoring the question:] "The risks of not sanitizing equipment are far greater than ultra trace amounts of residual cyanuric acid found in the formula." [Well, you could choose another sanitizer of course.]
The FDA has been testing hundreds of food products for melamine in the aftermath of a scandal this year involving Chinese infant formula tainted with melamine.
Chinese manufacturers deliberately added the chemical to watered-down formula to make it appear to contain higher levels of protein.
More than 50,000 Asian infants were hospitalized, and at least four died.
The FDA collected 87 samples of infant formula made by American manufacturers, tested all but 10 of them and held a conference call Monday with manufacturers to alert them to the preliminary findings, FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said.
She said she did not know when the agency was planning to inform the public. [scientific silence.]
The test results were unearthed [only] by the Associated Press, which had filed a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act.
[Just like with fluoride toxicity, they knew, they did the science, though they kept quiet about its dangers as part of a raw material regime and instead socially constructed it as safe in the public despite it being a lie all the time.]
Leon said that the amounts discovered are safe and that parents should continue to feed formula to their children [and buy corporate products]. "We know that trace levels do not pose a risk whatsoever," she said. [However, a month ago...]
That contradicts the agency's recent statements about melamine, including a position paper that was on its Web site yesterday that asserted there are no safe levels of melamine for infants. "FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns," the document said.
Agency scientists have maintained they could not set a safe level of melamine exposure for babies because they do not understand the effects of long-term exposure on a baby's developing kidneys.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that infant formula is a baby's sole source of food for many months. [Infant formula itself ia a BAD IDEA in my opinion anyway. It's mixtures of different kinds of fats don't contribute to nervous system health in the child. Mother's milk is the best choice for infants of course instead of corporation milk.]
Premature infants absorb an especially large dose of the chemical, compared with full-term babies.
"Just one month ago, the FDA had been very clear about how they could not set a safe level of melamine in formula for babies," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "Now they're saying trace levels are no problem. What changed?"
The FDA thinks the melamine and cyanuric acid got into the U.S. formula as a byproduct of manufacturing and not as a result of tampering, Leon said. Melamine is found in plastic food packaging and in cleaning solutions that are sometimes used in food processing equipment. [However, it additionally could just have been shipped in from China as well--though they seem to ignore this already happening in Canadian products that were milk-related. The USA can be a separate bubble world of discourses I have found entirely immune to what is happening in the world.]
The FDA spokeswoman said no illnesses have been linked to melamine consumption in the United States. [how can she say that with complete assurance, instantly, without the data? She can't. She's lying.]
But Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said that may not be true. "Given that this is not a problem that American doctors are used to dealing with, we can't be sure that if a small number of these cases developed, the connection would be made," said Halloran, who wants the formulas to be recalled from store shelves. "We just don't know."
Halloran said it is also possible some babies are receiving a variety of infant formula and could be ingesting melamine in one bottle and cyanuric acid in another bottle, creating a dangerous mix.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is on the House Commerce and Energy Committee, is also seeking a recall. "Until they establish a safety standard, how can they say what's safe?" he said. "They need to pull this."
Critics said the FDA's reassurances about products carry less weight after the recent controversy over bisphenol-A, a chemical found in plastic baby bottles, dinnerware and the linings of food cans. The FDA dismissed a growing body of scientific evidence that has linked BPA to health problems even as worried consumers stopped buying BPA-containing products [and even as neighbor Canana BANNED bisphenol-A nationally in its plastics].
Instead, the FDA relied on two industry-funded studies that concluded that BPA did not pose a health risk.
[Contention in constructing this scienfic legitimation of bisphenol-A:] Last month, the agency's science advisory board said the agency should no longer maintain that BPA is safe.
"When FDA claims there isn't any reason to worry, that's exactly what the consumer should do," said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group.
"The once-revered public health agency has morphed into a taxpayer-funded public relations [legitimation regime] arm for the very industries [and raw materials] it was created to oversee."
2. Overview over Solar energy in the United States
3. This article gives a good overview about Solar energy in the United States. It distinguishes between Solar Thermal Plants and Photovoltaig and enumerates all existing Solar structures in the United States. Then it goes into Pros and Contras of the Solar Energy. Interesting on the Contra side is the existing structure of the United States and overlapping jurisdictions causing problems for siting solar plants in the population poor areas in between the single states.
-------------------
The Energy Debates: Solar FarmsBy Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 08 December 2008 08:25 am ET Buzz up! del.icio.us Digg It! Newsvine reddit0 Comments | 0 Recommend Editor's Note: "The Energy Debates" is a LiveScience series about the pros, cons, policy debates, myths and facts related to various alternative energy ideas. We invite you to join the debate by commenting directly on each article.
The Facts
The amount of energy from the sun that falls on Earth is staggering. Averaged over the entire surface of the planet, roughly each square yard collects nearly as much energy each year as you’d get from burning a barrel of oil. Solar farms seek to harness this energy for megawatts of power.
There are two ways solar power is used to generate electricity. Solar thermal plants — also known as concentrating solar power systems — focus sunlight with mirrors, heating water and producing steam that drives electric turbines, while photovoltaic cells directly convert sunlight to electricity.
Altogether, solar currently makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. energy, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The nation now has just two large-scale solar thermal systems — one 354-megawatt set of facilities has run continuously in the Mojave Desert in California for about 20 years, and another 64-megawatt plant came online in Nevada last year. When it comes to solar photovoltaics, the largest system in the nation so far is the 14-megawatt plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.
However, more solar farms are rapidly under construction. Utilities in California and Florida have announced plans for at least eight new solar thermal power stations totaling more than 2,000 megawatts, while two photovoltaic projects are currently under development in California that would bring a total of 800 megawatts of power.
"You can expect to see a lot more of these solar power systems as the market for these technologies gets built out and manufacturing costs come down," said Cliff Chen, senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group.
Pros
Solar energy is clean, renewable and has vast potential. "If a concentrated solar power system was built that was a hundred mile by hundred mile square in size out in the Southwest (United States), which has some of the best solar resources in the entire world, or you covered 1 percent of the country's land with photovoltaics, either strategy would be more than enough to meet the country's entire energy demand," Chen said. "The sky really is the limit."
Creating solar farms to meet energy demands while avoiding concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions "could create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the U.S.," he added.
Another advantage of solar power is that it is usually produced during peak demand for electricity — for instance, during hot summer days when air conditioners are often full-blast. That means that value of the electricity that it produces is significantly higher, Chen explained — for example, at least 20 to 30 percent higher in California.
Photovoltaics have a slight advantage over solar thermal systems in that the latter do not require water, which can be an understandable advantage in the desert, where many solar farms are located. On the other hand, solar thermal systems can work in the shade for brief amounts of time, since the heated fluids they depend on can stay hot enough to generate electricity for some time without the sun, while photovoltaics need sunlight.
Cons
The sun is not always out, which means solar power suffers at night or when it is cloudy. However, solar thermal systems can store excess solar energy as heat in molten salt, to generate power even in the dark. Photovoltaics could store energy in batteries, but this will likely not happen on a large scale until battery costs drop significantly.
The high cost of solar power has traditionally kept it from entering the mainstream — for instance, the budget for the 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One concentrated solar power system ran up to $250 million. Still, the price of solar power has declined steadily over the past 30 years, and continues to drop significantly each year, Chen said.
"Credible sources of cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and electricity industry consultant firms such as Black & Veatch suggest the cost of photovoltaics will drop by half in the next 10 to 15 years and by 30 to 40 percent for concentrated solar power systems in the same time frame," he noted. "That drop in price for concentrated solar power could even make it competitive with natural gas."
One concern is that a lot of the sunniest land in the western United States ideal for solar power is federally managed, with many agencies often having overlapping jurisdictions there, making it challenging to set up solar farms on it, Chen explained. Also, the best places to build solar farms are typically in the desert, far away from the population centers that need the most electricity, often meaning that new power lines have to be raised, potentially running into more jurisdiction issues as well as "not-in-my-backyard" concerns.
"Transmission lines are some of the least popular public projects in the country," Chen said. "The good news is that a lot of solar power projects can be built on smaller scales, which means that they can be located closer to existing transmission stations and not need as much in the way of lines."
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
4 comments:
1. Sally Paik
2. Poorer nations bear brunt of climate change
3. The unprecedented changes in temperatures and rainfall are becoming serious problems for poorer regions. A greater concentration of land ownership, changes in water supplies, an expansion of deserts, and worsening social equality are some of the possible consequences of global warming. The change in rain patterns are making farm cycles unpredictable and land unusable for farming. These are crucial in poorer regions which depend mostly on agriculture for earning money. So the governments must take steps to fight the effects of global warming regardless of the finance issue.
4. ----------------------------------
5.
Deccan Herald
Friday, November 28, 2008
Poorer nations bear brunt of climate change
Santiago (Chile), DPA:
Delegates from nearly 200 countries meet in Poland Monday to work on a new global climate-saving pact, finding ways to help poorer regions ...
Extreme rainfall and spreading drought are signalling rapid climate change in Latin America, prompting concern that wrenching changes like migration will worsen social equality.
A greater concentration of land ownership, changes in water supplies and an expansion of deserts are the likely consequences as temperatures rise, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says.
"There have always been climate changes, but not with the current force," Jan van Wambeke, a FAO land and water officer for Latin American and the Caribbean, said.
Unprecedented changes in temperatures and rainfall are already being felt, while steps to fight them "will not be visible before 2050," he said.
When delegates from nearly 200 countries meet in Poland Monday to work on a new global climate-saving pact, finding ways to help poorer regions deal with global warming will once again be on the agenda.
In Latin America, melting glaciers along the Andean spine in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina spell trouble for the continent's water supply.
About 77 percent of the world's fresh water is in glaciers.
Meanwhile, changing rain patterns are making farming cycles unpredictable in a region that produces agricultural goods worth $120 billion per year.
"Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are suffering a drought they have not suffered for years," van Wambeke said.
In Chile, the desert frontier is expected to shift some 500 km south by 2050, threatening the country's lucrative wine industry, he said.
Last year, a glacial lake in Chile's Patagonia region simply disappeared over two months.
As land becomes unusable for farming, people will face pressure to move.
"In Guatemala there are documented experiences of this type," van Wambeke said.
At the same time, torrential rains caused flooding and hundreds of deaths across Central America in recent years.
Dozens have died in the Caribbean and Atlantic region, where the number of hurricanes has doubled from 100 years ago because sea surfaces have gotten warmer, a 2007 report by the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research concluded.
Cuba alone was hit by five hurricanes this season and faces rebuilding entire sectors of its agriculture.
Governments must take steps to fight the effects of global warming, even though budget constraints make it hard to finance such policies, van Wambeke said.
"The issue is slowly entering the agendas of governments in Latin America and the Caribbean," he said.
6. ---
7. http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Nov282008/scroll20081128103356.asp?section=scrollingnews
1. Haerang Park
2. Warm Winter major threat to crops
3. China has been suffering from prolonged periods of drought mainly resulted from warm winter. Relatively warm temperature has continued every winter for 23 years and this global warming effect is a major threat to China's crop yeilds. To look closer to the correlation between climate change and agriculture, warm winters create a good condition for plant diseases and pests to thrive and this decreases crop yeilds. Although some regions experience warm and dry weather during this winter, the middle reaches of the Yangtz River are expected to have extreme falls in temperature. This contrasting result from global warming puts more emphasis on an international agreement to take an urgent action to cope with the gobal issue. The United Nations summit on climate change is to open next week and I hope some process to be made to reduce greenhouse gases at global level.
4.
From: China Daily
Published November 26, 2008 09:52 AM
Warm winter 'major threat' to crops
RELATED ARTICLES
Recycled Rain Barrels
Last Tree-Sitters Descend From UC Berkeley Grove
The 120MPG Electric Aptera Unveiled
Amphibians disappearing from Yellowstone Park
/ecosystems/article/38737/print
Prolonged periods of drought resulting from China's 23rd consecutive "warm winter" will pose a serious threat to the country's crop yields, the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) said in a report published Tuesday.
Some regions could experience droughts until the spring, the report said, adding that the warm weather might even continue until summer.
In contrast, extreme falls in temperature are forecast for the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, where "natural disasters such as snowstorms and freezing rains are likely to hit Hunan, Hubei, Sichuan and Guizhou provinces", the report said.
The CMA forecasts come just days ahead of the United Nations summit on climate change in Poznan, Poland, which opens on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
In its report, the CMA urged the Ministry of Agriculture to take steps to avoid agricultural losses caused by the warmer weather.
"Over the next three months, the average temperature in most parts of the country will be slightly higher than normal for the time of year," the report said.
"This winter will be warmer than last year," it said.
Spring and summer temperatures will also be higher than normal, it said.
Although last year's average winter temperature was the lowest since the mid-1980s, the season was still officially classed as "warm", the CMA said.
Experts have said the effects of global warming are becoming increasingly clear to see, and the threat to crop yields should not be understated.
Xiong Wei, an expert on the correlation between climate change and agriculture with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told China Daily Tuesday that prolonged periods of warm weather and drought are clear signs of climate change, and will have a huge impact on the country's agricultural output.
"Warm winters create an environment in which plant diseases and pests thrive, and these pose a serious threat to crops," he said.
Also, after decades of warm winters, some wheat varieties grown in the north of China have become less resistant to cold.
So if a spring freeze does occur, the crop is at risk and harvests are hit, Xiong said.
The CMA report also said that from next month until February, rainfall in western Liaoning, northeastern Hebei and northeastern Shandong provinces is forecast to be down by 20 to 50 percent on the seasonal average.
Some areas of the country, including the Northeast, the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, and south of the Yangtze could experience droughts throughout the whole of the winter and into next spring, the report said.
Droughts in the south will have a huge impact on the nation's agricultural output, Xiong said.
"I am very concerned the dry weather will seriously affect grain yields," he said.
5. http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38737/print
1. Mark Whitaker
2. The Legitimation and Protection of Toxic Melamine and bisphenol-A in the USA: Melamine and bisphenol-A as Raw Material Regimes
3. The symbolism and discourses around melamine are making many Americans mad. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration last month said "no level of melamine is safe we can't think about safety levels because of this", though when it appears in U.S. baby food in the next month, suddenly, they say "of course some levels are safe, etc. and we are not justified in removing the melamine we have found, etc."
I assume this is to avoid regulating the very pro-industrial pro-corporate world of risk assessment in the USA.
FDA (and USDA) defend corporate profit and business jurisdiction as supreme more than public human health in my opinion across many cases.
However, people are getting mad and delegitimating the statements of the FDA, discounting them. This is the contention I was talking about between legitimation/delegitimation involved in any raw material regime.
In short, the U.S. is quick to defend melamine toxicity as a regime it is tolerant of, while others attempt to stop the FDA as part of the defenders of the melamine flow now.
----------------------
FDA Draws Fire Over Chemicals In Baby Formula
Customers look at milk in a supermarket in Beijing Monday Nov. 24, 2008. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week opened an office in Beijing, days after U.S. health officials detained foods from China made with milk and other dairy ingredients as a precaution to keep out foods contaminated with melamine.
Dairy products tainted with the industrial chemical melamine have been blamed in the deaths of at least three babies in China, while tens of thousands of other children were sickened. (AP Photo/Greg Baker)
Chemist Michael Filigenzi demonstrates how vials of liquefied pet food are placed in trays for testing for the industrial chemical melamine at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, at the University of California, Davis, campus in Davis, Calif., Monday, Nov. 18, 2008.
Traces of melamine have been detected in samples of top-selling U.S infant formula.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Michael Filigenzi tests pet food for the chemical melamine at the University of California at Davis. Now melamine has been found in U.S. infant formula. (By Rich Pedroncelli -- Associated Press)
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 50 comments about this item.
View All Comments »
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 27, 2008; Page A02
Public health groups, consumer advocates and members of Congress blasted the Food and Drug Administration yesterday for failing to act after discovering trace amounts of the industrial chemical melamine in baby formula sold in the United States.
"This FDA, this Bush administration, instead of protecting the public health, is protecting industry," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the FDA budget.
In an interview, DeLauro said she wants the agency to disclose its findings and to develop a plan to remove melamine from formula. [The FDA is keeping their tests secret.]
"We're talking about babies, about the most vulnerable. This really makes me angry."
The FDA found melamine and cyanuric acid, a related chemical, in samples of baby formula made by major U.S. manufacturers. [This is the two-step recipe to make deadly 'plastic kidney stones' as I talked about in class.]
Melamine can cause kidney and bladder stones and, in worst cases, kidney failure and death. If melamine and cyanuric acid combine, they can form round yellow crystals that can also damage kidneys and destroy renal function.
Melamine was found in Good Start Supreme Infant Formula With Iron made by Nestle, and cyanuric acid was detected in Enfamil Lipil With Iron infant formula powder made by Mead Johnson.
A spokesman for Nestle did not respond [scientific silence of the raw material regime, hoping it will go away as unsymbolic and unconstructed in the public] to repeated calls and e-mails for comment yesterday.
Gail Wood, a spokeswoman for transnational corporation] Mead Johnson, said the company does not think that cyanuric acid poses a health threat to infants. [lie, though the symbolism and legitimation is important for the raw material regime:] "Cyanuric acid is approved by the FDA to sanitize processing equipment," she said. [Then she turns it around and ignores how this mixture is now a poor choice of sanitizing choice chemicals, because of melamine mixing with it to make plastic kidney stones, though the legitimation continues as a front and she claims that she is legitimate by talking about another issue altogether and ignoring the question:] "The risks of not sanitizing equipment are far greater than ultra trace amounts of residual cyanuric acid found in the formula." [Well, you could choose another sanitizer of course.]
The FDA has been testing hundreds of food products for melamine in the aftermath of a scandal this year involving Chinese infant formula tainted with melamine.
Chinese manufacturers deliberately added the chemical to watered-down formula to make it appear to contain higher levels of protein.
More than 50,000 Asian infants were hospitalized, and at least four died.
The FDA collected 87 samples of infant formula made by American manufacturers, tested all but 10 of them and held a conference call Monday with manufacturers to alert them to the preliminary findings, FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said.
She said she did not know when the agency was planning to inform the public. [scientific silence.]
The test results were unearthed [only] by the Associated Press, which had filed a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act.
[Just like with fluoride toxicity, they knew, they did the science, though they kept quiet about its dangers as part of a raw material regime and instead socially constructed it as safe in the public despite it being a lie all the time.]
Leon said that the amounts discovered are safe and that parents should continue to feed formula to their children [and buy corporate products]. "We know that trace levels do not pose a risk whatsoever," she said. [However, a month ago...]
That contradicts the agency's recent statements about melamine, including a position paper that was on its Web site yesterday that asserted there are no safe levels of melamine for infants. "FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns," the document said.
Agency scientists have maintained they could not set a safe level of melamine exposure for babies because they do not understand the effects of long-term exposure on a baby's developing kidneys.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that infant formula is a baby's sole source of food for many months. [Infant formula itself ia a BAD IDEA in my opinion anyway. It's mixtures of different kinds of fats don't contribute to nervous system health in the child. Mother's milk is the best choice for infants of course instead of corporation milk.]
Premature infants absorb an especially large dose of the chemical, compared with full-term babies.
"Just one month ago, the FDA had been very clear about how they could not set a safe level of melamine in formula for babies," said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "Now they're saying trace levels are no problem. What changed?"
The FDA thinks the melamine and cyanuric acid got into the U.S. formula as a byproduct of manufacturing and not as a result of tampering, Leon said. Melamine is found in plastic food packaging and in cleaning solutions that are sometimes used in food processing equipment. [However, it additionally could just have been shipped in from China as well--though they seem to ignore this already happening in Canadian products that were milk-related. The USA can be a separate bubble world of discourses I have found entirely immune to what is happening in the world.]
The FDA spokeswoman said no illnesses have been linked to melamine consumption in the United States. [how can she say that with complete assurance, instantly, without the data? She can't. She's lying.]
But Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said that may not be true. "Given that this is not a problem that American doctors are used to dealing with, we can't be sure that if a small number of these cases developed, the connection would be made," said Halloran, who wants the formulas to be recalled from store shelves. "We just don't know."
Halloran said it is also possible some babies are receiving a variety of infant formula and could be ingesting melamine in one bottle and cyanuric acid in another bottle, creating a dangerous mix.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is on the House Commerce and Energy Committee, is also seeking a recall. "Until they establish a safety standard, how can they say what's safe?" he said. "They need to pull this."
Critics said the FDA's reassurances about products carry less weight after the recent controversy over bisphenol-A, a chemical found in plastic baby bottles, dinnerware and the linings of food cans. The FDA dismissed a growing body of scientific evidence that has linked BPA to health problems even as worried consumers stopped buying BPA-containing products [and even as neighbor Canana BANNED bisphenol-A nationally in its plastics].
Instead, the FDA relied on two industry-funded studies that concluded that BPA did not pose a health risk.
[Contention in constructing this scienfic legitimation of bisphenol-A:] Last month, the agency's science advisory board said the agency should no longer maintain that BPA is safe.
"When FDA claims there isn't any reason to worry, that's exactly what the consumer should do," said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group.
"The once-revered public health agency has morphed into a taxpayer-funded public relations [legitimation regime] arm for the very industries [and raw materials] it was created to oversee."
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/26/AR2008112600386_2.html?hpid=sec-health
1. Bjoern Schmidt
2. Overview over Solar energy in the United States
3. This article gives a good overview about Solar energy in the United States. It distinguishes between Solar Thermal Plants and Photovoltaig and enumerates all existing Solar structures in the United States.
Then it goes into Pros and Contras of the Solar Energy. Interesting on the Contra side is the existing structure of the United States and overlapping jurisdictions causing problems for siting solar plants in the population poor areas in between the single states.
-------------------
The Energy Debates: Solar FarmsBy Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 08 December 2008 08:25 am ET
Buzz up! del.icio.us
Digg It!
Newsvine
reddit0 Comments | 0 Recommend
Editor's Note: "The Energy Debates" is a LiveScience series about the pros, cons, policy debates, myths and facts related to various alternative energy ideas. We invite you to join the debate by commenting directly on each article.
The Facts
The amount of energy from the sun that falls on Earth is staggering. Averaged over the entire surface of the planet, roughly each square yard collects nearly as much energy each year as you’d get from burning a barrel of oil. Solar farms seek to harness this energy for megawatts of power.
There are two ways solar power is used to generate electricity. Solar thermal plants — also known as concentrating solar power systems — focus sunlight with mirrors, heating water and producing steam that drives electric turbines, while photovoltaic cells directly convert sunlight to electricity.
Altogether, solar currently makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. energy, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. The nation now has just two large-scale solar thermal systems — one 354-megawatt set of facilities has run continuously in the Mojave Desert in California for about 20 years, and another 64-megawatt plant came online in Nevada last year. When it comes to solar photovoltaics, the largest system in the nation so far is the 14-megawatt plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.
However, more solar farms are rapidly under construction. Utilities in California and Florida have announced plans for at least eight new solar thermal power stations totaling more than 2,000 megawatts, while two photovoltaic projects are currently under development in California that would bring a total of 800 megawatts of power.
"You can expect to see a lot more of these solar power systems as the market for these technologies gets built out and manufacturing costs come down," said Cliff Chen, senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group.
Pros
Solar energy is clean, renewable and has vast potential. "If a concentrated solar power system was built that was a hundred mile by hundred mile square in size out in the Southwest (United States), which has some of the best solar resources in the entire world, or you covered 1 percent of the country's land with photovoltaics, either strategy would be more than enough to meet the country's entire energy demand," Chen said. "The sky really is the limit."
Creating solar farms to meet energy demands while avoiding concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions "could create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the U.S.," he added.
Another advantage of solar power is that it is usually produced during peak demand for electricity — for instance, during hot summer days when air conditioners are often full-blast. That means that value of the electricity that it produces is significantly higher, Chen explained — for example, at least 20 to 30 percent higher in California.
Photovoltaics have a slight advantage over solar thermal systems in that the latter do not require water, which can be an understandable advantage in the desert, where many solar farms are located. On the other hand, solar thermal systems can work in the shade for brief amounts of time, since the heated fluids they depend on can stay hot enough to generate electricity for some time without the sun, while photovoltaics need sunlight.
Cons
The sun is not always out, which means solar power suffers at night or when it is cloudy. However, solar thermal systems can store excess solar energy as heat in molten salt, to generate power even in the dark. Photovoltaics could store energy in batteries, but this will likely not happen on a large scale until battery costs drop significantly.
The high cost of solar power has traditionally kept it from entering the mainstream — for instance, the budget for the 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One concentrated solar power system ran up to $250 million. Still, the price of solar power has declined steadily over the past 30 years, and continues to drop significantly each year, Chen said.
"Credible sources of cost estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and electricity industry consultant firms such as Black & Veatch suggest the cost of photovoltaics will drop by half in the next 10 to 15 years and by 30 to 40 percent for concentrated solar power systems in the same time frame," he noted. "That drop in price for concentrated solar power could even make it competitive with natural gas."
One concern is that a lot of the sunniest land in the western United States ideal for solar power is federally managed, with many agencies often having overlapping jurisdictions there, making it challenging to set up solar farms on it, Chen explained. Also, the best places to build solar farms are typically in the desert, far away from the population centers that need the most electricity, often meaning that new power lines have to be raised, potentially running into more jurisdiction issues as well as "not-in-my-backyard" concerns.
"Transmission lines are some of the least popular public projects in the country," Chen said. "The good news is that a lot of solar power projects can be built on smaller scales, which means that they can be located closer to existing transmission stations and not need as much in the way of lines."
What do you think?
---------
http://www.livescience.com/environment/081208-energy-debates-solar-farm.html
Post a Comment