Science

Mad cow scare stirs markets, food safety doubts

By |

Appetite undiminished
The latest mad cow scare sent markets into a schizophrenic spin, first crashing, and then rebounding on the news that the animal in question was “clean.” Overall, confidence in the market and the product outweighed fears. Ranchers and meat packers across the U.S. were not worried for their fortunes. Overseas, Jamaica chose to not renew a partial ban on U.S. beef. “Cattle prices rise as U.S. finds no evidence of mad cow disease”
Bloomberg, November 24, 2004

Latest mad cow case not causing alarm in Kansas
Associated Press, November 23, 2004
“Nebraska cattle farmers aren’t worried about mad cow”
November 18, Associated Press/OmahaChannel.com
“No plan to reinstate partial ban on U.S. beef”
Jamaica Observer, November 23, 2004
– – – – – – – – –
Canada: Mixed signals
In Canada, farmers literally parked their cattle in downtown Montreal to protest for more financial aid, after an incident of mad cow disease (technically known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy) provoked a U.S. ban on Canadian beef.

Science

Natural Gas Burns, and Communities Cry Foul

By |

By Jennifer Huang | World Power II: Environment

When 19th century entrepreneurs began drilling and refining oil, natural gas was an unwelcome byproduct. The fledgling industry lacked the pipeline technology now used to capture and transport the volatile fuel released when oil is extracted from the ground. Instead, gas was simply burned off — a process known as flaring. Today the natural gas industry is worldwide, netting billions of dollars each year. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that demand for natural gas will double by 2020.

Culture

SIDEBAR: Breast Cancer Risk Factors

By |

• Part One: Cause & Controversy
• Part Two: A Plague of Neglect
• Sidebars: Risk Factors; Toxic Links; Long Island
• Printable: Download the magazine-style PDF

What causes breast cancer? Who’s at risk, and why? These seem like simple questions. But the answers remain vexingly elusive. Talk to any credible researcher and you’ll come up with a list of risk factors that can be counted on one hand — indicating not only the extent of our knowledge, but also our lack of it.

Science

SIDEBAR: Breast Cancer: Toxic Links

By |

• Part One: Cause & Controversy
• Part Two: A Plague of Neglect
• Sidebars: Risk Factors; Toxic Links; Long Island
• Printable: Download the magazine-style PDF

No one is going to deny the cancer-causing potential of industrial, agricultural and consumer chemicals. What’s at issue is actual human risk from exposure to these chemicals in our daily environment. And even if a chemical or substance has been proven to be harmful, there’s no guarantee that a legislative body or regulatory agency will severely limit or ban its use. Consider the ongoing national debate over the sale and use of tobacco. “You have industries saying, ‘we can’t afford to meet this regulation and it’ll put us out of business, you have to be a little bit more lax,'” said Allan Hirsch, spokesman for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in California.

Science

SIDEBAR: The Lessons of Long Island

By |

• Part One: Cause & Controversy
• Part Two: A Plague of Neglect
• Sidebars: Risk Factors; Toxic Links; Long Island
• Printable: Download the magazine-style PDF

Founded at the behest of Congress in 1993, the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (nih.gov) was intended to deliver the definitive statement on environmental contaminants and high breast cancer rates — exactly the sort of thing being demanded now in the Bay Area. The study grew to encompass 10 projects (nih.gov), adding up to more than $26 million in special grants and various local and federal agencies. Missing links

“I think this process will ultimately disclose the environmental links to cancer,” said Karen Joy Miller, founder and president of Long Island’s 4,000-member Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition. She already has her suspicions that it will prove to be “many things in combination, what we drink and what we breathe, things we use for our manicured lawns, our pesticides, our household cleaners … We are doing it to ourselves.”