Synthetic marijuana reduced post-traumatic stress disorder in rats
-- Robert Preidt
FRIDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) -- Marijuana may help people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a new study.
PTSD affects 10 to 30 percent of people who experience a traumatic event, such as a car accident or terror attack. These people continue to suffer stress symptoms for months and even years after the incident.
Israeli researchers conducted a series of experiments in which rats were subjected to stressful experiences, such as receiving electric shocks. The study found that the rats' stress levels could be reduced by giving them a synthetic form of marijuana that has properties similar to that of the natural plant.
Further investigation revealed that the synthetic marijuana prevents increased release of a stress hormone the body releases in response to traumatic situations.
"The results of our research should encourage psychiatric investigation into the use of cannabinoids in post-traumatic stress patients," wrote study author Dr. Irit Akirav of the department of psychology at the University of Haifa.
The study was published in a recent issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health has more about PTSD.
SOURCE: University of Haifa, news release, Nov. 4, 2009
Comment
This is food for thought. Something to think about. Grist for discussion.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Cancer figures - Prostate
An estimated 194,280 new cases of invasive breast cancer will occur in the United States this year -- taking the lives of 40,610 people.
How Common is Prostate Cancer?
It is the most common non-skin cancer in America, affecting 1 in 6 men. A non-smoking man is more likely to develop prostate cancer than he is to develop colon, bladder, melanoma, lymphoma and kidney cancers combined. In fact, a man is 35% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than a woman is to be diagnosed with breast cancer.
In 2009, more than 192,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. One new case occurs every 2.7 minutes and a man dies from prostate cancer every 19 minutes.
It is estimated that there are more than 2 million American men currently living with prostate cancer.
How curable is prostate cancer?
As with all cancers, "cure" rates for prostate cancer describe the percentage of patients likely remaining disease-free for a specific time. In general, the earlier the cancer is caught, the more likely it is for the patient to remain disease-free.
Because approximately 90% of all prostate cancers are detected in the local and regional stages, the cure rate for prostate cancer is very high—nearly 100% of men diagnosed and treated at this stage will be disease-free after five years. By contrast, in the 1970s, only 67% of men diagnosed with local or regional prostate cancer were disease-free after five years.
Yet being diagnosed with prostate cancer can be a life-altering experience. It requires making some very difficult decisions about treatments that can affect not only the life of the man diagnosed, but also the lives of his family members in significant ways for many years to come.
Currently Recruiting Clinical Trials
New listing: Study of Immunotherapy to Treat Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) is conducting a Phase 3 trial using a novel immunotherapy agent in patients with metastatic CRPC that have received prior treatment with docetaxel. Ipilimumab (anti CTLA-4) plus radiotherapy will be compared to placebo plus radiotherapy in this randomized, double-blind study, to determine if ipilimumab prolongs survival in men who have metastatic CRPC. This study is being conducted in over 50 centers across the USA and also in 24 other countries around the world. Click here for a list of additional open trials.
http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/
How Common is Prostate Cancer?
It is the most common non-skin cancer in America, affecting 1 in 6 men. A non-smoking man is more likely to develop prostate cancer than he is to develop colon, bladder, melanoma, lymphoma and kidney cancers combined. In fact, a man is 35% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than a woman is to be diagnosed with breast cancer.
In 2009, more than 192,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. One new case occurs every 2.7 minutes and a man dies from prostate cancer every 19 minutes.
It is estimated that there are more than 2 million American men currently living with prostate cancer.
How curable is prostate cancer?
As with all cancers, "cure" rates for prostate cancer describe the percentage of patients likely remaining disease-free for a specific time. In general, the earlier the cancer is caught, the more likely it is for the patient to remain disease-free.
Because approximately 90% of all prostate cancers are detected in the local and regional stages, the cure rate for prostate cancer is very high—nearly 100% of men diagnosed and treated at this stage will be disease-free after five years. By contrast, in the 1970s, only 67% of men diagnosed with local or regional prostate cancer were disease-free after five years.
Yet being diagnosed with prostate cancer can be a life-altering experience. It requires making some very difficult decisions about treatments that can affect not only the life of the man diagnosed, but also the lives of his family members in significant ways for many years to come.
Currently Recruiting Clinical Trials
New listing: Study of Immunotherapy to Treat Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) is conducting a Phase 3 trial using a novel immunotherapy agent in patients with metastatic CRPC that have received prior treatment with docetaxel. Ipilimumab (anti CTLA-4) plus radiotherapy will be compared to placebo plus radiotherapy in this randomized, double-blind study, to determine if ipilimumab prolongs survival in men who have metastatic CRPC. This study is being conducted in over 50 centers across the USA and also in 24 other countries around the world. Click here for a list of additional open trials.
http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/
Friday, November 13, 2009
Tails of Love - Heroic Pets
By Geoff Brown, November & December 2009 AARP Magazine
The bond between people and animals is one of the strongest and most beneficial friendships in history. Now researchers are beginning to learn more about this unbreakable connection.
The rocket came in fast, maybe 900 feet per second—too fast for anyone to sound the warning siren, and much too fast for all the troops of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force to take cover. It was March 21, 2007, when the 73-millimeter insurgent-launched rocket exploded inside their base in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, right next to Corporal Dustin Jerome Lee and his canine partner, Lex. Lee, a 20-year-old Mississippi native, was gravely wounded by the blast. Lex—a German shepherd trained to sniff out hidden explosives—was also injured, his brown and black fur burned, shrapnel lodged in his back and spine.
Marines on the scene watched as the bleeding Lex climbed on top of Corporal Lee to protect him from further harm. They saw Lex try to revive his master by licking his wounds. And the Marines who rushed to their comrade's side had to peel Lex reluctantly off the young corporal so medics could try to save him. But Corporal Lee's injuries were too severe; he died at a nearby military hospital.
Visit AARP.org's Pets Channel
Join Fellow Animal Lovers in the AARP Online Community
Ruff Riders: A Guide to Traveling with Pets (July & August 2009)
Stump: The Bark of a Champion (May & June 2009)
Video: Pets for Vets (AARP TV)
Video: Do Old Dogs Dream? (AARP TV)
Pet Lessons (AARP Bulletin Today)
A few days later, two uniformed Marines arrived at the Lee family home in Quitman, Mississippi, to deliver the news of the corporal's death. "After the Marine Corps representative told us everything that happened," recalls Dustin Lee's mother, Rachel (pictured above with Lex), "my next question was—and I'll always remember it—'What about Lex?' "
The Marines seemed puzzled. "We're not sure," they said. "We know he's alive. Why?"
"The more we talked, the more I wanted Lex to be at Dustin's funeral," she says. "After hearing that Lex climbed on top of Dustin as they both bled…Lex and Dustin shared a bond, and now that bond is a blood bond. Lex was the last to see my child. I wanted him there at the funeral with me."
What explains this powerful human-animal connection? What makes a wounded dog protect his dying partner—and what makes a grieving mother want that faithful canine companion at her son's funeral?
“Lex was the last to see my child. I wanted him there at the funeral with me.”
—Rachel Lee
Humans have long been fascinated by the other animals with whom we share this planet. Our distant ancestors started painting horses and the fearsome aurochs (which humans would eventually tame and breed into the contemporary cow) on cave walls tens of thousands of years ago. Animals both wild and domesticated adorned ancient pottery and jewelry, and joined our ancestors in their tombs.
Today animals still enchant us, perhaps more so than at any time in history. There are roughly twice as many pets in American households as there are children under 18. Forty years ago Americans owned about 40 million pet dogs and cats in a nation of 200 million people; today our pet population has more than quadrupled, as the human population has grown to 300 million. Sentimental books such as Dewey: The Small-Town Library Cat Who Touched the World and Marley & Me have become New York Times bestsellers. We knit for our dogs and serve lobster to our cats. And when our pets become ill, we're ever more willing to spring for veterinary care. Ailments that used to be death warrants—cancer, a broken hip, kidney failure—are now often successfully treated. "When I first went into practice [in the late 1980s], ten was pretty old for a Labrador or golden retriever," says Jeff Wells, D.V.M., the author of All My Patients Have Tales. "Now I often see those breeds at 14, 15 years old."
But even though we've benefited from the loyalty, intelligence, and labor of animals for thousands of years, humans are only beginning to understand why we feel such strong attachments to specific members of other species. Over the past ten years intriguing studies have started to reveal the evolutionary, social, and biochemical reasons that people and animals are such fast friends—and offer the rudiments of an explanation for the amazing phenomenon of animal heroism.
Winnie, domestic shorthair, 16, with the Keeslings
"The deputy sheriff told me that if Winnie had waited five more minutes to wake us up, we'd all be dead."
—Cathy Keesling
Early Spring floods in 2007 had inundated the flat neighborhoods and farms around the eastern Indiana house of the Keesling family. Their home's basement had taken on some 30,000 gallons of water, and a gasoline pump had been set up to empty it. After the family went to bed, a crack in the pump's venting system caused carbon monoxide to pour into the home's heat ducts.
Cathy Keesling had closed all the windows in the house, save one on the first floor where Winnie, the gray-and-black-striped cat the family had rescued from a barn years before, was sleeping. When deadly gas filled the house, Cathy's teenage son, Michael, fell unconscious in the hallway. Cathy and her husband, Eric, were slowly sinking into unconsciousness as well. Winnie had been breathing the clear night air, so she was the only living creature in the house that could tell something was wrong. But rather than escaping through the open window, Winnie raced over to Cathy.
"Winnie was pulling my hair and yowling in my ear," Cathy recalls of her normally mellow cat's unusual behavior. "I would wake up and pass out again. Every time I passed out, Winnie would wake me up again."
Cathy managed to rouse herself and dial 911, but the gas knocked her out before she could tell the operator what was going on. The dispatcher sent out a state trooper and sheriff's deputies, who dragged the family onto the porch and into the fresh air. A firefighter found Winnie in a closet.
Everyone recovered after many hours in the hospital, where the dire nature of their situation became clear. "The deputy sheriff told me that if Winnie had waited five more minutes to get us up, we'd all be dead," Cathy Keesling says. "I'm so proud of her.
"I guess because we saved her life, she saved ours."
In 1987 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a workshop on the health benefits of owning pets: at that time there were a few scientific papers on the subject, including a study that proved pets boosted survival rates for coronary care unit patients. By last year, when the NIH held a workshop on how pets help people, new findings had proliferated, though in many cases they simply validated what people have known about pets for centuries. One study showed that dog ownership promotes regular exercise. Another found that being near a pet lowers its owner's blood pressure (an effect that family members, no matter how beloved, can't match).
More surprising were new data on the key role of chemistry in the relationship. When a person interacts with a pet, the central nervous system releases several hormones that cause feelings of pleasure—and one hormone in particular, oxytocin, appears to play a major role in reinforcing the bond. Produced by new mammalian mothers to encourage bonding with their offspring, oxytocin creates a sense of warmth, nurturing, and calm. In 2002 two South African researchers measured oxytocin levels not only in humans petting dogs but in the dogs themselves: the dogs experienced the same chemical releases and calming effects as did the humans. Researchers are still unclear about the exact role of these chemicals, though when two different species can produce feelings of peace, closeness, and contentment in each other, it's clearly an intriguing find.
Karen Grindler has seen firsthand the bond's healing effect—on both people and animals. Grindler runs the Cedar Creek Therapeutic Riding Center in Columbia, Missouri, where people with disabilities gain physical mobility and massive improvements in mood simply by riding horses. Grindler is full of tales about riders who have learned to walk again, or even just smile again, after a few weeks on horseback, whether it's loops around the paddock or a leisurely clop through the countryside.
Most dramatically, she tells the story of Kid, a 40-year-old horse (one of the oldest in the country) that has lived at Cedar Creek since 1997. "I tried to retire Kid in 2006," she says. "He was 37. Kid got depressed, really hung his head low." Soon enough, a young man named Jeremy Hardin arrived at the center. Lately, his cerebral palsy had begun to require that he take frequent rest breaks during a ride, which was difficult for Grindler's younger horses. "I pulled Kid out of pasture," Grindler recalls, "because I knew he wouldn't mind stopping.
"The next day," she continues, "Kid trotted right into the feed area, spun himself around, and basically announced, 'I'm back in business, baby!' I think the horses know they're helping. I see them arc their necks and look back at the rider. I think they like their work." Jeremy doesn't speak, but his parents say he loves his time with Kid. "He's smiling all the time" as he rides, says his mother, Debbie Hardin.
Science can't yet fully explain such anecdotes, says James Serpell, Ph.D., director of the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine. Nor can it explain why certain animals and certain humans prefer each other. "The mechanisms [of the human-animal bond] aren't very well understood," Serpell says. "There's been so little serious research, which is surprising when you think how big a part of people's lives companion animals are. The bond is consistently underappreciated by the powers that be," that is, the funders of experiments.
What is clear is that animals have adapted to fill a changing—but still key—role in society. Dogs that once guarded us as we slept around the fire pit now watch intently as we spend hours creating PowerPoint presentations. "That bond is there all the time," says Cesar Millan, the National Geographic Channel's Dog Whisperer. "Even when you are sitting quietly in the family room at the end of a long day, watching TV with your dog lying at your feet, that connection exists; you're still feeding it."
One canine trait that has evolved into something potentially quite significant is dogs' acute sense of smell (10,000 to 100,000 times more keen than our own cut-rate olfactory capacity), which once helped humans track down prey. Today trained dogs can detect bladder cancer just by sniffing a urine sample; humans must perform complex analyses to find the disease. And Sadie, a brown Labrador retriever in Arizona with a nose for accelerants, makes the job of arson investigators much easier. "As soon as people see the dog, they confess," a fire-department officer told The Arizona Republic in 2008. "You can't lie to the dog when she sits down in front of you, because she smells gasoline on your hands."
Service pets warn chronic seizure sufferers of an oncoming attack with a paw thump or a bark; animals can sense chemical-odor changes that humans cannot. In 2006 a three-year-old Florida beagle named Belle saw her owner collapse in a severe diabetic seizure; Belle held down the 9 on the phone with her teeth, as she'd been trained to do. The phone automatically dialed 911, and paramedics arrived in time to save her owner.
Charley, West Highland white terrier, 4, with Roy Monie
"It was a miracle" that Charley found Roy Monie, who had fallen off a ladder. "God put us there for a reason."
—Frances Gippert
But there's more to the connection than training. Four-year-old Charley, a West Highland white terrier in Atlanta, is not a search-and-rescue dog. In fact, when Charley made his lifesaving rescue last year, his owner wasn't even aware that anyone needed help. One August day the little dog began urgently pacing and barking to be let out of the house. Owner Frances Gippert clicked Charley's leash onto his collar and opened the front door. He dragged her away from their usual route and toward a yard three doors away, where Roy Monie lay semiconscious and badly bruised. Monie had fallen off a ladder and had suffered a brain hemorrhage. If Charley hadn't found him—no one knows how—so that Gippert could call 911, Monie likely would have died. Since then, Monie and his family have embraced Gippert, who had lost both parents and her sister to cancer. Last year they all celebrated Christmas together. "This whole process has been very emotionally moving for me," says Gippert, who was working from home after a difficult divorce. "It has changed my life. I just wanted to stay in my house, me and Charley," she says. "Roy didn't let that happen."
Despite being shaky from his injuries, Lex, the Marine dog, made it to Corporal Dustin Lee's funeral. He and Dustin's younger brother, Camryn, then 13, even played together for a while (the Lees also have a daughter, Madyson). Several top Marine Corps officers attended the March 2007 service in Quitman, Mississippi, and Rachel Lee had another question for them: "I would like to know how we can adopt Lex." Rachel didn't want Lex to return to service—and into harm's way.
Throughout 2007 Rachel pressed the Marines for an answer. Red tape and regulations thwarted her—as did grief. "I was in a fog," she says of that period. "I don't remember a whole lot. But my dad, my husband, my brothers, they were all pursuing it."
In December 2007 the Lees' phone rang. Rachel answered the call: Lex had been granted an early discharge. The Lees could come to Georgia and pick him up. "It took so many people trying to help," says Dustin's father, Jerome. "The amount of support we had was heartwarming."
The Lees drove seven hours to the Marine Corps base at Albany, Georgia; in a ceremony there on December 21, 2007, Lex was discharged from duty and presented to Rachel and Jerome. State police from Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi provided a rotating escort the entire way home, as did motorcycle groups such as the Christian Motorcyclists Association and the Patriot Guard Riders.
When Lex arrived in Quitman, he made himself right at home. "It was amazing how Lex became part of our family on day one," Jerome says. "Lex had that special bond with Dusty, and part of Dustin is in Lex. It's like he knows where he is and who we are. He wants to help us cope with our grief."
Today, Rachel says, "Lex walks with me everywhere. That's the bond I also feel with Dustin. I look at Lex and I learn so much about working dogs, and their importance. It encourages me to go on. That's what Dustin would have wanted. To take my hand and put it on Lex, it's a healing experience."
Geoff Brown is the author of the guidebook Moon Baltimore.
Comment
Humans do develop close bonds with animals, that much is known. Ask any blind person with a guide dog or cop with their K-9 work dog - the bond is there and grows stronger usually over time. Pets have also been known to have a calming effect on prisoners, and the elderly. I prefer dogs as pets, as a general rule, but have grown attached to a couple kittens and cats too, over the years.
The bond between people and animals is one of the strongest and most beneficial friendships in history. Now researchers are beginning to learn more about this unbreakable connection.
The rocket came in fast, maybe 900 feet per second—too fast for anyone to sound the warning siren, and much too fast for all the troops of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force to take cover. It was March 21, 2007, when the 73-millimeter insurgent-launched rocket exploded inside their base in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, right next to Corporal Dustin Jerome Lee and his canine partner, Lex. Lee, a 20-year-old Mississippi native, was gravely wounded by the blast. Lex—a German shepherd trained to sniff out hidden explosives—was also injured, his brown and black fur burned, shrapnel lodged in his back and spine.
Marines on the scene watched as the bleeding Lex climbed on top of Corporal Lee to protect him from further harm. They saw Lex try to revive his master by licking his wounds. And the Marines who rushed to their comrade's side had to peel Lex reluctantly off the young corporal so medics could try to save him. But Corporal Lee's injuries were too severe; he died at a nearby military hospital.
Visit AARP.org's Pets Channel
Join Fellow Animal Lovers in the AARP Online Community
Ruff Riders: A Guide to Traveling with Pets (July & August 2009)
Stump: The Bark of a Champion (May & June 2009)
Video: Pets for Vets (AARP TV)
Video: Do Old Dogs Dream? (AARP TV)
Pet Lessons (AARP Bulletin Today)
A few days later, two uniformed Marines arrived at the Lee family home in Quitman, Mississippi, to deliver the news of the corporal's death. "After the Marine Corps representative told us everything that happened," recalls Dustin Lee's mother, Rachel (pictured above with Lex), "my next question was—and I'll always remember it—'What about Lex?' "
The Marines seemed puzzled. "We're not sure," they said. "We know he's alive. Why?"
"The more we talked, the more I wanted Lex to be at Dustin's funeral," she says. "After hearing that Lex climbed on top of Dustin as they both bled…Lex and Dustin shared a bond, and now that bond is a blood bond. Lex was the last to see my child. I wanted him there at the funeral with me."
What explains this powerful human-animal connection? What makes a wounded dog protect his dying partner—and what makes a grieving mother want that faithful canine companion at her son's funeral?
“Lex was the last to see my child. I wanted him there at the funeral with me.”
—Rachel Lee
Humans have long been fascinated by the other animals with whom we share this planet. Our distant ancestors started painting horses and the fearsome aurochs (which humans would eventually tame and breed into the contemporary cow) on cave walls tens of thousands of years ago. Animals both wild and domesticated adorned ancient pottery and jewelry, and joined our ancestors in their tombs.
Today animals still enchant us, perhaps more so than at any time in history. There are roughly twice as many pets in American households as there are children under 18. Forty years ago Americans owned about 40 million pet dogs and cats in a nation of 200 million people; today our pet population has more than quadrupled, as the human population has grown to 300 million. Sentimental books such as Dewey: The Small-Town Library Cat Who Touched the World and Marley & Me have become New York Times bestsellers. We knit for our dogs and serve lobster to our cats. And when our pets become ill, we're ever more willing to spring for veterinary care. Ailments that used to be death warrants—cancer, a broken hip, kidney failure—are now often successfully treated. "When I first went into practice [in the late 1980s], ten was pretty old for a Labrador or golden retriever," says Jeff Wells, D.V.M., the author of All My Patients Have Tales. "Now I often see those breeds at 14, 15 years old."
But even though we've benefited from the loyalty, intelligence, and labor of animals for thousands of years, humans are only beginning to understand why we feel such strong attachments to specific members of other species. Over the past ten years intriguing studies have started to reveal the evolutionary, social, and biochemical reasons that people and animals are such fast friends—and offer the rudiments of an explanation for the amazing phenomenon of animal heroism.
Winnie, domestic shorthair, 16, with the Keeslings
"The deputy sheriff told me that if Winnie had waited five more minutes to wake us up, we'd all be dead."
—Cathy Keesling
Early Spring floods in 2007 had inundated the flat neighborhoods and farms around the eastern Indiana house of the Keesling family. Their home's basement had taken on some 30,000 gallons of water, and a gasoline pump had been set up to empty it. After the family went to bed, a crack in the pump's venting system caused carbon monoxide to pour into the home's heat ducts.
Cathy Keesling had closed all the windows in the house, save one on the first floor where Winnie, the gray-and-black-striped cat the family had rescued from a barn years before, was sleeping. When deadly gas filled the house, Cathy's teenage son, Michael, fell unconscious in the hallway. Cathy and her husband, Eric, were slowly sinking into unconsciousness as well. Winnie had been breathing the clear night air, so she was the only living creature in the house that could tell something was wrong. But rather than escaping through the open window, Winnie raced over to Cathy.
"Winnie was pulling my hair and yowling in my ear," Cathy recalls of her normally mellow cat's unusual behavior. "I would wake up and pass out again. Every time I passed out, Winnie would wake me up again."
Cathy managed to rouse herself and dial 911, but the gas knocked her out before she could tell the operator what was going on. The dispatcher sent out a state trooper and sheriff's deputies, who dragged the family onto the porch and into the fresh air. A firefighter found Winnie in a closet.
Everyone recovered after many hours in the hospital, where the dire nature of their situation became clear. "The deputy sheriff told me that if Winnie had waited five more minutes to get us up, we'd all be dead," Cathy Keesling says. "I'm so proud of her.
"I guess because we saved her life, she saved ours."
In 1987 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a workshop on the health benefits of owning pets: at that time there were a few scientific papers on the subject, including a study that proved pets boosted survival rates for coronary care unit patients. By last year, when the NIH held a workshop on how pets help people, new findings had proliferated, though in many cases they simply validated what people have known about pets for centuries. One study showed that dog ownership promotes regular exercise. Another found that being near a pet lowers its owner's blood pressure (an effect that family members, no matter how beloved, can't match).
More surprising were new data on the key role of chemistry in the relationship. When a person interacts with a pet, the central nervous system releases several hormones that cause feelings of pleasure—and one hormone in particular, oxytocin, appears to play a major role in reinforcing the bond. Produced by new mammalian mothers to encourage bonding with their offspring, oxytocin creates a sense of warmth, nurturing, and calm. In 2002 two South African researchers measured oxytocin levels not only in humans petting dogs but in the dogs themselves: the dogs experienced the same chemical releases and calming effects as did the humans. Researchers are still unclear about the exact role of these chemicals, though when two different species can produce feelings of peace, closeness, and contentment in each other, it's clearly an intriguing find.
Karen Grindler has seen firsthand the bond's healing effect—on both people and animals. Grindler runs the Cedar Creek Therapeutic Riding Center in Columbia, Missouri, where people with disabilities gain physical mobility and massive improvements in mood simply by riding horses. Grindler is full of tales about riders who have learned to walk again, or even just smile again, after a few weeks on horseback, whether it's loops around the paddock or a leisurely clop through the countryside.
Most dramatically, she tells the story of Kid, a 40-year-old horse (one of the oldest in the country) that has lived at Cedar Creek since 1997. "I tried to retire Kid in 2006," she says. "He was 37. Kid got depressed, really hung his head low." Soon enough, a young man named Jeremy Hardin arrived at the center. Lately, his cerebral palsy had begun to require that he take frequent rest breaks during a ride, which was difficult for Grindler's younger horses. "I pulled Kid out of pasture," Grindler recalls, "because I knew he wouldn't mind stopping.
"The next day," she continues, "Kid trotted right into the feed area, spun himself around, and basically announced, 'I'm back in business, baby!' I think the horses know they're helping. I see them arc their necks and look back at the rider. I think they like their work." Jeremy doesn't speak, but his parents say he loves his time with Kid. "He's smiling all the time" as he rides, says his mother, Debbie Hardin.
Science can't yet fully explain such anecdotes, says James Serpell, Ph.D., director of the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine. Nor can it explain why certain animals and certain humans prefer each other. "The mechanisms [of the human-animal bond] aren't very well understood," Serpell says. "There's been so little serious research, which is surprising when you think how big a part of people's lives companion animals are. The bond is consistently underappreciated by the powers that be," that is, the funders of experiments.
What is clear is that animals have adapted to fill a changing—but still key—role in society. Dogs that once guarded us as we slept around the fire pit now watch intently as we spend hours creating PowerPoint presentations. "That bond is there all the time," says Cesar Millan, the National Geographic Channel's Dog Whisperer. "Even when you are sitting quietly in the family room at the end of a long day, watching TV with your dog lying at your feet, that connection exists; you're still feeding it."
One canine trait that has evolved into something potentially quite significant is dogs' acute sense of smell (10,000 to 100,000 times more keen than our own cut-rate olfactory capacity), which once helped humans track down prey. Today trained dogs can detect bladder cancer just by sniffing a urine sample; humans must perform complex analyses to find the disease. And Sadie, a brown Labrador retriever in Arizona with a nose for accelerants, makes the job of arson investigators much easier. "As soon as people see the dog, they confess," a fire-department officer told The Arizona Republic in 2008. "You can't lie to the dog when she sits down in front of you, because she smells gasoline on your hands."
Service pets warn chronic seizure sufferers of an oncoming attack with a paw thump or a bark; animals can sense chemical-odor changes that humans cannot. In 2006 a three-year-old Florida beagle named Belle saw her owner collapse in a severe diabetic seizure; Belle held down the 9 on the phone with her teeth, as she'd been trained to do. The phone automatically dialed 911, and paramedics arrived in time to save her owner.
Charley, West Highland white terrier, 4, with Roy Monie
"It was a miracle" that Charley found Roy Monie, who had fallen off a ladder. "God put us there for a reason."
—Frances Gippert
But there's more to the connection than training. Four-year-old Charley, a West Highland white terrier in Atlanta, is not a search-and-rescue dog. In fact, when Charley made his lifesaving rescue last year, his owner wasn't even aware that anyone needed help. One August day the little dog began urgently pacing and barking to be let out of the house. Owner Frances Gippert clicked Charley's leash onto his collar and opened the front door. He dragged her away from their usual route and toward a yard three doors away, where Roy Monie lay semiconscious and badly bruised. Monie had fallen off a ladder and had suffered a brain hemorrhage. If Charley hadn't found him—no one knows how—so that Gippert could call 911, Monie likely would have died. Since then, Monie and his family have embraced Gippert, who had lost both parents and her sister to cancer. Last year they all celebrated Christmas together. "This whole process has been very emotionally moving for me," says Gippert, who was working from home after a difficult divorce. "It has changed my life. I just wanted to stay in my house, me and Charley," she says. "Roy didn't let that happen."
Despite being shaky from his injuries, Lex, the Marine dog, made it to Corporal Dustin Lee's funeral. He and Dustin's younger brother, Camryn, then 13, even played together for a while (the Lees also have a daughter, Madyson). Several top Marine Corps officers attended the March 2007 service in Quitman, Mississippi, and Rachel Lee had another question for them: "I would like to know how we can adopt Lex." Rachel didn't want Lex to return to service—and into harm's way.
Throughout 2007 Rachel pressed the Marines for an answer. Red tape and regulations thwarted her—as did grief. "I was in a fog," she says of that period. "I don't remember a whole lot. But my dad, my husband, my brothers, they were all pursuing it."
In December 2007 the Lees' phone rang. Rachel answered the call: Lex had been granted an early discharge. The Lees could come to Georgia and pick him up. "It took so many people trying to help," says Dustin's father, Jerome. "The amount of support we had was heartwarming."
The Lees drove seven hours to the Marine Corps base at Albany, Georgia; in a ceremony there on December 21, 2007, Lex was discharged from duty and presented to Rachel and Jerome. State police from Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi provided a rotating escort the entire way home, as did motorcycle groups such as the Christian Motorcyclists Association and the Patriot Guard Riders.
When Lex arrived in Quitman, he made himself right at home. "It was amazing how Lex became part of our family on day one," Jerome says. "Lex had that special bond with Dusty, and part of Dustin is in Lex. It's like he knows where he is and who we are. He wants to help us cope with our grief."
Today, Rachel says, "Lex walks with me everywhere. That's the bond I also feel with Dustin. I look at Lex and I learn so much about working dogs, and their importance. It encourages me to go on. That's what Dustin would have wanted. To take my hand and put it on Lex, it's a healing experience."
Geoff Brown is the author of the guidebook Moon Baltimore.
Comment
Humans do develop close bonds with animals, that much is known. Ask any blind person with a guide dog or cop with their K-9 work dog - the bond is there and grows stronger usually over time. Pets have also been known to have a calming effect on prisoners, and the elderly. I prefer dogs as pets, as a general rule, but have grown attached to a couple kittens and cats too, over the years.
Biologics: New Miracle Drugs - AARP Magazine
Special Report
Biologics: New Miracle Drugs
By Mary A. Fischer, November & December 2009
These new medicines—which target diseased cells while leaving healthy cells alone—are transforming the way doctors treat cancer, arthritis, and MS. But are the benefits worth the risks, both physically and financially?
For More Information on Biologic Medicines, Visit AARP.org/biologics
What Price A Miracle: The Fight to Control Costs Heats Up (November & December 2009)
Subscribe to the AARP Rx Watchdog Newsletter
Visit Health Action Now!, AARP's Health-Care Reform Website
In January 2006 Richard Oropeza Jr., now 60, was making coffee in the kitchen of his California home when he felt a sudden tingling in his legs. The sensation went away within 20 minutes, but over the next several weeks it came back twice, along with excruciating headaches and complete paralysis on his left side. Emergency surgery revealed that Oropeza had a malignant tumor the size of an apricot on his brain, and doctors gave him less than a year to live. He underwent six weeks of conventional cancer treatment—radiation and chemotherapy—that sapped his energy and caused debilitating nausea. But the tumor kept growing.
"There's nothing more I can do for you," his doctor told him in September 2006, eight months after his initial symptoms.
"Isn't there anything else we could try?" Oropeza pleaded. "Any clinical trial?"
In fact, there was. The University of Virginia, as part of a Phase II clinical trial, was testing a new "biologic" drug called Avastin—the first drug that could fight his type of aggressive cancer by attacking the blood supply that fed the tumor. But there was also a potential downside: the drug could cause blood clots, hypertension, and joint pain.
"In the long run, we're going to have patients who do better for longer with fewer side effects, and to me that's very exciting."
Oropeza signed the liability waiver. "I didn't care what the treatment was or its side effects," he recalls. "To me it was worth it."
Almost immediately after Oropeza started intravenous Avastin therapy, his tumor stopped growing. He could walk again and hold things without dropping them. He went back to work part-time, and now, every two weeks—for the rest of his life—he will take Avastin. Without it, he says, "I wouldn't be alive today."
Radical recoveries like Oropeza's are giving biologics a much-hyped reputation as miracle drugs. Biologic medicines are now the fastest-growing class of drugs in the pharmaceutical world; Avastin alone garnered nearly $3 billion in sales in 2008. Many patients today survive cancers once considered a death sentence, and those who suffer from autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis can regain full use of limbs once racked by crippling pain and immobility.
So why aren't biologic drugs prescribed more frequently? Two reasons: the drugs are expensive—Avastin can cost up to a staggering $100,000 per year—and their side effects can be devastating. Some biomedical experts question whether our current health care system, with its prescription-drug pricing protocols, is equipped to handle the flood of new biologic drugs coming on the market. Most patients rely on private insurance or Medicare to pay for them (Medicare spent roughly $13 billion on biologics in 2007). A few also qualify for subsidies from the biotech companies that develop the drugs. But many patients simply cannot afford the medicines.
HOW THEY'RE MADE
Gene is spliced
The genes for a disease-fighting protein are inserted into the cells of a living organism.
Cells extracted
The cells with that new protein are then removed from the organism.
Copies made
The cells multiply, slowly at first, then in increasingly larger quantities.
Harvested
The desired proteins are extracted from the rest of the cells, purified, and made into biologic medicines.
Illustration by Daniel Marsiglio
"We cannot ethically defend our system of payment and access the way it is now," says Ruth Faden, Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. "We have a class of expensive drugs that can prolong life, improve quality of life, or, in the case of Herceptin [a biologic used to treat breast cancer], possibly be a cure for some patients. It is indisputable that any patient should have access to these drugs, regardless of income or insurance status."
What makes biologic medicines unique is this: unlike conventional chemical drugs, biologics are produced by living organisms and specifically target human proteins that are involved in disease.
One class of biologics—known as monoclonal antibody biologics—are similar to the antibodies that the human immune system uses to fight off bacteria and viruses, only these antibodies are genetically engineered to target specific cancers. Avastin, which proved so effective against Richard Oropeza's brain tumor, is now also widely used to treat lung, breast, colon, and rectal cancers. Other monoclonal antibody biologics are designed to attack certain proteins (or protein receptors) on the surface of cancer cells and stop their growth. Examples of such protein inhibitors include Rituxan, which is used to treat lymphomas, and Herceptin.
Other biologics alter the function of the immune system by either suppressing or enhancing certain responses. In autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, for example, the immune system overproduces a protein that triggers a buildup of white blood cells, which leads to excessive inflammation and joint damage. Enbrel, Humira, Remicade, and other biologics in this class target that protein, called the tumor necrosis factor, and block its action. Tysabri, a biologic used to treat multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease, blocks the passage of inflammatory cells into the brain and the spinal cord—and, in the case of Crohn's disease, into the intestines.
"These biologic agents provide a degree of selectivity not achievable with conventional chemotherapy drugs," explains oncologist Oliver Press, M.D., Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "Many of [the biologics] can produce dramatic antitumor effects without the toxicity that historically has been associated with chemotherapy and radiation."
Biologic treatments date back to 1982, when recombinant insulin was first approved in the United States for the treatment of diabetes. (A hormone originally derived from the pancreas of animals, insulin is today made synthetically from genetically engineered human bacteria.) Since then, more than 300 biologic drugs, most of them developed in the past five years, have flooded the pharmaceutical market. Today they constitute roughly 25 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA; by 2014, industry insiders predict, more than half of the top 100 drugs will be biologics.
The growth is fueled in part by their effectiveness. Two 2005 studies sponsored by the National Cancer Institute showed that adding Herceptin to standard chemotherapy reduced the risk of recurrence by 52 percent. A 2004 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that adding Avastin to chemotherapy extended life by 4.7 months for those with colorectal cancers. And studies have established that the addition of Rituxan to the standard chemotherapy regimen for certain types of chronic leukemia doubled complete remission rates.
The benefits aren't limited to cancer patients. In a 2008 clinical trial of Enbrel (with the chemical-based drug methotrexate) conducted by the developers of the drug—Amgen and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals—half of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis were in remission after one year, compared with 28 percent of patients treated with methotrexate (brand names Rheumatrex and Trexall) alone.
When Pat Novak Nelson of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 1976, available treatments provided little relief for the inflammatory disease. Starting with a single swollen finger, Nelson developed such overwhelming pain that she had to give up her passions: tennis, volleyball, and softball. She couldn't even play Frisbee with her young son. Back then, treatment for the roughly 1.3 million sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis was aspirin and anti-inflammatory drugs such as Naprosyn (naproxen)—which worked "for a while," Nelson recalls.
Then, in 1998, the FDA approved Enbrel, a biologic drug that blocks the protein receptors that trigger inflammation, swelling, and joint damage. "Without question, biologic agents have had a profound impact on improving the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis," says John Howard Klippel, M.D., president and CEO of the Arthritis Foundation. "It can't cure the disease, but it stops it from progressing."
As promising as Enbrel sounded, Nelson had reservations. "I thought about it for a couple of months because the possible side effects [infections, tumors, headaches] can be nasty," she says. But with no alternatives in the offing, she decided to take the plunge, and now, twice a week, she self-injects Enbrel. "It made a huge improvement in the quality of my life," she says. "I can't remember a day when I woke up with pain."
For all the stories of miraculous recoveries and pain-free lives, biologics represent a quandary in modern medicine. The drugs are typically prohibitively expensive—Rituxan can cost $60,000 a year; Enbrel, $32,000—partially because the FDA has no process for approving generic versions of biologics (see "What Price a Miracle?"). And, as patients such as Pat Nelson know, the drugs can also trigger serious side effects, ranging from heart attacks to infections.
Chicago oncologist Mark Kozloff, M.D., who has been treating cancer patients for 30 years, does not dispute the effectiveness of the drugs for his patients, but he often wonders "who bears the cost and how does society pay for it." Even when patients are covered by health insurance or Medicare, many of them face high costs. Richard Oropeza Jr. is okay for now, but his future is uncertain. With his brain cancer stable, Oropeza continues to take Avastin, but he doesn't pay for the drug—yet. Oropeza receives his biweekly IV infusions courtesy of Genentech, the biotech company that developed Avastin. All other costs—doctor fees, MRI scans—are covered under Oropeza's private insurance plan, but only after he pays a deductible. And Genentech's coverage of his treatment may end next year.
"I'm not going to worry about the cost now," Oropeza says. "I live day by day, and right now I'm doing well and feeling good. I'm hoping that less expensive generic versions of these drugs will come along soon."
The safety of biologics is another area of concern. Roughly 13 percent of the drugs, including Herceptin, Enbrel, and Rituxan, have received FDA black-box-label warnings—the most severe kind—for their potential serious side effects, including not just infections and heart attacks but also lymphoma and disorders of the central nervous system and immune system. Adverse effects sometimes do not surface for five or more years after drugs have been on the market. "The human body is in a constant state of change," wrote the editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association in an editorial accompanying a 2008 report on biologics, "and the effects of some drugs will manifest only after exposure over time."
In clinical studies 6 out of 39 patients receiving Avastin for colorectal and other types of cancer had bleeding complications and delayed wound healing.
And while some patients such as Nelson have had no side effects from Enbrel, others haven't been as lucky. "We know that the drug mediates the immune system's response, which in some cases can have grave consequences," says Debra Lappin, president of the Council for American Medical Innovation and an Enbrel user herself (she has a rheumatic disease that causes arthritis of the spine and sacroiliac joints). "The drug reduces the inflammatory response, thereby preventing serious joint damage, but it can also decrease the immune system's ability to fight infection." In a 2007 report in the Archives of Internal Medicine that analyzed adverse events reported to the FDA, Enbrel ranked tenth in the number of deaths: 1,034 from 1998 to 2005.
Such alarming reports do not dissuade Lappin. "When you have drugs like Enbrel that are so powerfully transformative in changing the course of a disease," she says, "you have to weigh this extraordinary life benefit against the real likelihood of risk. This is a drug that took me off disability and gave my family back a wife and a mother."
Reducing side effects is one of the top goals for scientists developing new biologics. At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, oncologist Oliver Press is leading research on improved antibodies and gene modification "that will allow the patients' own immune systems to recognize and kill their lymphomas more effectively, with less toxicity." New research also suggests that side effects may be determined by genetic factors. "If this proves to be true," says Arthritis Foundation president Klippel, "then in the future people might have genetic testing to select a biologic that would have the least likelihood—ideally, zero—of having a side effect."
Other research is focused on designing biologics that will deliver proteins and enzymes involved in DNA repair inside cells, where disease begins. "Currently, nearly all biologics target protein receptors that lie on the outside of cells, but the source of disease is inside," says University of Washington bioengineering professor Patrick Stayton, Ph.D. "If we can achieve better delivery of biologic drugs to intracellular targets, I think there's little doubt they'll have a big impact on the pharmaceutical world."
"In the long run," says oncologist Mark Kozloff, "we're going to have patients who do better for longer with fewer side effects, and to me that's very exciting."
Mary A. Fischer is a journalist based in Los Angeles.
For more information on biologic drugs visit aarp.org/biologics
Comment
The biologics work to stop almost all new growth of a tumor but do not reduce the size of the tumor. As I understand it the biologics stop 95%+ of new growth by restricting new blood supplies. If they could reduce the size of the tumors with surgery and then give the biologics it would seem to be the best outcome possible. especially for brain tumors because at a certain size they impinge on nearby nreves and cells that the brain needs to function. Althogh if the surgical reduction isnt possible, or risky, giving the biologics would at least stop most of the new growth.
The other question is the cost. My Mom went thru 4 courses of chemo, 8 or 10 episodes each, and each episode in the doctors clinic cost $1800 each. If you are not involved in a research study, who can afford these trteatments? Avastin was available to her in Orlando, but the cost was incredible. My Mom had to decide whether to drain her savings out completely, before Medicare would consider paying for it, or to discontinue the treatments and live out her remaining days as comfortably as she could. "I am too old to be a bag lady", she said. So she stopped the Avastin and let Nature take its course. the other reason she didnt continue the treatments was because she wanted to have some money to pass on to her heirs.
Biologics: New Miracle Drugs
By Mary A. Fischer, November & December 2009
These new medicines—which target diseased cells while leaving healthy cells alone—are transforming the way doctors treat cancer, arthritis, and MS. But are the benefits worth the risks, both physically and financially?
For More Information on Biologic Medicines, Visit AARP.org/biologics
What Price A Miracle: The Fight to Control Costs Heats Up (November & December 2009)
Subscribe to the AARP Rx Watchdog Newsletter
Visit Health Action Now!, AARP's Health-Care Reform Website
In January 2006 Richard Oropeza Jr., now 60, was making coffee in the kitchen of his California home when he felt a sudden tingling in his legs. The sensation went away within 20 minutes, but over the next several weeks it came back twice, along with excruciating headaches and complete paralysis on his left side. Emergency surgery revealed that Oropeza had a malignant tumor the size of an apricot on his brain, and doctors gave him less than a year to live. He underwent six weeks of conventional cancer treatment—radiation and chemotherapy—that sapped his energy and caused debilitating nausea. But the tumor kept growing.
"There's nothing more I can do for you," his doctor told him in September 2006, eight months after his initial symptoms.
"Isn't there anything else we could try?" Oropeza pleaded. "Any clinical trial?"
In fact, there was. The University of Virginia, as part of a Phase II clinical trial, was testing a new "biologic" drug called Avastin—the first drug that could fight his type of aggressive cancer by attacking the blood supply that fed the tumor. But there was also a potential downside: the drug could cause blood clots, hypertension, and joint pain.
"In the long run, we're going to have patients who do better for longer with fewer side effects, and to me that's very exciting."
Oropeza signed the liability waiver. "I didn't care what the treatment was or its side effects," he recalls. "To me it was worth it."
Almost immediately after Oropeza started intravenous Avastin therapy, his tumor stopped growing. He could walk again and hold things without dropping them. He went back to work part-time, and now, every two weeks—for the rest of his life—he will take Avastin. Without it, he says, "I wouldn't be alive today."
Radical recoveries like Oropeza's are giving biologics a much-hyped reputation as miracle drugs. Biologic medicines are now the fastest-growing class of drugs in the pharmaceutical world; Avastin alone garnered nearly $3 billion in sales in 2008. Many patients today survive cancers once considered a death sentence, and those who suffer from autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis can regain full use of limbs once racked by crippling pain and immobility.
So why aren't biologic drugs prescribed more frequently? Two reasons: the drugs are expensive—Avastin can cost up to a staggering $100,000 per year—and their side effects can be devastating. Some biomedical experts question whether our current health care system, with its prescription-drug pricing protocols, is equipped to handle the flood of new biologic drugs coming on the market. Most patients rely on private insurance or Medicare to pay for them (Medicare spent roughly $13 billion on biologics in 2007). A few also qualify for subsidies from the biotech companies that develop the drugs. But many patients simply cannot afford the medicines.
HOW THEY'RE MADE
Gene is spliced
The genes for a disease-fighting protein are inserted into the cells of a living organism.
Cells extracted
The cells with that new protein are then removed from the organism.
Copies made
The cells multiply, slowly at first, then in increasingly larger quantities.
Harvested
The desired proteins are extracted from the rest of the cells, purified, and made into biologic medicines.
Illustration by Daniel Marsiglio
"We cannot ethically defend our system of payment and access the way it is now," says Ruth Faden, Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. "We have a class of expensive drugs that can prolong life, improve quality of life, or, in the case of Herceptin [a biologic used to treat breast cancer], possibly be a cure for some patients. It is indisputable that any patient should have access to these drugs, regardless of income or insurance status."
What makes biologic medicines unique is this: unlike conventional chemical drugs, biologics are produced by living organisms and specifically target human proteins that are involved in disease.
One class of biologics—known as monoclonal antibody biologics—are similar to the antibodies that the human immune system uses to fight off bacteria and viruses, only these antibodies are genetically engineered to target specific cancers. Avastin, which proved so effective against Richard Oropeza's brain tumor, is now also widely used to treat lung, breast, colon, and rectal cancers. Other monoclonal antibody biologics are designed to attack certain proteins (or protein receptors) on the surface of cancer cells and stop their growth. Examples of such protein inhibitors include Rituxan, which is used to treat lymphomas, and Herceptin.
Other biologics alter the function of the immune system by either suppressing or enhancing certain responses. In autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, for example, the immune system overproduces a protein that triggers a buildup of white blood cells, which leads to excessive inflammation and joint damage. Enbrel, Humira, Remicade, and other biologics in this class target that protein, called the tumor necrosis factor, and block its action. Tysabri, a biologic used to treat multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease, blocks the passage of inflammatory cells into the brain and the spinal cord—and, in the case of Crohn's disease, into the intestines.
"These biologic agents provide a degree of selectivity not achievable with conventional chemotherapy drugs," explains oncologist Oliver Press, M.D., Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "Many of [the biologics] can produce dramatic antitumor effects without the toxicity that historically has been associated with chemotherapy and radiation."
Biologic treatments date back to 1982, when recombinant insulin was first approved in the United States for the treatment of diabetes. (A hormone originally derived from the pancreas of animals, insulin is today made synthetically from genetically engineered human bacteria.) Since then, more than 300 biologic drugs, most of them developed in the past five years, have flooded the pharmaceutical market. Today they constitute roughly 25 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA; by 2014, industry insiders predict, more than half of the top 100 drugs will be biologics.
The growth is fueled in part by their effectiveness. Two 2005 studies sponsored by the National Cancer Institute showed that adding Herceptin to standard chemotherapy reduced the risk of recurrence by 52 percent. A 2004 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that adding Avastin to chemotherapy extended life by 4.7 months for those with colorectal cancers. And studies have established that the addition of Rituxan to the standard chemotherapy regimen for certain types of chronic leukemia doubled complete remission rates.
The benefits aren't limited to cancer patients. In a 2008 clinical trial of Enbrel (with the chemical-based drug methotrexate) conducted by the developers of the drug—Amgen and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals—half of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis were in remission after one year, compared with 28 percent of patients treated with methotrexate (brand names Rheumatrex and Trexall) alone.
When Pat Novak Nelson of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 1976, available treatments provided little relief for the inflammatory disease. Starting with a single swollen finger, Nelson developed such overwhelming pain that she had to give up her passions: tennis, volleyball, and softball. She couldn't even play Frisbee with her young son. Back then, treatment for the roughly 1.3 million sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis was aspirin and anti-inflammatory drugs such as Naprosyn (naproxen)—which worked "for a while," Nelson recalls.
Then, in 1998, the FDA approved Enbrel, a biologic drug that blocks the protein receptors that trigger inflammation, swelling, and joint damage. "Without question, biologic agents have had a profound impact on improving the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis," says John Howard Klippel, M.D., president and CEO of the Arthritis Foundation. "It can't cure the disease, but it stops it from progressing."
As promising as Enbrel sounded, Nelson had reservations. "I thought about it for a couple of months because the possible side effects [infections, tumors, headaches] can be nasty," she says. But with no alternatives in the offing, she decided to take the plunge, and now, twice a week, she self-injects Enbrel. "It made a huge improvement in the quality of my life," she says. "I can't remember a day when I woke up with pain."
For all the stories of miraculous recoveries and pain-free lives, biologics represent a quandary in modern medicine. The drugs are typically prohibitively expensive—Rituxan can cost $60,000 a year; Enbrel, $32,000—partially because the FDA has no process for approving generic versions of biologics (see "What Price a Miracle?"). And, as patients such as Pat Nelson know, the drugs can also trigger serious side effects, ranging from heart attacks to infections.
Chicago oncologist Mark Kozloff, M.D., who has been treating cancer patients for 30 years, does not dispute the effectiveness of the drugs for his patients, but he often wonders "who bears the cost and how does society pay for it." Even when patients are covered by health insurance or Medicare, many of them face high costs. Richard Oropeza Jr. is okay for now, but his future is uncertain. With his brain cancer stable, Oropeza continues to take Avastin, but he doesn't pay for the drug—yet. Oropeza receives his biweekly IV infusions courtesy of Genentech, the biotech company that developed Avastin. All other costs—doctor fees, MRI scans—are covered under Oropeza's private insurance plan, but only after he pays a deductible. And Genentech's coverage of his treatment may end next year.
"I'm not going to worry about the cost now," Oropeza says. "I live day by day, and right now I'm doing well and feeling good. I'm hoping that less expensive generic versions of these drugs will come along soon."
The safety of biologics is another area of concern. Roughly 13 percent of the drugs, including Herceptin, Enbrel, and Rituxan, have received FDA black-box-label warnings—the most severe kind—for their potential serious side effects, including not just infections and heart attacks but also lymphoma and disorders of the central nervous system and immune system. Adverse effects sometimes do not surface for five or more years after drugs have been on the market. "The human body is in a constant state of change," wrote the editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association in an editorial accompanying a 2008 report on biologics, "and the effects of some drugs will manifest only after exposure over time."
In clinical studies 6 out of 39 patients receiving Avastin for colorectal and other types of cancer had bleeding complications and delayed wound healing.
And while some patients such as Nelson have had no side effects from Enbrel, others haven't been as lucky. "We know that the drug mediates the immune system's response, which in some cases can have grave consequences," says Debra Lappin, president of the Council for American Medical Innovation and an Enbrel user herself (she has a rheumatic disease that causes arthritis of the spine and sacroiliac joints). "The drug reduces the inflammatory response, thereby preventing serious joint damage, but it can also decrease the immune system's ability to fight infection." In a 2007 report in the Archives of Internal Medicine that analyzed adverse events reported to the FDA, Enbrel ranked tenth in the number of deaths: 1,034 from 1998 to 2005.
Such alarming reports do not dissuade Lappin. "When you have drugs like Enbrel that are so powerfully transformative in changing the course of a disease," she says, "you have to weigh this extraordinary life benefit against the real likelihood of risk. This is a drug that took me off disability and gave my family back a wife and a mother."
Reducing side effects is one of the top goals for scientists developing new biologics. At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute, oncologist Oliver Press is leading research on improved antibodies and gene modification "that will allow the patients' own immune systems to recognize and kill their lymphomas more effectively, with less toxicity." New research also suggests that side effects may be determined by genetic factors. "If this proves to be true," says Arthritis Foundation president Klippel, "then in the future people might have genetic testing to select a biologic that would have the least likelihood—ideally, zero—of having a side effect."
Other research is focused on designing biologics that will deliver proteins and enzymes involved in DNA repair inside cells, where disease begins. "Currently, nearly all biologics target protein receptors that lie on the outside of cells, but the source of disease is inside," says University of Washington bioengineering professor Patrick Stayton, Ph.D. "If we can achieve better delivery of biologic drugs to intracellular targets, I think there's little doubt they'll have a big impact on the pharmaceutical world."
"In the long run," says oncologist Mark Kozloff, "we're going to have patients who do better for longer with fewer side effects, and to me that's very exciting."
Mary A. Fischer is a journalist based in Los Angeles.
For more information on biologic drugs visit aarp.org/biologics
Comment
The biologics work to stop almost all new growth of a tumor but do not reduce the size of the tumor. As I understand it the biologics stop 95%+ of new growth by restricting new blood supplies. If they could reduce the size of the tumors with surgery and then give the biologics it would seem to be the best outcome possible. especially for brain tumors because at a certain size they impinge on nearby nreves and cells that the brain needs to function. Althogh if the surgical reduction isnt possible, or risky, giving the biologics would at least stop most of the new growth.
The other question is the cost. My Mom went thru 4 courses of chemo, 8 or 10 episodes each, and each episode in the doctors clinic cost $1800 each. If you are not involved in a research study, who can afford these trteatments? Avastin was available to her in Orlando, but the cost was incredible. My Mom had to decide whether to drain her savings out completely, before Medicare would consider paying for it, or to discontinue the treatments and live out her remaining days as comfortably as she could. "I am too old to be a bag lady", she said. So she stopped the Avastin and let Nature take its course. the other reason she didnt continue the treatments was because she wanted to have some money to pass on to her heirs.
Older Americans Have Some Immunity to Swine Flu, but It’s Not Absolute
When they do contract a severe case of flu, they face greater risk
By: Katharine Greider | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | November 11, 2009
RELATED
Recalculating the Tally in Swine Flu Deaths
Myth Buster: Does Antibacterial Soap Prevent More Illness Than Regular Soap?
Health Discovery: Many Americans Over 40 Have a Disorder That Increases Risk of Falls
Seniors May Have Some Immunity to Swine Flu
Gov't: Single Swine Flu Shot Enough for Older Kids
One of the most surprising characteristics of the pandemic H1N1 flu virus galloping across the country this fall is the way it tends to spare older people, striking hardest among the young. More than half of U.S. patients hospitalized with the so-called swine flu have been under the age of 25. Small studies have found that people over age 60 have some antibodies to the bug.
But, whatever immunity to H1N1 older people may enjoy, it’s definitely not foolproof. A recent report on H1N1 cases in California injects a note of caution about the risk profile of people age 50-plus. While they were less likely to get a severe case of H1N1 flu, those who did were more likely than younger people to lose that battle and die.
Published Nov. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study examined the first 1,088 H1N1 cases in California that required hospitalization or resulted in death, the bulk of them occurring between last spring and early summer. The median age of these sick patients was only 27, with about a third under 18. While those 50 and older were underrepresented in the group, their fatality rate was 18 to 20 percent, compared with only 11 percent overall.
To a large extent, this finding reflects not age alone, but also the fact that older people tend to have more health issues that make it difficult to fight off an infectious attack on the respiratory system. In fact, 88 percent of study cases among people 50 and older also involved some preexisting health condition. These included traditional risk factors for complications such as flu-like asthma, heart disease and diabetes, plus additional risk factors recorded in the study, including high blood pressure and high cholesterol, according to Janice K. Louie, M.D., the study’s lead author and chief of the Influenza and Respiratory Syndromes Section of the California Department of Public Health.
Still, the advice of federal health officials to focus initial H1N1 vaccination efforts on younger people makes sense, says Louie, not only because they’re more at risk, but also “because they are often the spreaders.” Older people frequently contract this virus from young children who don’t have as much immunity and, she says, “who have high levels of the virus when they get sick.”
Other important information emerging from this study of severe cases in the first 16 weeks of the H1N1 pandemic:
• The most common symptoms were fever, coughing and shortness of breath.
• The time of symptom onset to hospitalization was, on average, two days.
• Rapid on-site flu tests produced false negatives in a third of cases.
• One-fifth of the patients never received the antiviral medicine that can alleviate symptoms and even save lives.
The takeaway message, says Louie, is that the new flu isn’t always as mild as it’s often made out to be. People who develop the above symptoms should seek medical attention promptly, and doctors shouldn’t wait for test results to treat hospitalized patients with antivirals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Greider lives in New York and writes about health and medicine.
Comment
Those of us 60 and older have apparently been exposed to a similar virus from the 1970s, so we have some immunity.
By: Katharine Greider | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | November 11, 2009
RELATED
Recalculating the Tally in Swine Flu Deaths
Myth Buster: Does Antibacterial Soap Prevent More Illness Than Regular Soap?
Health Discovery: Many Americans Over 40 Have a Disorder That Increases Risk of Falls
Seniors May Have Some Immunity to Swine Flu
Gov't: Single Swine Flu Shot Enough for Older Kids
One of the most surprising characteristics of the pandemic H1N1 flu virus galloping across the country this fall is the way it tends to spare older people, striking hardest among the young. More than half of U.S. patients hospitalized with the so-called swine flu have been under the age of 25. Small studies have found that people over age 60 have some antibodies to the bug.
But, whatever immunity to H1N1 older people may enjoy, it’s definitely not foolproof. A recent report on H1N1 cases in California injects a note of caution about the risk profile of people age 50-plus. While they were less likely to get a severe case of H1N1 flu, those who did were more likely than younger people to lose that battle and die.
Published Nov. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study examined the first 1,088 H1N1 cases in California that required hospitalization or resulted in death, the bulk of them occurring between last spring and early summer. The median age of these sick patients was only 27, with about a third under 18. While those 50 and older were underrepresented in the group, their fatality rate was 18 to 20 percent, compared with only 11 percent overall.
To a large extent, this finding reflects not age alone, but also the fact that older people tend to have more health issues that make it difficult to fight off an infectious attack on the respiratory system. In fact, 88 percent of study cases among people 50 and older also involved some preexisting health condition. These included traditional risk factors for complications such as flu-like asthma, heart disease and diabetes, plus additional risk factors recorded in the study, including high blood pressure and high cholesterol, according to Janice K. Louie, M.D., the study’s lead author and chief of the Influenza and Respiratory Syndromes Section of the California Department of Public Health.
Still, the advice of federal health officials to focus initial H1N1 vaccination efforts on younger people makes sense, says Louie, not only because they’re more at risk, but also “because they are often the spreaders.” Older people frequently contract this virus from young children who don’t have as much immunity and, she says, “who have high levels of the virus when they get sick.”
Other important information emerging from this study of severe cases in the first 16 weeks of the H1N1 pandemic:
• The most common symptoms were fever, coughing and shortness of breath.
• The time of symptom onset to hospitalization was, on average, two days.
• Rapid on-site flu tests produced false negatives in a third of cases.
• One-fifth of the patients never received the antiviral medicine that can alleviate symptoms and even save lives.
The takeaway message, says Louie, is that the new flu isn’t always as mild as it’s often made out to be. People who develop the above symptoms should seek medical attention promptly, and doctors shouldn’t wait for test results to treat hospitalized patients with antivirals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Greider lives in New York and writes about health and medicine.
Comment
Those of us 60 and older have apparently been exposed to a similar virus from the 1970s, so we have some immunity.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Nutrition: Chocolate Milk May Reduce Inflammation
Vital Signs
Nutrition: Chocolate Milk May Reduce Inflammation
RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: November 9, 2009
Move over, red wine. Make room for chocolate milk. A new study suggests that regular consumption of skim milk with flavonoid-rich cocoa may reduce inflammation, potentially slowing or preventing development of atherosclerosis. Researchers noted, however, that the effect was not as pronounced as that seen with red wine.
Effect of cocoa powder on the modulation of inflammatory biomarkers in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) Scientists in Barcelona, Spain, recruited 47 volunteers ages 55 and older who were at risk for heart disease. Half were given 20-gram sachets of soluble cocoa powder to drink with skim milk twice a day, while the rest drank plain skim milk. After one month, the groups were switched.
Blood tests found that after participants drank chocolate milk twice a day for four weeks, they had significantly lower levels of several inflammatory biomarkers, though some markers of cellular inflammation remained unchanged.
Participants also had significantly higher levels of good HDL cholesterol after completing the chocolate milk regimen, according to the study, which appears in the November issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and is already online.
“Since atherosclerosis is a low-grade inflammatory disease of the arteries, regular cocoa intake seems to prevent or reduce” it, said Dr. Ramón Estruch of the University of Barcelona, the paper’s senior author, adding that more studies were needed.
Comment
I drink an average of probably 4 quarts of lowfat chocolate milk every week, sometimes one a day during the Summer. It also satiates my hunger for several hours.
Nutrition: Chocolate Milk May Reduce Inflammation
RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: November 9, 2009
Move over, red wine. Make room for chocolate milk. A new study suggests that regular consumption of skim milk with flavonoid-rich cocoa may reduce inflammation, potentially slowing or preventing development of atherosclerosis. Researchers noted, however, that the effect was not as pronounced as that seen with red wine.
Effect of cocoa powder on the modulation of inflammatory biomarkers in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) Scientists in Barcelona, Spain, recruited 47 volunteers ages 55 and older who were at risk for heart disease. Half were given 20-gram sachets of soluble cocoa powder to drink with skim milk twice a day, while the rest drank plain skim milk. After one month, the groups were switched.
Blood tests found that after participants drank chocolate milk twice a day for four weeks, they had significantly lower levels of several inflammatory biomarkers, though some markers of cellular inflammation remained unchanged.
Participants also had significantly higher levels of good HDL cholesterol after completing the chocolate milk regimen, according to the study, which appears in the November issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and is already online.
“Since atherosclerosis is a low-grade inflammatory disease of the arteries, regular cocoa intake seems to prevent or reduce” it, said Dr. Ramón Estruch of the University of Barcelona, the paper’s senior author, adding that more studies were needed.
Comment
I drink an average of probably 4 quarts of lowfat chocolate milk every week, sometimes one a day during the Summer. It also satiates my hunger for several hours.
Navigating the Jobs Crisis: Time for a New 'New Deal' Jobs Program
Posted: November 12, 2009 11:55 AM
Navigating the Jobs Crisis: Time for a New 'New Deal' Jobs Program
Read More: Job Guarantee, Jobs, New Deal, Unemployment, Unemployment Rate, Business News
BY L Randall Wray - Huffington Post
The latest jobs report shows that the official unemployment took a huge jump to 10.2%-- 15.7 million jobless workers. If we add to those numbers involuntary part-time workers, plus those who have given up looking for work, the unemployment rate is 17.5%. Even that seriously undercounts those who would be willing to work if decent jobs at decent pay were readily available -- a number I put at 25 to 30 million. While there has been some debate about the number of jobs created or saved by the fiscal stimulus package, it is clear that Washington's effort has fallen far short, and all plausible projections show more job losses to come.
What perplexes me is that we have been here before, and we know how to solve the unemployment problem: create jobs through a new, New Deal-style jobs program.
I am advocating using those same principles, but creating something both broader and permanent: a universal job guarantee available through the thick and thin of the business cycle. The federal government would ensure a job offer to anyone ready and willing to work, at the established program compensation level (including wages and a healthy benefits package). To keep it simple, the program wage could be set at the current federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour), and then adjusted periodically as that is raised. The usual benefits would be provided, including vacation and sick leave, and contributions to Social Security. Let's call this the Job Guarantee (JG) program.
The original New Deal programs included large-scale infrastructure projects with direction coming from Washington. A permanent and universal JG program should be decentralized, with projects created and administered locally -- where the workers are, and for the benefit of their communities. The federal government would provide the wages, plus a portion of capital and supervisory expenses (perhaps capped at 25% of total wages paid for each JG project). Local governments and nonprofits would propose projects and cover the rest of the expenses. State unemployment offices would be converted to employment offices, helping to match workers and projects.
Project proposals would be submitted to regional councils and, if approved, would be evaluated by state councils and then by a federal council. Wages and benefits would be paid directly to workers (using Social Security numbers and direct bank deposits) to minimize fraud. Organizations submitting proposals would be prevented from replacing paid workers with JG workers. For-profit business would be excluded, because the temptation to substitute would be too great. At the same time, businesses would be protected from unfair competition because all JG projects would have to demonstrate they'd fulfill unmet public purposes. If at some future date, a for-profit firm decided to provide services that a JG project is performing, the JG project could be phased out. There is neither need nor desire for the JG program to compete with the private for-profit sector.
This brings us to the fundamental principle of the JG program: it is a complement that provides jobs to those who would otherwise be jobless and it provides public services and infrastructure that otherwise would not be supplied. It is important that JG jobs do useful work -- so that workers can feel proud of their contributions and to maintain the community's support. At the same time, JG workers will be gaining useful work experience and training, making them more appealing to other employers. When firms hire, they will recruit from the JG program, offering a slightly higher wage.
There will be two main categories of JG projects -- those that are permanent and those that are "off the shelf," undertaken in recession as the number of JG workers grows. The first will probably consist mostly of public services (care of the aged, playground supervision) while the second could include public infrastructure construction and repair. There is no sharp dividing line, but the point is that between boom and bust the number of employees in the JG programs will probably fluctuate by some 5 million (perhaps 20% of the total). It is important, however, that this fluctuation is not permitted to disrupt provision of services to which the community has become accustomed.
At the same time, the program's fluctuation allows it to act as an employed "buffer stock" -- or "reserve army of the employed" -- helping to attenuate the business cycle while maintaining full employment without setting off a wage-price spiral. An economic boom will shrink the size of the JG program; in a recession the program will grow.
Thus, an effort like the Job Guarantee program I am proposing would act as an automatic stabilizer -- a feature most would agree is desperately needed in our current rollercoaster economy.
Comment
This would entail the creation of an entire new level of bureaucracy. It would probably help the new high school and college grads to get some work experience. In addition, it would probably get some people off of unemployment and save some money there. It is not a lot of money to be paid but it is certainly better than NOTHING. of course by letting local governments determine what project do, and dont, get done, opens the process up to local politics, influences, and sweetheart deals. If the feds would supervise this program so that the scammers and frauds are weeded out and prosecuted, it may be worth a look. When the economy picks up and private firms are hiring again, at better wages most likely, the pool of federal infrastructure workers decreases. There would probably be a battle with the unions however.
Navigating the Jobs Crisis: Time for a New 'New Deal' Jobs Program
Read More: Job Guarantee, Jobs, New Deal, Unemployment, Unemployment Rate, Business News
BY L Randall Wray - Huffington Post
The latest jobs report shows that the official unemployment took a huge jump to 10.2%-- 15.7 million jobless workers. If we add to those numbers involuntary part-time workers, plus those who have given up looking for work, the unemployment rate is 17.5%. Even that seriously undercounts those who would be willing to work if decent jobs at decent pay were readily available -- a number I put at 25 to 30 million. While there has been some debate about the number of jobs created or saved by the fiscal stimulus package, it is clear that Washington's effort has fallen far short, and all plausible projections show more job losses to come.
What perplexes me is that we have been here before, and we know how to solve the unemployment problem: create jobs through a new, New Deal-style jobs program.
I am advocating using those same principles, but creating something both broader and permanent: a universal job guarantee available through the thick and thin of the business cycle. The federal government would ensure a job offer to anyone ready and willing to work, at the established program compensation level (including wages and a healthy benefits package). To keep it simple, the program wage could be set at the current federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour), and then adjusted periodically as that is raised. The usual benefits would be provided, including vacation and sick leave, and contributions to Social Security. Let's call this the Job Guarantee (JG) program.
The original New Deal programs included large-scale infrastructure projects with direction coming from Washington. A permanent and universal JG program should be decentralized, with projects created and administered locally -- where the workers are, and for the benefit of their communities. The federal government would provide the wages, plus a portion of capital and supervisory expenses (perhaps capped at 25% of total wages paid for each JG project). Local governments and nonprofits would propose projects and cover the rest of the expenses. State unemployment offices would be converted to employment offices, helping to match workers and projects.
Project proposals would be submitted to regional councils and, if approved, would be evaluated by state councils and then by a federal council. Wages and benefits would be paid directly to workers (using Social Security numbers and direct bank deposits) to minimize fraud. Organizations submitting proposals would be prevented from replacing paid workers with JG workers. For-profit business would be excluded, because the temptation to substitute would be too great. At the same time, businesses would be protected from unfair competition because all JG projects would have to demonstrate they'd fulfill unmet public purposes. If at some future date, a for-profit firm decided to provide services that a JG project is performing, the JG project could be phased out. There is neither need nor desire for the JG program to compete with the private for-profit sector.
This brings us to the fundamental principle of the JG program: it is a complement that provides jobs to those who would otherwise be jobless and it provides public services and infrastructure that otherwise would not be supplied. It is important that JG jobs do useful work -- so that workers can feel proud of their contributions and to maintain the community's support. At the same time, JG workers will be gaining useful work experience and training, making them more appealing to other employers. When firms hire, they will recruit from the JG program, offering a slightly higher wage.
There will be two main categories of JG projects -- those that are permanent and those that are "off the shelf," undertaken in recession as the number of JG workers grows. The first will probably consist mostly of public services (care of the aged, playground supervision) while the second could include public infrastructure construction and repair. There is no sharp dividing line, but the point is that between boom and bust the number of employees in the JG programs will probably fluctuate by some 5 million (perhaps 20% of the total). It is important, however, that this fluctuation is not permitted to disrupt provision of services to which the community has become accustomed.
At the same time, the program's fluctuation allows it to act as an employed "buffer stock" -- or "reserve army of the employed" -- helping to attenuate the business cycle while maintaining full employment without setting off a wage-price spiral. An economic boom will shrink the size of the JG program; in a recession the program will grow.
Thus, an effort like the Job Guarantee program I am proposing would act as an automatic stabilizer -- a feature most would agree is desperately needed in our current rollercoaster economy.
Comment
This would entail the creation of an entire new level of bureaucracy. It would probably help the new high school and college grads to get some work experience. In addition, it would probably get some people off of unemployment and save some money there. It is not a lot of money to be paid but it is certainly better than NOTHING. of course by letting local governments determine what project do, and dont, get done, opens the process up to local politics, influences, and sweetheart deals. If the feds would supervise this program so that the scammers and frauds are weeded out and prosecuted, it may be worth a look. When the economy picks up and private firms are hiring again, at better wages most likely, the pool of federal infrastructure workers decreases. There would probably be a battle with the unions however.
Virtually legal - Drugs
Drugs
Virtually legal
Nov 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
In many countries, full jails, stretched budgets and a general weariness with the war on drugs have made prohibition harder to enforce
THE Green Relief “natural health clinic” in a bohemian part of San Francisco doesn’t sound like an ordinary doctor’s surgery. For those who wonder about the sort of relief provided, its logo—a cannabis leaf—is a clue. Inside, in under an hour and for $99, patients can get a doctor’s letter allowing them to smoke marijuana in California with no fear of prosecution. In a state that pioneered bans on smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis is now easier than almost anywhere in the world.
California, with its network of pot-friendly physicians, offers the most visible evidence of a tentative worldwide shift towards a more liberal policy on drugs. Although most countries remain bound by a trio of United Nations conventions that prohibit the sale and possession of narcotics, laws are increasingly being bent or ignored. That is true even in the United States, where the Obama administration has announced that registered cannabis dispensaries will no longer be raided by federal authorities.
From heroin “shooting galleries” in Vancouver to Mexico’s decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalised drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the “war on drugs” becoming a fiction?
Reformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors’ prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.
That world is still some way off. But a debate about regulation is increasingly drowning out the one about enforcement. Take America, where 13 states let people smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Most set somewhat stricter terms than California—where insomnia, migraines and post-traumatic stress can all be reasons for a spliff, if you see the right doctor. “There’s never been a person born who couldn’t qualify,” says Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a lobby group that has been around since 1970. “In California, the system of medical use they have adopted is in fact a version of legalisation.”
Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.
One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California’s jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.
In Europe, the authorities face similar pressures: the difficulty of enforcement, and bursting courts and prisons. So the tough sentences recommended in the laws of many European countries are seldom handed out. London’s police chief said last week that law-breakers of all kinds were escaping with cautions or on-the-spot fines, because of pressure on the courts.
Though many European countries still have prison as an option for convicted drug users, in reality only a fraction end up in jail, according to new research from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, an EU-sponsored research outfit (see chart). What is more, the sentences are shorter in reality than politicians like to pretend. In Denmark the top sentence for a standard drug offence was recently raised from six to ten years, but the average time actually served is 20 months. More startling is Britain, where possession of cannabis can, in theory, result in a five-year prison term. In fact just 0.2% of people found in possession of pot go to jail; most of the rest get off with a warning. The few who go behind bars—usually serial offenders, or suspected dealers—do an average of three months.
Europe’s lenient lands
Elsewhere in Europe, the law itself is softer. Personal possession of any drug—even the hardest—is not a crime in Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states. Some German states and Swiss cantons take the same line. Portugal is especially liberal: rather than fining users or punishing them in other ways (such as removing their driving licences), it usually just impounds their stash and sends them on a course of treatment and dissuasion. Since it began in 2001, the policy has led to a rise in the number of people seeking treatment but no apparent increase in use.
Experiments like these seem to have been noted in the White House. Barack Obama’s drug tsar, Gil Kerlikowske, has been at pains to distance himself from talk of legalisation of cannabis, or any other drug. (Legalising pot is a “non-starter”, he said on October 23rd.) But it is clear that the election of Mr Obama, who in the past has called the war on drugs an “utter failure”, has affected policy both in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas.
Under the Bush administration, cannabis dispensaries were shut down, regardless of the laws of the state in which they operated. The new political climate in Washington, DC, has made it easier for Canada to take a more liberal line on cannabis. In British Columbia, harder drugs are treated in innovative ways too: heroin addicts can get their doses on prescription, and take them in supervised conditions.
Farther south, the results of Mr Obama’s election seem dramatic. In August, Mexico decriminalised the possession of small amounts of any drug—from cannabis to crack—in a bid to free its federal agents to focus on bringing traffickers to justice. It had tried to do so in 2006, but howls of protest from the Bush administration halted the move at the eleventh hour. In August, Argentina’s supreme court said it was unconstitutional to prosecute people for drug possession. The following month, Colombia’s supreme court issued a similar ruling. Now, Brazil and Ecuador are said to be mulling decriminalisation.
It remains to be seen whether these moves will help stem the bloodshed that has engulfed the region. In Ciudad Juárez, a Mexican border town ravaged by trafficking wars, some 2,000 people have been murdered this year, making it one of the riskiest places on earth.
Decriminalising personal possession, though helpful in other ways, won’t do much to tackle organised crime, which retains its grip on the market. But America’s tentative moves in the direction of legalising the supply of drugs, rather than just going easy on users, could start to change things. Sanho Tree, of the Institute for Policy Studies, an American think-tank, notes that Mexico’s cartels are thought to get about 70% of their income from sending marijuana north. The higher the legal production, the harder that will be.
If California’s hippies long for legalisation, the bullet-weary citizens of Mexico’s poorest barrios are even keener.
* “After The War On Drugs: Blueprint For Regulation”, from Transform Drugs Policy Foundation
Comment
While I have no major problem with medical marijuana, I DO object to dealers and those moving large quantities of hard drugs. I am a child of the Sixties, when pot was very commonplace and there was few problems associated with its use. Methadone clinics exist today and are one means to handle the addictions problem at a lot less financial, legal, and personal pain. The main problem with pot usage has been a loss of productivity and motivation in those individuals. Those individuals who are stoned all the time cant function in our society well. There have also been some people who have used a toke here and there during the day to control their anxieties in their high-stress jobs, much like one might take a xanax or valium. In those cases it enables them to function and be more productive, so its not as cut and dried as it may seem. Smoking pot has clear advantages to drinking in that the mellow one gets from pot tends to permit nonviolent behavior to prevail, rather than the violent behavior that frequently occurs with drinking.
Virtually legal
Nov 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
In many countries, full jails, stretched budgets and a general weariness with the war on drugs have made prohibition harder to enforce
THE Green Relief “natural health clinic” in a bohemian part of San Francisco doesn’t sound like an ordinary doctor’s surgery. For those who wonder about the sort of relief provided, its logo—a cannabis leaf—is a clue. Inside, in under an hour and for $99, patients can get a doctor’s letter allowing them to smoke marijuana in California with no fear of prosecution. In a state that pioneered bans on smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis is now easier than almost anywhere in the world.
California, with its network of pot-friendly physicians, offers the most visible evidence of a tentative worldwide shift towards a more liberal policy on drugs. Although most countries remain bound by a trio of United Nations conventions that prohibit the sale and possession of narcotics, laws are increasingly being bent or ignored. That is true even in the United States, where the Obama administration has announced that registered cannabis dispensaries will no longer be raided by federal authorities.
From heroin “shooting galleries” in Vancouver to Mexico’s decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs, the Americas are suddenly looking more permissive. Meanwhile in Europe, where drugs policy is generally less stringent, seven countries have decriminalised drug possession, and the rest are increasingly ignoring their supposedly harsh regimes. Is the “war on drugs” becoming a fiction?
Reformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors’ prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.
That world is still some way off. But a debate about regulation is increasingly drowning out the one about enforcement. Take America, where 13 states let people smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Most set somewhat stricter terms than California—where insomnia, migraines and post-traumatic stress can all be reasons for a spliff, if you see the right doctor. “There’s never been a person born who couldn’t qualify,” says Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a lobby group that has been around since 1970. “In California, the system of medical use they have adopted is in fact a version of legalisation.”
Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.
One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California’s jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.
In Europe, the authorities face similar pressures: the difficulty of enforcement, and bursting courts and prisons. So the tough sentences recommended in the laws of many European countries are seldom handed out. London’s police chief said last week that law-breakers of all kinds were escaping with cautions or on-the-spot fines, because of pressure on the courts.
Though many European countries still have prison as an option for convicted drug users, in reality only a fraction end up in jail, according to new research from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, an EU-sponsored research outfit (see chart). What is more, the sentences are shorter in reality than politicians like to pretend. In Denmark the top sentence for a standard drug offence was recently raised from six to ten years, but the average time actually served is 20 months. More startling is Britain, where possession of cannabis can, in theory, result in a five-year prison term. In fact just 0.2% of people found in possession of pot go to jail; most of the rest get off with a warning. The few who go behind bars—usually serial offenders, or suspected dealers—do an average of three months.
Europe’s lenient lands
Elsewhere in Europe, the law itself is softer. Personal possession of any drug—even the hardest—is not a crime in Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states. Some German states and Swiss cantons take the same line. Portugal is especially liberal: rather than fining users or punishing them in other ways (such as removing their driving licences), it usually just impounds their stash and sends them on a course of treatment and dissuasion. Since it began in 2001, the policy has led to a rise in the number of people seeking treatment but no apparent increase in use.
Experiments like these seem to have been noted in the White House. Barack Obama’s drug tsar, Gil Kerlikowske, has been at pains to distance himself from talk of legalisation of cannabis, or any other drug. (Legalising pot is a “non-starter”, he said on October 23rd.) But it is clear that the election of Mr Obama, who in the past has called the war on drugs an “utter failure”, has affected policy both in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas.
Under the Bush administration, cannabis dispensaries were shut down, regardless of the laws of the state in which they operated. The new political climate in Washington, DC, has made it easier for Canada to take a more liberal line on cannabis. In British Columbia, harder drugs are treated in innovative ways too: heroin addicts can get their doses on prescription, and take them in supervised conditions.
Farther south, the results of Mr Obama’s election seem dramatic. In August, Mexico decriminalised the possession of small amounts of any drug—from cannabis to crack—in a bid to free its federal agents to focus on bringing traffickers to justice. It had tried to do so in 2006, but howls of protest from the Bush administration halted the move at the eleventh hour. In August, Argentina’s supreme court said it was unconstitutional to prosecute people for drug possession. The following month, Colombia’s supreme court issued a similar ruling. Now, Brazil and Ecuador are said to be mulling decriminalisation.
It remains to be seen whether these moves will help stem the bloodshed that has engulfed the region. In Ciudad Juárez, a Mexican border town ravaged by trafficking wars, some 2,000 people have been murdered this year, making it one of the riskiest places on earth.
Decriminalising personal possession, though helpful in other ways, won’t do much to tackle organised crime, which retains its grip on the market. But America’s tentative moves in the direction of legalising the supply of drugs, rather than just going easy on users, could start to change things. Sanho Tree, of the Institute for Policy Studies, an American think-tank, notes that Mexico’s cartels are thought to get about 70% of their income from sending marijuana north. The higher the legal production, the harder that will be.
If California’s hippies long for legalisation, the bullet-weary citizens of Mexico’s poorest barrios are even keener.
* “After The War On Drugs: Blueprint For Regulation”, from Transform Drugs Policy Foundation
Comment
While I have no major problem with medical marijuana, I DO object to dealers and those moving large quantities of hard drugs. I am a child of the Sixties, when pot was very commonplace and there was few problems associated with its use. Methadone clinics exist today and are one means to handle the addictions problem at a lot less financial, legal, and personal pain. The main problem with pot usage has been a loss of productivity and motivation in those individuals. Those individuals who are stoned all the time cant function in our society well. There have also been some people who have used a toke here and there during the day to control their anxieties in their high-stress jobs, much like one might take a xanax or valium. In those cases it enables them to function and be more productive, so its not as cut and dried as it may seem. Smoking pot has clear advantages to drinking in that the mellow one gets from pot tends to permit nonviolent behavior to prevail, rather than the violent behavior that frequently occurs with drinking.
Melanie Bloom targets DVT, a silent killer
Widow of NBC correspondent raises awareness of medical condition
Dorothy Shi
Melanie Bloom is spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent DVT.
Latest news on charities
Widow leaves millions for opera, birds
Mona Webster divides bulk of estate between the Met, U.K. nature charity
Kenyan girls given a chance to dream
A school, partly funded by UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie, gives girls from the Kakuma refugee camp a chance at a better life.
Pepsi pays to 'refresh' communities
Soft drink maker pledges at least $20 million to fund consumer projects
Madonna promises light for Malawian village
‘I know you work in darkness, I will bring you electricity,’ says singer
Nonprofits get help from rookie lawyers
In recession, law firms pay new hires to work for public good
By Giacinta Pace
NBC News
updated 1:11 p.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 6, 2009
Cause Celeb highlights a celebrity’s work on behalf of a specific cause. This week, we speak with Melanie Bloom, spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent Deep-Vein Thrombosis.
DVT is a potentially fatal condition in which a blood clot forms in a vein that is deep inside the body. Bloom has worked to raise public awareness and further health education about DVT since losing her husband, NBC News correspondent David Bloom, seven years ago. David Bloom died suddenly from DVT-related complications while covering the war in Iraq.
The coalition has created a video, 2009 Coalition to Prevent DVT PSA, to educate people about DVT.
Melanie Bloom is among the featured participants Wednesday, Oct. 7, at New York Presbyterian Hospital's Women's Health Symposium on DVT. The hospital recently launched an initiative aimed at reducing the incidence of DVT.
Question: Can you tell me about deep-vein thrombosis?
Bloom: Deep-vein thrombosis is essentially a blood clot that usually forms in the legs, and it can become, and usually is, fatal, when that clot breaks free, travels to the lungs, blocks the flow of oxygen into the lungs and becomes what is called a pulmonary embolism, or a PE. And are they usually fatal? The statistics are staggering. Up to 2 million Americans each year develop DVT or the blood clot; out of that, 600,000 go on to hit the lungs or become a PE. When that happens 50 percent of the time it’s fatal. Three-hundred-thousand deaths each year are attributed to this. My husband was one of those.
Q: Could you tell me about your involvement with this cause?
Bloom: Back in 2003, my husband, David Bloom, was an NBC News Correspondent. He was embedded with the troops in Iraq. He was with the 3rd Infantry Division, covering the war live, as it happened. The bitter irony is that he did lose his life covering this war but it wasn’t a bomb or a bullet, but actually something inside of his own body, it was this blood clot. I’ve oftentimes referred to that clot in his body as the bomb that lied within his own body. So, unbeknownst to us, the clot developed.
One morning they were going to roll and take Baghdad. His photographer looked over and David had collapsed on the desert floor. They tried to revive him, to no avail, and it was because the clot, that we didn’t even know was there, had traveled up to the lungs, and hit the lungs and took his life. He was only 39 years old. We had three little girls at home at the time. It was devastating on so many levels. But to find out it was something that could be prevented, and something that effects so many people, was news to me. I had never heard of it before I got the call that he died from it.
Q: Can you tell me a little bit about your involvement with the Women’s Health Symposium at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, and why the Educational Resource Center at the Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center has been chosen to benefit from the event?
Bloom: Their Educational Resource Center is benefiting from this symposium because they do kind of what I’ve been doing for these past six years, which is trying to raise awareness — not just about DVT but about a variety of diseases and provide information that’s really vital to all of our well-being. It’s just a great place to get up-to-date information and cutting-edge resources. It helps people make educated decisions about their own health care. That’s sort of my mantra, too: for people to be proactive in their own health care because knowledge is power. The Educational Resource Center has that same philosophy.
The Women’s Health Symposium is a wonderful lecture series. And I’m just completely honored that they asked me to speak about my personal experience with DVT to try to have my story resonate with people, so that people understand that it can impact anyone at anytime in their lives. Since 2000, over $300,000 has been raised by this Women’s Health Symposium for the Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center. So it’s a very worthy endeavor. I’m just thrilled to be a part of it.
Q: Have you had a particularly moving experience, while working with this cause?
Bloom: There’s been so many moving experiences that it’s hard to pick one, but I’ll tell you one very recently. I was in Sacramento doing an awareness event at a hospital. The day that I arrived, the doctor with whom I was giving the presentation told me that that very week he had two DOAs, dead on arrivals. One was a 13-year-old girl, who had broken her ankle, had leg pain, but of course, she had a broken ankle, so no one thought anything about it. But then, by the time she reached the shortness of breath stage, they rushed her into the hospital, but she didn’t make it, even to arrive in the emergency room. That same week, a 31-year-old woman pulled over to the side of the road with shortness of breath. By the time the ambulance got her from the road and drove her into the hospital, she was gone. And I had this horrible sense of getting there too late.
I know that sounds crazy, but when I do these events, I do go on the local media, and I speak at the hospitals, and I try to get my message out there so that people will pay attention to their bodies and to the warning signs and symptoms. The flip side of this story is that then that day we did our presentation and I went on the local news. Two of the people who came to the hospital for a risk assessment ended up being admitted into the hospital with a clot that had hit the lungs, and they lived. For me, it was just a microcosm of the work I’m doing.
There’s still more people to reach, and to reach them in time. Also the joy of knowing the people, by the way, who came into the hospital and said, “Oh, we saw you on the news this morning!” One woman drove for two hours to get to the hospital, she had been having symptoms. It wasn’t until the news program, with my story about David, that it prompted her to come. It’s meeting people like that really moves me and inspires me to keep on doing this work.
Q: What are the important facts people should know about this condition?
Bloom: When we do our events we encourage people to find out their level of risk for DVT. That’s so important because preventing the clot is the best way to not be one of the statistics of this condition. I’ll just give you a few of the more common risk factors: hospital stays put you at greater risk; people with cancer; or people undergoing orthopedic surgery of any kind: hip replacement, or I mentioned the girl with the broken ankle; obesity; smoking; age — the older you get, the greater your risk; women, actually, are at significantly higher risk when they’re taking the birth control pill, or when they’re pregnant, or if they’re on hormone replacement therapy. Another important thing to note is it takes a combination of risk factors, having three or more should be enough for you to go speak to your doctor about your level of risk.
I forgot to mention immobility. Sitting for long periods of time, whether it’s in a car, or in an airplane, at your computer. My husband, for example, was in a tank with his knees pulled up to his chin night after night. Anything that restricts the flow of circulation through your legs. The combination of those risk factors is when it becomes very urgent to know if you fall into that risk area.
Another important thing to know is how to prevent it. Simple ways are moving around on that airplane, or getting up from your desk or the computer, drinking lots of water, staying hydrated. There are more aggressive forms of prevention like compression stockings; the doctor can fit people for those stockings if your risk is high. Then there are even more medications and things that can be given for people at very high risk.
Another important fact I will say is to maybe go to our Web site, preventdvt.org, that would be great for people to do because the risk assessment tool is right there. There’s a wealth of resources also on the Web site for people to take a look at and learn more.
Q: What can people do to help?
Bloom: We’d love for people to come to the symposium and listen to the speakers and the other physicians who are speaking. Visit our Web site. Be proactive in your own health care. That’s, again, my message to people because I really don’t want anybody to learn about DVT the hard way, the way that I learned and my three little girls learned about it. DVT can be prevented if you just know what it is and know whether you’re at risk.
Comment
DVT is common with those who have peripheral vascular disease. Hydration is very important because if someone becomes dehydrated their blood cells have an increased tendency to clot. When a clot in the legs breaks off it can go anywhere in the body, but is most lethal when it goes to the lungs or the heart. I take an aspirin every night to thin my blood out.
Dorothy Shi
Melanie Bloom is spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent DVT.
Latest news on charities
Widow leaves millions for opera, birds
Mona Webster divides bulk of estate between the Met, U.K. nature charity
Kenyan girls given a chance to dream
A school, partly funded by UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie, gives girls from the Kakuma refugee camp a chance at a better life.
Pepsi pays to 'refresh' communities
Soft drink maker pledges at least $20 million to fund consumer projects
Madonna promises light for Malawian village
‘I know you work in darkness, I will bring you electricity,’ says singer
Nonprofits get help from rookie lawyers
In recession, law firms pay new hires to work for public good
By Giacinta Pace
NBC News
updated 1:11 p.m. ET, Tues., Oct . 6, 2009
Cause Celeb highlights a celebrity’s work on behalf of a specific cause. This week, we speak with Melanie Bloom, spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent Deep-Vein Thrombosis.
DVT is a potentially fatal condition in which a blood clot forms in a vein that is deep inside the body. Bloom has worked to raise public awareness and further health education about DVT since losing her husband, NBC News correspondent David Bloom, seven years ago. David Bloom died suddenly from DVT-related complications while covering the war in Iraq.
The coalition has created a video, 2009 Coalition to Prevent DVT PSA, to educate people about DVT.
Melanie Bloom is among the featured participants Wednesday, Oct. 7, at New York Presbyterian Hospital's Women's Health Symposium on DVT. The hospital recently launched an initiative aimed at reducing the incidence of DVT.
Question: Can you tell me about deep-vein thrombosis?
Bloom: Deep-vein thrombosis is essentially a blood clot that usually forms in the legs, and it can become, and usually is, fatal, when that clot breaks free, travels to the lungs, blocks the flow of oxygen into the lungs and becomes what is called a pulmonary embolism, or a PE. And are they usually fatal? The statistics are staggering. Up to 2 million Americans each year develop DVT or the blood clot; out of that, 600,000 go on to hit the lungs or become a PE. When that happens 50 percent of the time it’s fatal. Three-hundred-thousand deaths each year are attributed to this. My husband was one of those.
Q: Could you tell me about your involvement with this cause?
Bloom: Back in 2003, my husband, David Bloom, was an NBC News Correspondent. He was embedded with the troops in Iraq. He was with the 3rd Infantry Division, covering the war live, as it happened. The bitter irony is that he did lose his life covering this war but it wasn’t a bomb or a bullet, but actually something inside of his own body, it was this blood clot. I’ve oftentimes referred to that clot in his body as the bomb that lied within his own body. So, unbeknownst to us, the clot developed.
One morning they were going to roll and take Baghdad. His photographer looked over and David had collapsed on the desert floor. They tried to revive him, to no avail, and it was because the clot, that we didn’t even know was there, had traveled up to the lungs, and hit the lungs and took his life. He was only 39 years old. We had three little girls at home at the time. It was devastating on so many levels. But to find out it was something that could be prevented, and something that effects so many people, was news to me. I had never heard of it before I got the call that he died from it.
Q: Can you tell me a little bit about your involvement with the Women’s Health Symposium at New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, and why the Educational Resource Center at the Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center has been chosen to benefit from the event?
Bloom: Their Educational Resource Center is benefiting from this symposium because they do kind of what I’ve been doing for these past six years, which is trying to raise awareness — not just about DVT but about a variety of diseases and provide information that’s really vital to all of our well-being. It’s just a great place to get up-to-date information and cutting-edge resources. It helps people make educated decisions about their own health care. That’s sort of my mantra, too: for people to be proactive in their own health care because knowledge is power. The Educational Resource Center has that same philosophy.
The Women’s Health Symposium is a wonderful lecture series. And I’m just completely honored that they asked me to speak about my personal experience with DVT to try to have my story resonate with people, so that people understand that it can impact anyone at anytime in their lives. Since 2000, over $300,000 has been raised by this Women’s Health Symposium for the Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center. So it’s a very worthy endeavor. I’m just thrilled to be a part of it.
Q: Have you had a particularly moving experience, while working with this cause?
Bloom: There’s been so many moving experiences that it’s hard to pick one, but I’ll tell you one very recently. I was in Sacramento doing an awareness event at a hospital. The day that I arrived, the doctor with whom I was giving the presentation told me that that very week he had two DOAs, dead on arrivals. One was a 13-year-old girl, who had broken her ankle, had leg pain, but of course, she had a broken ankle, so no one thought anything about it. But then, by the time she reached the shortness of breath stage, they rushed her into the hospital, but she didn’t make it, even to arrive in the emergency room. That same week, a 31-year-old woman pulled over to the side of the road with shortness of breath. By the time the ambulance got her from the road and drove her into the hospital, she was gone. And I had this horrible sense of getting there too late.
I know that sounds crazy, but when I do these events, I do go on the local media, and I speak at the hospitals, and I try to get my message out there so that people will pay attention to their bodies and to the warning signs and symptoms. The flip side of this story is that then that day we did our presentation and I went on the local news. Two of the people who came to the hospital for a risk assessment ended up being admitted into the hospital with a clot that had hit the lungs, and they lived. For me, it was just a microcosm of the work I’m doing.
There’s still more people to reach, and to reach them in time. Also the joy of knowing the people, by the way, who came into the hospital and said, “Oh, we saw you on the news this morning!” One woman drove for two hours to get to the hospital, she had been having symptoms. It wasn’t until the news program, with my story about David, that it prompted her to come. It’s meeting people like that really moves me and inspires me to keep on doing this work.
Q: What are the important facts people should know about this condition?
Bloom: When we do our events we encourage people to find out their level of risk for DVT. That’s so important because preventing the clot is the best way to not be one of the statistics of this condition. I’ll just give you a few of the more common risk factors: hospital stays put you at greater risk; people with cancer; or people undergoing orthopedic surgery of any kind: hip replacement, or I mentioned the girl with the broken ankle; obesity; smoking; age — the older you get, the greater your risk; women, actually, are at significantly higher risk when they’re taking the birth control pill, or when they’re pregnant, or if they’re on hormone replacement therapy. Another important thing to note is it takes a combination of risk factors, having three or more should be enough for you to go speak to your doctor about your level of risk.
I forgot to mention immobility. Sitting for long periods of time, whether it’s in a car, or in an airplane, at your computer. My husband, for example, was in a tank with his knees pulled up to his chin night after night. Anything that restricts the flow of circulation through your legs. The combination of those risk factors is when it becomes very urgent to know if you fall into that risk area.
Another important thing to know is how to prevent it. Simple ways are moving around on that airplane, or getting up from your desk or the computer, drinking lots of water, staying hydrated. There are more aggressive forms of prevention like compression stockings; the doctor can fit people for those stockings if your risk is high. Then there are even more medications and things that can be given for people at very high risk.
Another important fact I will say is to maybe go to our Web site, preventdvt.org, that would be great for people to do because the risk assessment tool is right there. There’s a wealth of resources also on the Web site for people to take a look at and learn more.
Q: What can people do to help?
Bloom: We’d love for people to come to the symposium and listen to the speakers and the other physicians who are speaking. Visit our Web site. Be proactive in your own health care. That’s, again, my message to people because I really don’t want anybody to learn about DVT the hard way, the way that I learned and my three little girls learned about it. DVT can be prevented if you just know what it is and know whether you’re at risk.
Comment
DVT is common with those who have peripheral vascular disease. Hydration is very important because if someone becomes dehydrated their blood cells have an increased tendency to clot. When a clot in the legs breaks off it can go anywhere in the body, but is most lethal when it goes to the lungs or the heart. I take an aspirin every night to thin my blood out.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Ford charges electric, hybrid strategy
by Martin LaMonica
BOSTON--Ford Motor expects to manufacture as many as 2 million all-electric and gas-electric vehicles in the next 10 years, betting that rising oil prices and consumer interest will sustain a long-term transition to new technologies.
The company has set a goal of making 10 percent to 25 percent of its fleet "electrified" by 2020, which represents somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million cars, said Nancy Gioia at a media event here on Wednesday. Ford announced on Wednesday that Gioia will hold a newly created position of director of global electrification, which covers hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery-electric vehicles.
Plug-in electric vehicles promise to offer a much lower cost-per-mile than gasoline cars and deliver substantial environmental benefits. But in the near term, hybrids will likely represent the largest volume in the mix of technologies, said Gioia at the event.
"We've finally demonstrated the technology, the life, the durability, the safety (of hybrids)--all of that has reached a comfort zone to make it viable. Now it's going to be affordability that will drive mass market adoption," she said.
A demo of a Ford Focus, done with Magna, that runs on batteries alone. Ford plans to introduce the car in 2011.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)
Ford is now working on an updated generation of its hybrid power train which will be used on its plug-in hybrid vehicles, which will come to market in 2012. Equipped with a larger battery than a traditional hybrid, the company projects its plug-in hybrid cars will allow drivers to go about 30 miles in electric mode, with the gasoline engine kicking in as needed for acceleration during those initial miles.
Before then, though, Ford plans to release an all-electric Focus compact sedan in 2011. An all-electric Transit Connect utility van is scheduled for release in 2011.
The electric Focus will be built in Michigan on the same manufacturing lines that make the gasoline version of the car. The car, which is expected to have a higher upfront cost than a gas Focus because of the large battery, which will offer 23 kilowatt-hours of storage, or about 100 miles of driving range.
In addition to electrification, Ford is implementing a number of other efficiency enhancements to gasoline engines, with an eye toward high volume. Earlier this year, Ford started introducing its EcoBoost direct-injection turbo technology which allows 4-cylinder cars to have the same power as 6-cylinder models.
Ford is also developing "start-stop" technology where a vehicle's engine turns off after being immobile for a few seconds, such as a stop light. This technology will come to manual transmission Fords in Europe next year and the company expects to bring it to automatic transmissions as well, Gioia said.
Opening a niche for pure electrics
For all the excitement around the potential for electric vehicles at Ford and other automakers, there is skepticism over how much all-electric cars will appeal to consumers, at least in the next decade.
Nancy Gioia, director of Ford global electrification
(Credit: Ford Motor) For consumers, there's the ongoing concern over "range anxiety" where a driver can't find a spot to recharge during a drive. Also, there aren't many charging spots in public places, complicating the picture for city dwellers, for example.
Still, Ford expects growth from plug-in hybrids and battery-electric vehicles. There are many consumers and fleet vehicle drivers who have relatively short driving cycles on repeatable paths, making them good candidates for either type. Demand for battery-electrics may be driven by cities which have created incentives for low-carbon transportation technologies or emissions-free zones, Gioia added.
"So whether it's incentivized or just driving behavior, we do see growth in battery electrics around the world. I'm not sure North America will be the driver," she said. "We may have the early-adopter lead, but if major infrastructure is not put in place, it will be hard to promote that."
During the media day, IHS Global Insight analyst John Wolkonowicz projected that pure electric vehicles and range-extended electric vehicles, like the Chevy Volt, will represent just over 1 percent of the total market by 2014. All electrics will outsell range-extended vehicles, he said.
Is the grid ready?
As any auto industry executive will tell you, the transition to plug-in electric vehicles requires coordination with utilities.
If large volumes of vehicles plugged into the grid at the same time, more expensive and polluting power plants may need to be constructed to meet the demand. To avoid that, automakers and smart-grid software companies are developing smart-charging technology that will allow vehicle charging at off-peak times, typically the overnight hours.
National Grid is one of several utilities working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Department of Energy on a study to measure the effects of plug-in electric vehicles on the grid. At this point, National Grid is mainly gathering data on electricity usage and charge patterns, said Steven Tobias, principal analyst for technology and innovation at National Grid on Wednesday.
Farther out, utilities could rely on plugged-in vehicles for short-term storage to stabilize the grid. But National Grid's main concern is making sure that plug-in electric vehicles work well with smart-grid home energy management systems, said Stan Blazewicz, the global head of technology at the utility.
Adding a few thousand plug-in electric vehicles across National Grid's Massachusetts and New York regions wouldn't be much of a concern in terms of demand, Blazewicz said. But utilities and automakers expect that "clusters" of consumers in neighborhoods will buy them. "When you get 100 vehicles all in the same area, that's when it becomes a challenge for us," he said.
There is technology that will allow utilities to control the rate of charging without creating an inconvenience for the consumer, he added. "At some point, we need the smart grid to manage EVs. We don't want to be the roadblock."
For its part, Ford is developing an in-car charge-management program and wireless system to communicate directly with smart meters, Gioia said.
When it comes to battery-electric or range-extended vehicles, one of the biggest barriers to consumers in the near term will be the higher upfront price, said Wolkonowicz. Government policies will "get us sliding down the technology curve where more and more people will see this as something they want to do," he said.
Utility National Grid is testing one Ford Escape which was converted to be a plug-in hybrid to see how electric vehicles will impact the grid.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET) Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Topics: TransportationTags: EVs,electric vehicles,Ford,battery electric vehicles,plug-in hybridsShare:
Recent posts from Green Tech
Powering cell phone towers with wind
Flywheels to buffer 20 megawatts on grid
Wi-Fi certification might be tweaked for smart grids
Students pitch green businesses for greenbacks
N.J. utility ups solar loans to $248 million
As alternative energy grows, NIMBY turns green
Kerry, U.N.'s Ban upbeat on climate prospects
iControl adds home energy services to broadband Related
Barriers loom on road to plug-in cars
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel
Denso eyes standard hybrid parts
Q&A: Will the Chevy Volt make money for GM?
Utilities vow to prep infrastructure for plug-in cars
GM exec: Volt not yet cost competitive
Zinc air battery maker looks beyond lithium
Honda plans return to larger hybrids Add a Comment (Log in or register) (20 Comments) prev 1 next by rp69 October 15, 2009 5:05 AM PDT
I recall seeing articles regarding their Mazda division pushing toward Hydrogen, wonder if Ford has any plans to incorporate Hydrogen based motors to their product line. Assuming that the infrastructure (filling stations) are in place why not forego gasoline altogether? The thought of having such dependency on expensive batteries and then gas just doesn't grab me. Maybe I'm missing something.
Like this Reply to this comment by bobbrew October 15, 2009 5:16 AM PDT
Any discussion of Land Ferries?
Like this Reply to this comment by SpiritWater October 15, 2009 9:24 AM PDT
I'd like to see a 2011 or 2012 Hybrid F-150. It is all V8 now with 15mpg city and 21mpg highway but with hybrid technolgies I'm sure it could squeeze-out 3-4 more mpg for each. GM has hybrid trucks so why not Ford?
Like this Reply to this comment by LeRoy_Finkelstein October 15, 2009 9:27 AM PDT
Once we have most of our vehicles on "the grid"... what happens when an enemy takes out our grid?
... Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Bueller?
Like this Reply to this comment by artistjoh October 15, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
If you are pointing out vulnerabilities then perhaps you should mention what happens if a potential enemy takes out foreign oil production which is probably a whole lot easier to do than taking out the domestic electricity grid. Gas guzzlers don't run any better on a lack of gasoline than an electric car runs on a lack of electricity.
Like this by baconstang October 15, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
The enemy HAS taken over the grid.... remember Enron? We sure do in CA.
Like this by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:15 PM PDT
Err... Society goes into complete chaos, the economy collapses and you don't really have anywhere you need to go?
Like this by open-mind October 15, 2009 3:45 PM PDT
You're worried about electric cars?
Without electricity, most gasoline pumps won't work either. Nor will it be real safe to drive anywhere. And with the riots and rampant looting, you'd be better off staying home protecting your property anyway. So just relax.
Like this by rmullen0 October 15, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
Put some solar panels on your roof or a small wind turbine in your back yard and generate your own power. It beats relying on oil companies.
Like this by go_blue99 November 1, 2009 11:37 AM PST
Well Dwight,
When an enemy takes out the grid, we won't have electricity for anything, so cars will be the least of our worries.
But you've probably noticed that every few years there are massive outages from grid failures and life seems to go on. Not fun, but people manage to survive for a few days without descending into a lord of the flies scenario.
I think we'll manage.
Like this by SactoGuy018 October 15, 2009 9:41 AM PDT
Interestingly, Ford's own research into hybrid vehicles (remember, the hybrid drivetrain on the Fusion sedan is just as sophisticated as the one on the Toyota Prius) means they will be WAY ahead of GM and Chrysler when it comes to hybrid vehicles. Indeed, not only will the next-generation Focus due next year will likely get a hybrid, but the related Ford Grand C-Max due in the USA fall 2011 will likely include a hybrid version, too.
Like this Reply to this comment by dragonsky1 October 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
They will be ahead of Chrylser, but not so much GM. GM has similar sophisticated hybrid technology, but they've only placed it in a select number of vehicles. The Malibu was slated to get a full-hybrid model, though I don't know if that ever came about or not. But they do have full hybrid trucks and SUV's.
GM seems to be focusing primarily on Plug-In hybrids and Extended range electric vehicles, which is probably a better long term plan, as they get considerably higher gas mileage.
And don't forgot, the majority of Ford's hybrid know-how came from what they licensed from Toyota....
Like this by JamesGTRS October 15, 2009 10:05 AM PDT
Ford was working on a Hydraulic Hybrid using hydraulics instead of electric motors. 50-60 mpg was quoted. Not sure where that went.
Like this Reply to this comment by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:16 PM PDT
Possibly the same place that Volkswagen's and BMW's diesel hybrids went.
Like this by baconstang October 15, 2009 1:17 PM PDT
Wish I'd bought Ford when it was a dollar. :(
Like this Reply to this comment by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:13 PM PDT
Even until "smart grids" become available, it's easy enough to arrange for off-hour charging. I mean, even my dishwasher can be set up on a delay startup. Why can't a car be similarly configured (even configure a draw-rate)? Timers just ain't that difficult.
Like this Reply to this comment by open-mind October 15, 2009 3:48 PM PDT
GM Volt will be able to do that. Most others probably will too.
Like this by HeavyJim October 16, 2009 4:28 AM PDT
by rmullen0 October 15, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
Put some solar panels on your roof or a small wind turbine in your back yard and generate your own power. It beats relying on oil companies.
======================================================
How many do you have installed?
Like this Reply to this comment by joefosho619 October 16, 2009 5:31 PM PDT
Great engineering, but can Ford please hire some new Designers. Have you seen the BMW EfficientDynamics? Pure awesomeness.
Like this Reply to this comment by TogetherinParis November 2, 2009 9:01 PM PST
Electricity does not need large engines. Several small generators can be put into the trunk to run an electric car across country, IF the electric's trunk or other space allows proper venting (easy to do). Honda would be the natural for this design since they already make great small generators, but of course, they're late. Using several generators to power a car would be enough to get it across country, while a single generator could be carried around town for security purposes to be used if the battery fully discharged.
Way to go Ford
BOSTON--Ford Motor expects to manufacture as many as 2 million all-electric and gas-electric vehicles in the next 10 years, betting that rising oil prices and consumer interest will sustain a long-term transition to new technologies.
The company has set a goal of making 10 percent to 25 percent of its fleet "electrified" by 2020, which represents somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million cars, said Nancy Gioia at a media event here on Wednesday. Ford announced on Wednesday that Gioia will hold a newly created position of director of global electrification, which covers hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery-electric vehicles.
Plug-in electric vehicles promise to offer a much lower cost-per-mile than gasoline cars and deliver substantial environmental benefits. But in the near term, hybrids will likely represent the largest volume in the mix of technologies, said Gioia at the event.
"We've finally demonstrated the technology, the life, the durability, the safety (of hybrids)--all of that has reached a comfort zone to make it viable. Now it's going to be affordability that will drive mass market adoption," she said.
A demo of a Ford Focus, done with Magna, that runs on batteries alone. Ford plans to introduce the car in 2011.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)
Ford is now working on an updated generation of its hybrid power train which will be used on its plug-in hybrid vehicles, which will come to market in 2012. Equipped with a larger battery than a traditional hybrid, the company projects its plug-in hybrid cars will allow drivers to go about 30 miles in electric mode, with the gasoline engine kicking in as needed for acceleration during those initial miles.
Before then, though, Ford plans to release an all-electric Focus compact sedan in 2011. An all-electric Transit Connect utility van is scheduled for release in 2011.
The electric Focus will be built in Michigan on the same manufacturing lines that make the gasoline version of the car. The car, which is expected to have a higher upfront cost than a gas Focus because of the large battery, which will offer 23 kilowatt-hours of storage, or about 100 miles of driving range.
In addition to electrification, Ford is implementing a number of other efficiency enhancements to gasoline engines, with an eye toward high volume. Earlier this year, Ford started introducing its EcoBoost direct-injection turbo technology which allows 4-cylinder cars to have the same power as 6-cylinder models.
Ford is also developing "start-stop" technology where a vehicle's engine turns off after being immobile for a few seconds, such as a stop light. This technology will come to manual transmission Fords in Europe next year and the company expects to bring it to automatic transmissions as well, Gioia said.
Opening a niche for pure electrics
For all the excitement around the potential for electric vehicles at Ford and other automakers, there is skepticism over how much all-electric cars will appeal to consumers, at least in the next decade.
Nancy Gioia, director of Ford global electrification
(Credit: Ford Motor) For consumers, there's the ongoing concern over "range anxiety" where a driver can't find a spot to recharge during a drive. Also, there aren't many charging spots in public places, complicating the picture for city dwellers, for example.
Still, Ford expects growth from plug-in hybrids and battery-electric vehicles. There are many consumers and fleet vehicle drivers who have relatively short driving cycles on repeatable paths, making them good candidates for either type. Demand for battery-electrics may be driven by cities which have created incentives for low-carbon transportation technologies or emissions-free zones, Gioia added.
"So whether it's incentivized or just driving behavior, we do see growth in battery electrics around the world. I'm not sure North America will be the driver," she said. "We may have the early-adopter lead, but if major infrastructure is not put in place, it will be hard to promote that."
During the media day, IHS Global Insight analyst John Wolkonowicz projected that pure electric vehicles and range-extended electric vehicles, like the Chevy Volt, will represent just over 1 percent of the total market by 2014. All electrics will outsell range-extended vehicles, he said.
Is the grid ready?
As any auto industry executive will tell you, the transition to plug-in electric vehicles requires coordination with utilities.
If large volumes of vehicles plugged into the grid at the same time, more expensive and polluting power plants may need to be constructed to meet the demand. To avoid that, automakers and smart-grid software companies are developing smart-charging technology that will allow vehicle charging at off-peak times, typically the overnight hours.
National Grid is one of several utilities working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Department of Energy on a study to measure the effects of plug-in electric vehicles on the grid. At this point, National Grid is mainly gathering data on electricity usage and charge patterns, said Steven Tobias, principal analyst for technology and innovation at National Grid on Wednesday.
Farther out, utilities could rely on plugged-in vehicles for short-term storage to stabilize the grid. But National Grid's main concern is making sure that plug-in electric vehicles work well with smart-grid home energy management systems, said Stan Blazewicz, the global head of technology at the utility.
Adding a few thousand plug-in electric vehicles across National Grid's Massachusetts and New York regions wouldn't be much of a concern in terms of demand, Blazewicz said. But utilities and automakers expect that "clusters" of consumers in neighborhoods will buy them. "When you get 100 vehicles all in the same area, that's when it becomes a challenge for us," he said.
There is technology that will allow utilities to control the rate of charging without creating an inconvenience for the consumer, he added. "At some point, we need the smart grid to manage EVs. We don't want to be the roadblock."
For its part, Ford is developing an in-car charge-management program and wireless system to communicate directly with smart meters, Gioia said.
When it comes to battery-electric or range-extended vehicles, one of the biggest barriers to consumers in the near term will be the higher upfront price, said Wolkonowicz. Government policies will "get us sliding down the technology curve where more and more people will see this as something they want to do," he said.
Utility National Grid is testing one Ford Escape which was converted to be a plug-in hybrid to see how electric vehicles will impact the grid.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET) Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Topics: TransportationTags: EVs,electric vehicles,Ford,battery electric vehicles,plug-in hybridsShare:
Recent posts from Green Tech
Powering cell phone towers with wind
Flywheels to buffer 20 megawatts on grid
Wi-Fi certification might be tweaked for smart grids
Students pitch green businesses for greenbacks
N.J. utility ups solar loans to $248 million
As alternative energy grows, NIMBY turns green
Kerry, U.N.'s Ban upbeat on climate prospects
iControl adds home energy services to broadband Related
Barriers loom on road to plug-in cars
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel
Denso eyes standard hybrid parts
Q&A: Will the Chevy Volt make money for GM?
Utilities vow to prep infrastructure for plug-in cars
GM exec: Volt not yet cost competitive
Zinc air battery maker looks beyond lithium
Honda plans return to larger hybrids Add a Comment (Log in or register) (20 Comments) prev 1 next by rp69 October 15, 2009 5:05 AM PDT
I recall seeing articles regarding their Mazda division pushing toward Hydrogen, wonder if Ford has any plans to incorporate Hydrogen based motors to their product line. Assuming that the infrastructure (filling stations) are in place why not forego gasoline altogether? The thought of having such dependency on expensive batteries and then gas just doesn't grab me. Maybe I'm missing something.
Like this Reply to this comment by bobbrew October 15, 2009 5:16 AM PDT
Any discussion of Land Ferries?
Like this Reply to this comment by SpiritWater October 15, 2009 9:24 AM PDT
I'd like to see a 2011 or 2012 Hybrid F-150. It is all V8 now with 15mpg city and 21mpg highway but with hybrid technolgies I'm sure it could squeeze-out 3-4 more mpg for each. GM has hybrid trucks so why not Ford?
Like this Reply to this comment by LeRoy_Finkelstein October 15, 2009 9:27 AM PDT
Once we have most of our vehicles on "the grid"... what happens when an enemy takes out our grid?
... Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Bueller?
Like this Reply to this comment by artistjoh October 15, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
If you are pointing out vulnerabilities then perhaps you should mention what happens if a potential enemy takes out foreign oil production which is probably a whole lot easier to do than taking out the domestic electricity grid. Gas guzzlers don't run any better on a lack of gasoline than an electric car runs on a lack of electricity.
Like this by baconstang October 15, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
The enemy HAS taken over the grid.... remember Enron? We sure do in CA.
Like this by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:15 PM PDT
Err... Society goes into complete chaos, the economy collapses and you don't really have anywhere you need to go?
Like this by open-mind October 15, 2009 3:45 PM PDT
You're worried about electric cars?
Without electricity, most gasoline pumps won't work either. Nor will it be real safe to drive anywhere. And with the riots and rampant looting, you'd be better off staying home protecting your property anyway. So just relax.
Like this by rmullen0 October 15, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
Put some solar panels on your roof or a small wind turbine in your back yard and generate your own power. It beats relying on oil companies.
Like this by go_blue99 November 1, 2009 11:37 AM PST
Well Dwight,
When an enemy takes out the grid, we won't have electricity for anything, so cars will be the least of our worries.
But you've probably noticed that every few years there are massive outages from grid failures and life seems to go on. Not fun, but people manage to survive for a few days without descending into a lord of the flies scenario.
I think we'll manage.
Like this by SactoGuy018 October 15, 2009 9:41 AM PDT
Interestingly, Ford's own research into hybrid vehicles (remember, the hybrid drivetrain on the Fusion sedan is just as sophisticated as the one on the Toyota Prius) means they will be WAY ahead of GM and Chrysler when it comes to hybrid vehicles. Indeed, not only will the next-generation Focus due next year will likely get a hybrid, but the related Ford Grand C-Max due in the USA fall 2011 will likely include a hybrid version, too.
Like this Reply to this comment by dragonsky1 October 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
They will be ahead of Chrylser, but not so much GM. GM has similar sophisticated hybrid technology, but they've only placed it in a select number of vehicles. The Malibu was slated to get a full-hybrid model, though I don't know if that ever came about or not. But they do have full hybrid trucks and SUV's.
GM seems to be focusing primarily on Plug-In hybrids and Extended range electric vehicles, which is probably a better long term plan, as they get considerably higher gas mileage.
And don't forgot, the majority of Ford's hybrid know-how came from what they licensed from Toyota....
Like this by JamesGTRS October 15, 2009 10:05 AM PDT
Ford was working on a Hydraulic Hybrid using hydraulics instead of electric motors. 50-60 mpg was quoted. Not sure where that went.
Like this Reply to this comment by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:16 PM PDT
Possibly the same place that Volkswagen's and BMW's diesel hybrids went.
Like this by baconstang October 15, 2009 1:17 PM PDT
Wish I'd bought Ford when it was a dollar. :(
Like this Reply to this comment by ferricoxide October 15, 2009 2:13 PM PDT
Even until "smart grids" become available, it's easy enough to arrange for off-hour charging. I mean, even my dishwasher can be set up on a delay startup. Why can't a car be similarly configured (even configure a draw-rate)? Timers just ain't that difficult.
Like this Reply to this comment by open-mind October 15, 2009 3:48 PM PDT
GM Volt will be able to do that. Most others probably will too.
Like this by HeavyJim October 16, 2009 4:28 AM PDT
by rmullen0 October 15, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
Put some solar panels on your roof or a small wind turbine in your back yard and generate your own power. It beats relying on oil companies.
======================================================
How many do you have installed?
Like this Reply to this comment by joefosho619 October 16, 2009 5:31 PM PDT
Great engineering, but can Ford please hire some new Designers. Have you seen the BMW EfficientDynamics? Pure awesomeness.
Like this Reply to this comment by TogetherinParis November 2, 2009 9:01 PM PST
Electricity does not need large engines. Several small generators can be put into the trunk to run an electric car across country, IF the electric's trunk or other space allows proper venting (easy to do). Honda would be the natural for this design since they already make great small generators, but of course, they're late. Using several generators to power a car would be enough to get it across country, while a single generator could be carried around town for security purposes to be used if the battery fully discharged.
Way to go Ford
EarthTalk: wind aesthetics, green travel
Readers write in seeking advice; submit your own questions
Join NBC's Green Week
Al Gore on U.S. climate change deniers' image abroad
Nov. 6: Rachel Maddow talks to former Vice President Al Gore about how American legislators who deny global warming will be received at the climate change convention in Copenhagen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean creek becomes poster child for healthy waterways
Finding the right side of the road
Corwin fights to save endangered species
Al Gore on climate change
China stocks up on trash
Tension on the tundra
Solar city on National Mall
Climate conditions
China’s ‘cancer villages’
Harnessing the wind
Running dry in much of India
Calif. farm areas drying up
Lights out for Earth Hour
D.C.-area sniper ‘died very peacefully’
Top 10 great-value Caribbean islands
9 surprising places where germs lurk
Wedding ring found amid 10 tons of trash
Chemical in plastic bottles linked to impotence
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Famed Navajo Code Talkers break silence
West Africa's giraffes make a big comeback
Vanished Persian army said found in desert
Alleged Ohio serial killer likened to Dahmer
Big changes at home, work in ‘Mad Men’ finale
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Wedding Studio Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft
N.C. school selling test scores to raise funds
Chemical in plastic bottles linked to impotence
Catholic bishops shape health care bill
Men more likely to leave spouse who has cancer
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 2:49 p.m. ET, Sat., Nov . 7, 2009
EarthTalk, a column written by the editors at "E/The Environmental Magazine," answers readers' environmental questions. EarthTalk archives are at emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. Got a question? Submit it at www.emagazine.com or e-mail earthtalk@emagazine.com
Dear EarthTalk: I don’t understand why many people oppose wind power just because they have to look at the turbines. If you ask me, wind turbines are much nicer-looking than coal-fired, waste-to-energy or nuclear power plants.
-- Michael Hart, via e-mail
Whether it’s a wind farm, a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear reactor or even just a big box store, there are always going to be locals opposed to it, declaring “not in my back yard!” (NIMBY).
As to the attractiveness of wind farms, people do seem to come down on one side or the other rather vehemently. Those in favor of wind development have been known to extol the visual virtues of a horizon full of windmills not only for the turbines’ graceful sculptural lines but also for the fact that their very presence advertises the coming of a modern, almost futuristic age of clean, renewable
Writing in the online magazine Contemporary Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito waxes eloquent about the visual appeal of wind farms when created thoughtfully. “[I]t is possible to create an aesthetically pleasing effect by choosing the color, shape and height of the turbines appropriate…to the particular landscape, making them uniform in their appearance and movement, and…arranging them in proportion to the landscape,” he says. “One writer admires the windmills in Sweden as ‘graceful objects’ because ‘the slender airfoils seem both delicate and powerful…while their gentle motion imparts a living kinetic nature’.”
On the flip side, detractors begrudge wind turbines for destroying their views—a classic NIMBY stance. According to Saito, opposition to wind farms stems from their being sited on previously “open, unhindered lands” and as such “are viewed as machines intruding in a garden.” He adds: “[T]hey are almost invariably decried as ‘marring’, ‘spoiling’, ‘ruining’, and ‘intruding on’ the otherwise relatively natural landscape, such as desert, open field, mountainside, and…ocean, and for creating an ‘eyesore’.”
Respondents to a survey by the British magazine Country Life listed wind turbines as the most egregious type of architectural blemish across England. They disliked wind farms even more than other “eyesores”—such as highway service areas, conventional power stations and ugly office buildings—because of the size of the turbines, some of which are 300 feet tall, and their intrusion on the landscape.
Opponents of a proposed wind farm in the waters of Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound cite similar gripes. The builder, Cape Wind Associates, has campaigned for seven years for approval of the development, to be located 16 miles off the shore of Nantucket Island. Homeowners, politicians and some evidently conflicted environmentalists have mounted stiff opposition to the facility, which would appear from shore as distant white smears on the horizon. The decision rests with the U.S. Interior Department which, despite stated desires to expand offshore wind energy, is taking its time on the highly contentious matter.
But with wind now the hottest renewable energy source going, those opposed to seeing windmills better get used to it. In 2008 wind power provided 1.5 percent of global electricity—having doubled its output every year now for five years in a row—and should account for as much as eight percent by 2018.
CONTACTS: Contemporary Aesthetics, www.contempaesthetics.org; Country Life, www.countrylife.co.uk; Cape Wind Associates LLC, www.capewind.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I’m a travel agent and our firm has several clients wanting to go with green vendors, including for travel (airline or rental car) and lodging. Our company is supportive so would like to know which airlines, hotels and car rental agencies are going affordably green?
-- Carol Biggar, via e-mail
Just like every other industry, going green has become a mantra among airlines, car rental companies and even hotel chains. The fuel crunch of a few years ago forced all the airlines into belt-tightening mode and the results—lower fuel consumption and fewer emissions—are good news for the environment.
Boeing, one of the world’s leading aircraft makers, is doing its part: Its new 787 is some 20 percent more fuel efficient than other big passenger planes. Beyond saving fuel—which also reduces emissions—airlines are instituting in-flight recycling initiatives, incorporating carbon-neutral biofuels, and going paperless to reduce waste. Continental, British Airways, Singapore Air, American Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest and Virgin are among the leaders in the industry-wide effort to go green, but most airlines have made huge strides in recent years to lower their carbon footprints overall.
With regard to lodging, going green isn’t just for youth hostels and campgrounds anymore. In a recent survey, upwards of two-thirds of U.S. hotels said they had energy-efficient lights and had implemented towel- and linen-reuse programs—up from just over half five years ago. According to Budget Travel magazine, Accor/Motel6, Intercontinental, Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, Hyatt, Best Western and Wyndham/Super8 have all made huge strides in energy and water conservation, recycling and green design over the last few years. Beyond the chains, many independent hotels have taken up the green baton; you’ll likely find one or more at your destination via the website of the Green Hotels Association.
As for rental car companies, just about all of them offer large selections of fuel efficient cars these days, if for no other reason than to meet the demands of both business and vacationing customers not interested in spending lots of money on gas. Hertz, Avis, Budget and Enterprise each have large fleets of hybrid and/or flex-fuel (ethanol) cars for rent at hundreds of airport and in-town locations around the U.S. Advantage Rent-a-Car has pledged to turn 100 percent of its rental fleet “green” by 2010. For now, renting a hybrid still typically costs $5-15 more per day than an equivalent conventional car, but as rental car companies bring more of the vehicles online, prices should start to reach parity. And if you’re driving a long way in the car, you may just make up the difference in fuel savings. Travelers to the Bay Area should keep in mind that San Francisco International Airport offers a $15 credit for renting a hybrid from any of the rental car companies operating there.
Traveling by any means other than foot, bicycle or paddle always takes some toll on the environment, but those who watch their carbon footprints—and stay abreast of which vendors offer the greenest courses of action—can keep their impacts to a minimum. Stay tuned to websites like Go Green Travel Green for the latest info on what airlines, hotels, car rental companies and other travel-related businesses are doing to green up their industry.
CONTACTS: Budget Travel magazine, www.budgettravel.com; Green Hotels Association, www.greenhotels.com; Go Green Travel Green, www.gogreentravelgreen.com
Dear EarthTalk: Celebrities and billionaires are shelling out big bucks for cutting edge green-friendly cars like the Tesla Roadster. But what are the rest of us—who live in the budget-constrained real world—to do about buying a new car that does right by the environment?
-- M.G., Stroudsburg, Penn.
With so many new energy efficient cars in showrooms today, there’s never been a better time to go green with your next car purchase. A few years ago the Toyota Prius was the go-to model for those with an environmental conscience and up to $30,000 to pay for the privilege of getting 35-40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 45-55 on the highway. But today there is such a wide selection of fuel efficient and low-emissions vehicles that even those on a budget can afford to go green.
To wit, Honda’s new Insight is the first hybrid gasoline-electric car available new for less than $20,000 (starting at $19,800). With fuel efficiency ratings of 40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 43 on the highway, the Insight surely won’t cost much to operate either.
There are plenty of other hybrids to choose from today, too, though most cost at least a few thousand dollars more than equivalent non-hybrid models. Toyota’s Prius, which is only available as a hybrid, still leads the pack as the world’s top selling and most fuel efficient hybrid. Its cost has dropped some, now starting at $22,400, and the “3rd generation” Prius 10 now claims an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) combined city/highway rating of 50 mpg. This most recent edition even features a whimsical solar panel on the roof to power a ventilation system that keeps the interior of the car cool even on scorching hot days. Hybrid versions of Honda’s Civic ($23,800), Nissan’s Altima ($26,780), Ford’s Fusion ($27,625) and Escape SUV ($31,500), Mercury’s Milan ($31,590) and Mariner SUV ($29,995), Toyota’s Camry ($26,150) and Highlander SUV ($34,700) are also in showrooms in dealerships across the U.S.
Many smaller cars with regular gasoline engines also get great mileage with low emissions for even less money. Some examples include the Corolla ($15,350), Matrix ($16,550) and Yaris ($12,355) from Toyota, Honda’s Fit ($14,900), the Mazda 3 ($16,045), Chevy’s Aveo ($11,965) and Cobalt ($14,990), the Hyundai’s Accent ($9,970) and Elantra ($14,145), Pontiac’s G3 ($14,335), the Kia Rio ($11,495), the MINI Cooper ($19,500), Ford’s Focus ($15,995), and the Smart Car ForTwo ($11,990).
Diesel fuel is now cleaner than ever, and a few automakers are going down that road. Volkswagen’s Jetta TDI ($22,660), Audi’s A3 TDI ($29,950) and BMW’s 335d ($43,900) are three examples of high performance vehicles with solid green credentials regarding fuel efficiency and emissions. An added bonus is that such cars can run on carbon-neutral biodiesel as well as petroleum-based diesel fuel.
Consumers just starting their search for a new ride should check out GreenCar.com, which provides detailed information on the many greener vehicles available today as well as those on the horizon. Also, the federal government’s website FuelEconomy.gov provides detailed mileage and emissions information on dozens of new cars every year, and provides users with an easy and free way to compare different vehicles along the lines of environmental impact.
CONTACTS: GreenCar.com, www.greencar.com; FuelEconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov.
Dear EarthTalk: Why is the plankton in the oceans dying? And what does this mean for the health of the oceans and marine life?
-- Marilynn Block, Portland, Ore.
As the lowest link on the marine food chain, plankton—that tiny aquatic plant, animal and bacterial matter floating throughout the world’s oceans—is a vital building block for life on Earth. Besides serving as a primary food source for many fish and whales, plankton plays a crucial role in mitigating global warming.
Indeed, the ocean is the world’s largest “carbon sink”: As much as one-third of man-made CO2 emissions are stored in the oceans and therefore do not contribute to global warming. This is because its plant component, phytoplankton (its animal component is called zooplankton), pulls massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere as it photosynthesizes.
But various environmental factors are taking their toll on plankton the world over. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported recently that marine phytoplankton is declining across the oceans. Even Canadian cod fishermen are noticing that the plankton-feeding fish they catch are often nearly starving as a result of lack of this crucial food source.
A 2007 study published in the scientific journal Nature found that human-caused increase in CO2 pollution is altering the pH (acidity) levels in the oceans. This change in chemistry is expected to have adverse effects on the entire ecosystem. More acidic ocean water inhibits the ability of shell-forming marine organisms—from plankton to mollusks to corals—to form properly. Smaller and less healthy populations of plankton would be bad news for all the other creatures above it on the ocean’s food chain.
Higher water temperatures, also attributable to our fossil fuel addiction, can also have a devastating effect on plankton. A recent report in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom noted that, in the Adriatic Sea cooler winter conditions—which are less frequent in a warmer world—are needed for plankton production and nutrient availability. Furthermore, warmer sea temperatures can cause “blooms” of other sea life (such as happens with algae), resulting in oxygen starvation in the water, a condition that is devastating to plankton and other marine creatures and organisms.
In other situations, blooms of phytoplankton themselves—the tiny plants can gorge on the nutrients from the run-off from farms and lawns on land—can lead to oxygen starvation in the water. “The decomposition of these multitudes of phytoplankton removes oxygen from seawater, creating oxygen-poor ‘dead zones’ where fish cannot live,” reports Carly Buchwald, a researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Satellite imagery shows that these “dead zones” are expanding. Some scientists are advocating “iron fertilization”—the spreading of large amounts of iron across the world’s seas—to spur plankton growth. But others worry that such tinkering with complex ecosystems could have potentially harmful effects.
CONTACTS: Nature, www.nature.com; Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=mbi; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, www.whoi.edu.
Dear EarthTalk: Has anyone ever studied the environmental impact of discarded cigarettes? I’m constantly appalled at the number of drivers I see pitching their butts out their car windows.
-- Ned Jordan, via email
It’s true that littered cigarette butts are a public nuisance, and not just for aesthetic reasons. The filters on cigarettes—four fifths of all cigarettes have them—are made of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that is very slow to degrade in the environment. A typical cigarette butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose, depending on environmental conditions.
But beyond the plastic, these filters—which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs—contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly—out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below—they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.
Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants can get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.
While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem. Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. The non-profit Keep America Beautiful reports that cigarette butts constitute as much as one-third of all litter nationwide when measured by the number of discarded items, not volume. According to the Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit that advocates for stronger protection of marine ecosystems, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America’s salt and fresh water beaches according to feedback received by hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking part in the group’s annual Coastal Clean-up event.
While the tobacco industry may have its hands full just trying to stay afloat in the maelstrom of ongoing bad publicity, critics say it should be doing more to prevent cigarette butt litter. “Just as beverage manufacturers contribute to anti-litter campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should the tobacco industry,” says Kathleen Register, founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, a non-profit that has spearheaded the fight against cigarette butt litter in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. She adds that cigarette manufacturers “need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to the cleanup of cigarette litter.”
Register suggests a number of strategies including putting anti-litter messages on all cigarette packaging and advertisements, distributing small, free portable ashtrays, and placing and maintaining outdoor ashtrays in areas where smokers congregate. She also suggests putting an extra tax on cigarette sales, with proceeds going toward anti-litter education efforts and to defray the costs of cleaning up butts. “Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools, businesses and park agencies money,” she says. “By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers.” One way or another, Register hopes, smokers will learn that the Earth is not one giant ashtray.
CONTACTS: CDC, www.cdc.gov, Clean Virginia Waterways, www.longwood.edu/cleanva.
Dear EarthTalk: I recently had a tissue mineral analysis indicating that my levels of the nutritional element, molybdenum, were off the chart. I believe this may be leaching from my stainless steel cookware. Is this element toxic to my body?
-- Barbara, Fruitland Park, Fla.
Having trace amounts of molybdenum in our bloodstreams is not only normal but beneficial. The element piggybacks onto bacteria to help us metabolize proteins and grow new cells, and also helps keep our vertebrae and tooth enamel strong. But too much of it can indeed be toxic.
Health care practitioners worry more about miners exposed to molybdenum dust on a daily basis than they do about everyday folks with occasional and incidental exposure via cookware and ingested foods. Few if any cases of acute toxicity in humans have been documented, though animal studies have shown that ingesting small but frequent amounts can lead to diarrhea, growth retardation, infertility, low birth weight and even gout. It has also been shown to negatively affect the lungs, kidneys and liver.
But most of us need not fear, as the amount of molybdenum we get naturally from eating foods like green beans, eggs, sunflower seeds, wheat flour, lentils and cereal grain is not enough to cause any severe health reactions, and, again, is an important building block component of our diets. In fact, a deficiency of molybdenum in one stretch of northern China—where the element does not occur naturally in the region’s soils—has been linked to a higher-than-normal rate of esophageal cancer.
Additional amounts of molybdenum could be getting into your foods from stainless steel cookware, but manufacturers insist that if their products are not dinged and pocked from overuse or abused with abrasive brushes or detergents during clean-up they shouldn’t leach much of anything into the food cooking inside.
Of all the elements used to make stainless steel, molybdenum is one of the most able to tolerate high heat without expanding, softening or otherwise breaking down. That’s largely why it is approved for use in food-grade products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Incidentally, its heat tolerance is also why it is used in the making of missiles, aircraft, rifle barrels, light bulb filaments and furnace components.
While it is unlikely that the amount of molybdenum in a normal human diet is enough to cause severe health reactions, no one would fault someone with reason for concern to take precautions. For starters, if you do have too much molybdenum in your systems, add some tungsten (sodium tungstate) into your diet, which naturally reduces the concentration of molybdenum in human tissues.
With regard to cookware, switching away from stainless steel might be a good idea for anyone with high molybdenum levels in their bloodstreams. No cookware is perfect, but cast iron and anodized aluminum seem to be the top choices today for cooks concerned about leaching elements. While cast iron is known to leach some iron into food, iron deficiencies were far less common before World War II when most of our grandparents cooked with it. And anodized aluminum is an ideal non-stick, acid- and scratch- resistant surface which locks-in aluminum that could otherwise leach into food.
CONTACTS: International Molybdenum Association, www.imoa.info.
Dear EarthTalk: Do you have current facts and figures about how much rainforest is being destroyed each day around the world, and for what purpose(s)?
-- Teri, via e-mail
Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall.
According to researcher and writer Rhett Butler, who runs the critically acclaimed website, Mongabay.com, tropical rainforests are incredibly rich ecosystems that play a key role in the basic functioning of the planet. They help maintain the climate by regulating atmospheric gases and stabilizing rainfall, and provide many other important ecological functions.
Rainforests are also home to some 50 percent of the world’s species, Butler reports, “making them an extensive library of biological and genetic resources.” Environmentalists also point out that a quarter of our modern pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, but less than one percent of the trees and plants in the tropics have been tested for curative properties. Sadly, then, we don’t really know the true value of what we’re losing as we slash, burn, and plant over what was once a treasure trove of biodiversity.
According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), overall tropical deforestation rates this decade are 8.5 percent higher than during the 1990s. While this figure pertains to all forests in the world’s tropics, researchers believe the loss of primary tropical rainforest—the wildest and most diverse swaths—has increased by as much as 25 percent since the 1990s.
Despite increased public awareness of the importance of tropical rainforests, deforestation rates are actually on the rise, mostly due to activities such as commercial logging, agriculture, cattle ranching, dam-building and mining, but also due to subsistence agriculture and collection of fuel wood. Indeed, as long as commercial interests are allowed access to these economically depressed areas of the world, and as long as populations of poor rural people continue to expand, tropical rainforests will continue to fall.
Some scientists see light at the end of the tunnel. Joseph Wright of the Panama-based Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute says the tropics now have more protected land than in recent history, and believes that large areas of tropical forest will remain intact through 2030 and beyond: “We believe that the area covered by tropical forest will never fall to the exceedingly low levels that are often predicted and that extinction will threaten a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted.”
Only time will tell whether Wright’s optimistic predictions ring true, or whether a more doomsday scenario will play out. To stay informed and be part of the solution, stay tuned to the websites of Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, the Rainforest Site and, of course, Mongabay.com.
CONTACTS: Mongabay, www.mongabay.com; Rainforest Alliance, www.rainforestalliance.org; Rainforest Action Network, www.ran.org; Rainforest Site, www.rainforestsite.com; FAO, www.fao.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I recently saw a reference to “Enertia houses” that require little in the way of external sources for heating or cooling. Do you have any information on this housing design?
-- Alan Marshfield, via e-mail
Enertia is a brand name for homes designed and sold in kits by North Carolina-based Enertia Building Systems (EBS). The idea essentially marries the concepts of geothermal and passive solar heating/cooling into what amounts to a highly energy efficient hybrid system. Architectural inventor Michael Sykes coined the term “Enertia” in the 1980s to describe the innovative homes he was designing that would store solar and geothermal energy and make use of it for most if not all heating and cooling needs.
Under such a system, solid wood walls replace siding, framing, insulation and paneling, while an air flow channel—or “envelope”—runs around the building inside the walls, creating what Sykes terms a miniature biosphere. Inside the envelope, solar heated air circulates, pumping and boosting geothermal energy from beneath the house and storing it within the wood mass of the walls, where it is doled out gradually.
By harnessing the properties of thermal inertia—the ability of materials to store heat and give it off slowly—an “Enertia” house maintains a relatively fixed and comfortable temperature throughout the warmer day (when solar heat is collected and stored) and cooler night (when the wood walls give off heat to keep things toasty as the mercury dips).
The heart of the system is a south-facing sun space within the envelope that is dominated by windows and which therefore soaks up lots of solar energy, filling the house’s wood walls with thermal energy that in turn radiates into the primary living space. The entire house functions like an electric heat pump—moving warm and cool air around to accommodate the comfort needs of the occupants. It works even throughout the seasonal changes of the year—with minimal to no fossil fuels consumed or pollution generated.
In one Enertia house in North Carolina, the only power bill the owners typically pay is $35/month for electricity. They also have a back-up in-floor radiant heating system powered by natural gas for long cloudy stretches or unusually cold weather. Gas bills for heat typically total $150 for the year, meaning the owners’ total annual outlay for heating, cooling and electricity is less than $600—some $1,000 less than traditional homes in the same zip code are paying, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
EBS markets several different designs for its Enertia houses, but all share the basic premise of primary interior living space heated and cooled by air channeled in from a south-facing “buffer zone” envelope and from below grade. Smaller houses in the line top out at about 2,000 square feet over two floors of living space, while larger ones encompass some 4,000 square feet of living space over three floors. Depending on the model, you could spend anywhere from $66,000 to $292,000 for a complete plan and building materials kit. The rest—including the selection and cost of the land and the labor to build the house—is up to you.
CONTACTS: Enertia Building Systems, www.enertia.com.
Dear EarthTalk: How can I make good use of the rainwater that runs down my roof and into my gutters?
-- Brian Smith, Nashua, N.H.
For most of us, the rain that falls on our roof runs off into the ground or the sewer system. But if you’re motivated to save a little water and re-distribute it on your lawns or plants—or even use it for laundry, dishes or other interior needs—collecting rainwater from your gutters’ downspouts is a no-brainer.
If it’s allowed in your state, that is. Utah and parts of Washington State have antiquated but nonetheless tough laws banning anyone but owners of water rights from collecting rainwater flowing off privately owned rooftops. Such laws are rarely enforced, however, and one in Colorado was recently overturned.
According to John C. Davis, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, just about any homeowner can collect rainwater, given that the roof and gutters do most of the work. And since an inch of rain falling on a 2,000-square-foot roof produces some 1,200 gallons of runoff, one can harvest enough to supply all the water needs of a family of four for about two weeks. Of course, most of us would only use rainwater to irrigate our lawn or garden, and there should be plenty to go around for doing that in all but the most drought stricken areas.
Plants and grass actually do better when fed rainwater instead of tap water, which is usually treated with softeners that actually inhibit plant growth. And, reports Davis, the lack of minerals in rainwater actually makes it more effective than tap water for shampooing or doing dishes. Using rainwater for plumbing uses can also extend the life of pipes and water heaters, since the salts added to tap water facilitate corrosion. Homeowners should set up a water purification system if they do plan to use rainwater for interior needs.
Beyond the benefits to individual homeowners, rainwater harvesting can also be good for the local community, as it reduces the erosion, flooding and pollution runoff associated with heavy rainfall, and lessens reliance on public water supplies, alleviating some of the burden on utilities. Given these benefits, some states, including even drought-prone Texas, subsidize residential rainwater collection systems.
Many varieties of rain barrel systems, starting at just $100, are available for home installation. A typical set-up is simply a rain barrel positioned under a gutter’s downspout. “The barrel is typically fitted with a spigot at its base to fill a watering can or attach a soaker hose (which bleeds out water all along its length, providing effortless drip irrigation), and a filter or screen at its top to prevent a buildup of leaves and other debris,” writes Davis. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a single 100 gallon rain barrel can save up to 1,300 gallons of utility-provided water during the high demand summer months.
Handy homeowners can make their own water harvesting systems, but buying one pre-made is a lot easier. Most nurseries and garden centers offer a range of choices (as well as advice), but websites such as Aquabarrel, Clean Air Gardening and Rainxchange make it easy to order a system online.
CONTACTS: Aquabarrel, www.aquabarrel.com, Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com; Rainxchange, www.rainxchange.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I heard that goats are being used to prevent some of those catastrophic fires that seem to happen increasingly. What’s the story with that?
-- Ali B., New Canaan, Conn.
As wildfires consume parts of California larger than some smaller states, everyone is talking about how we can prevent such disasters from getting going in the first place. One novel approach is to enlist goats. Not as firefighters—although their surefootedness and determination would probably serve them well in such situations—but as grazers to keep the forest underbrush clear of the tinder-like grasses, bushes and small trees that allow flames to jump to the higher forest canopy and get further spread by the wind.
“Goats help prevent forest fires…by eating the dry stuff before the fire season strikes,” says Lani Malmberg, owner of Colorado-based Ewe4ic (pronounced “u-for-ik”) Ecological Services, which uses goats to gradually and naturally remove weeds and return lands to a healthier more natural state.
Goats have been called in for fire mitigation purposes across parts of California, Arizona and other drought-prone parts of the western U.S. In the Oakland and Berkeley hills regions of California’s Bay Area, where the combined effects of drought and a bark beetle infestation have killed thousands of acres of trees, public agencies and residents have enlisted the help of goat herds to suppress weeds and keep down the fire risk in the process for what remains of the area’s forest cover.
“The goat clearance scheme is one of the key reasons the Bay Area hasn’t had a recurrence of a catastrophic fire in decades,” says Tom Klatt, former manager of the Office of Emergency Preparedness at UC Berkeley and the author of UC Berkeley's 2007 Fire Mitigation Program Annual Report.
Other earth-minded land managers are going goat as well. The Nature Conservancy recently hired goats to keep dry grasses and other tinder-like plant matter down at its Hassayampa River Preserve in Arizona, where the constant threat of summer fires haunts nearby homeowners while endangering the integrity of the area’s unique and fragile riparian ecosystem.
Using goats to control forest brush may seem like a novel idea, but it’s really been around as long as grazing animals have roamed the planet looking for nourishment. But with ever-increasing human development, wild grazers are fewer and farther between. The problem is exacerbated by our building our homes so close to (and sometimes within) forested areas that naturally burn occasionally. Efforts to then suppress all forest fires—even naturally occurring undergrowth burns—to protect these homes have led to “tinderbox” conditions ripe for those large destructive fires that spread for hundreds of miles, blown by the wind from treetop to treetop.
Grazing goats are also used in other endeavors. “Goats can be utilized as an effective bio-control agent to reduce weed populations to economically acceptable levels,” says Malmberg, adding that weeding with goats requires no pesticides or herbicides and generates zero greenhouse gas or other harmful emissions.
CONTACTS: Ewe4ic Ecological Services, www.goatseatweeds.com; Office of Emergency Preparedness at UC Berkeley, www.oep.berkeley.edu.
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental non-profits have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and has this had an impact on their effectiveness?
-- Bridget W., Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Non-profits of every stripe have been suffering from the economic downturn. In a recent survey of 800 U.S.-based non-profits, 75 percent reported feeling the effects of the downturn, with more than half already experiencing significant cuts in funding from both government and private foundation sources.
According to a recently released report from Civic Enterprises and the Democratic Leadership Council entitled “Quiet Crisis: The Impact of the Economic Downturn on the Nonprofit Sector,” few of these groups have strong reserves to weather the downturn—more than half have less than three months of operating funds on hand, while three-quarters cannot make it six months on existing cash reserves.
And the outlook is not promising. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which reports on trends in grantmaking, says that foundation assets have declined by some 28 percent following the economy’s nosedive; two-thirds of them expect to have reduced grants significantly by the end of 2009. Many grantmakers have, in fact, suspended grants altogether for the time being.
Despite their funding troubles, many environmental groups continue to provide core services. According to the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), many cash-strapped groups are adapting by using more volunteers to get their work done, and actively seeking partnerships with other groups in order to make the most of limited resources and share overhead costs. And, of course, many green groups have cut costs through hiring freezes, layoffs and forced reductions in pay and hours for existing employees.
To Mark Tercek, president of the non-profit Nature Conservancy, the silver lining in the funding crisis for green groups is that it forces them to operate more efficiently and focus on core priorities: “Non-profits…have to be smart about adjusting to a tougher economic environment, including setting priorities,” he says. “If resources are going to be constrained…then organizations have to ask the questions: ‘What are we really best at? What are we uniquely positioned to do?’” Tercek adds that the recession also provides an “opportunity to connect the economic stimulus to environmental matters.”
And that’s just what the Obama administration hopes to do. By encouraging development of green technologies and services, the federal government aims to leverage environmental progress for an overall economic benefit. Most federal funding will go toward incentives for businesses and homeowners to adopt greener ways, but green groups with related expertise are in a good position to benefit as well.
Another boost for green groups could come if Congress passes the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which aims to flood non-profits with some 250,000 volunteers each year in a program akin to the Peace Corps but on the domestic front. Non-profits are also seeking changes to the federal tax code to further encourage corporate, foundation and individual donations.
CONTACTS: Quiet Crisis Report, www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/quietcrisis.pdf; EGA, www.ega.org; Serve America Act, www.nationalservice.gov/about/serveamerica.
Dear EarthTalk: I am considering upgrading some older appliances in my home. Where can I find information on which models are the most energy efficient?
-- Jonathan Duda, Olivebridge, N.Y.
There has never been a better time to upgrade some of those older creaky appliances that are gobbling up much more energy (or water) than they need to in your home. Fortunately, most of the sifting-through to find the best values has already been done for you.
The first thing to do when shopping for new equipment is to look for models emblazoned with the blue EnergyStar logo. This helps you zero in on those models that have been determined by the federal government—EnergyStar is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy—to be at least 10 to 25 percent more energy-efficient (and often much more) than conventional models.
For dishwashers, for example, EnergyStar qualified models use 31 percent less energy and 33 percent less water than conventional machines while performing as well as or better, according to EnergyStar. With clothes washers, EnergyStar models can cut energy use by over a third and water use by half. EnergyStar-rated refrigerators will cut electrical use in half, compared to older machines made before 1993. With air conditioners, the savings is there, too, though at a more modest 10 percent over conventional models.
EnergyStar, which began in 1992 and first evaluated only computers and monitors, is a great jumping off point for evaluating everything from major appliances to home heating and cooling, lighting, home electronics, office equipment and more. The EPA recently extended the label to cover new homes and commercial and industrial buildings.
After first zeroing in on EnergyStar models, be sure to check out the accompanying yellow EnergyGuide sticker, which gets down to the nitty-gritty and estimates how much energy the appliance uses, compares its energy use to similar products and lists approximate annual operating costs. EnergyGuide labels also appear on appliances not EnergyStar compliant. Visit the EnergyStar website (address below) and immerse yourself.
Another way to help sort through the thousands of appliances out there that are EnergyStar-compliant is by checking out the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine) free Greener Choices website, which compares a wide range of merchandise according to their relative environmental impact.
Greener Choices provides detailed information on dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioners, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. Each appliance is assessed in comparison to other models via the website’s Green Buying Guides, which can help consumers decide how green they should go. It also offers up a series of calculators to determine the energy use of your current appliances, new or old. By providing the efficiency and price of various models, the site helps consumers decide how much green “bang” they want for a specific amount of bucks.
CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Greener Choices, www.greenerchoices.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that hybrid engine technology is now being used to power boats. What’s happening with that?
-- D. Smith, Portland, Maine
With concerns about climate change and the fate of the world’s imperiled oceans and waterways at an all time high, it makes sense that the boating industry would be looking into greener ways to try to do their part and to attract some of those increasing numbers of environmentally conscious customers.
Americans spend 500 million hours zipping around in recreational boats each year. But until recently the engines on these boats were held to much lower efficiency standards than their automotive counterparts. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced new more stringent emissions standards for marine engines—both in-board and outboard—that will go into effect in 2010. In fact, several hybrid boats are already on the market, boasting emission ratings well below the new standards.
The 24-foot Endeavor Green Electric Hybrid can run all day on an electric charge that costs only 11 cents and generates no emissions, kicking into a small diesel generator only if the boat’s eight batteries run dry. And when owners can charge the batteries via solar or wind power, the boats have a zero carbon footprint. Florida-based Craig Catamaran Corp. last year launched a hybrid version of its compact catamaran-style speedboat. The sporty little two-seater, which is light enough to be towed by a Mini Cooper or Smart Car, can run for eight hours on less than a gallon of gas, and costs less than $6,000 all in.
For those looking for a larger, more luxurious ride, the 25-foot Frauscher hybrid might be just the ticket. The speedy $155,000 Austrian-built pleasure boat combines an electric engine with a 256 horsepower Steyr diesel motor to allow for emissions-free harbor cruising or high octane speeding across open water.
If you’re not quite ready to take the plunge on a hybrid boat yourself, check out one in action on your next visit to San Francisco. The recently retrofitted Hornblower ferry to Alcatraz and Angel islands is powered by several alternative energy sources, including a hybrid diesel-electric system powered by solar cells and wind turbines right on deck. Alcatraz Cruises, the private company that runs the service claims the Hornblower is the first hybrid ferry boat in the country. The 64-foot vessel has an advanced power management system that regulates when and how the different power sources are used so it can make best use of its energy and minimize emissions. Passengers can see many of the technological advancements on the vessel, making for not only a fun and scenic but educational ride.
In another development, the U.S. Navy has reportedly contracted with Solomon Technologies, makers of the famous Zodiac line of rugged inflatable boats, to create a series of hybrid boats where fuel efficiency and stealthy (quiet) passage is of paramount importance. Recreationists, pacifists and Greenpeace anti-whaling activists alike may get the chance to check one out soon, too, as Solomon is already looking into incorporating hybrid technologies into its recreational and commercial product lines as well.
CONTACTS: Endeavour Green, www.endeavourgreen.com; Craig Catamaran, www.craigcat.com; Frauscher Boats, www.frauscherboats.com; Alcatraz Cruises, www.alcatrazcruises.com; Solomon Technologies, www.solomontechnologies.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Hunting seems to be a real controversy among environmental advocates. Can you set the record straight: Is hunting good or bad for the environment?
-- Bill Davis, New York, N.Y.
Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to cull the herds of prey animals that, as a result, now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.
On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as barbaric, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals…” and is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He adds that, despite hunters’ claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game [target] species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”
Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels and raccoons—“provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.”
Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms ‘therapeutic hunting’—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.
Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for its most recent (2006) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.
Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc., a social research firm specializing in natural resource issues, found that 78 percent of Americans support hunting today versus 73 percent in 1995. Eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percent of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.
Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating for cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both lament urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
CONTACTS: The Animals Voice, www.animalsvoice.com; HSUS, www.hsus.org; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html; Responsive Management Inc., www.responsivemanagement.com
Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with the Florida Panther these days? Is it still teetering on the brink of extinction, or is it on the rebound?
-- Alex T., via email
One of more than 20 subspecies of cougar and native to the southeastern United States, the Florida Panther is most certainly still highly endangered. Biologists estimate that less than 100 of the animals are alive in the wild today, hanging on in the southern tip of Florida below the Caloosahatchee River. Their current range represents less than five percent of where they originally roamed across Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and parts of Tennessee and South Carolina.
Perceived as a threat to humans, livestock and game animals, the Florida Panther was persecuted and hunted to near extinction by the mid-1950s. Today, primary threats are habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of human development. According to Defenders of Wildlife, the main culprits in the decline of the animals’ numbers are: urban sprawl; the conversion of once diversified agricultural lands into intensified industrial farming uses; and the loss of farmland to commercial development. Other factors include collisions with automobiles, territorial disputes with other panthers as habitat shrinks, and inbreeding resulting from their isolated population. Additional threats include mercury poisoning from the fallout of coal-fired power plants, parasites, and diseases such as feline leukemia and feline distemper.
Efforts to help the Florida Panther recover have had limited success. Many public agencies and nonprofit groups have worked together to try to bring back the panther—Florida’s state animal—since it was first listed as endangered by the federal government back in 1967. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), panthers require large areas of contiguous habitat: Each breeding unit of one male and two to five females requires some 200 square miles of territory to thrive. Biologists report that a population of 240 panthers requires between 8,000 and 12,000 square miles of habitat and sufficient genetic diversity in order to avoid inbreeding as a result of small population size. The introduction of eight female cougars from a closely related Texas population in 1995 helped mitigate inbreeding problems, but most analysts fear that the effort was too little, too late for the threatened cats.
Since the animals were first listed as endangered, the human population of Florida has more than tripled, meaning that rescue efforts are swimming against the tide. Defenders of Wildlife reports that, since 2004, human-panther encounters have been on the rise, as have documented instances of panthers preying on livestock and pets. In response, the USFWS, the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have drafted a landmark Florida Panther Response Plan, which guides game managers and law enforcement officials in handling such interactions in ways that ensure public safety while recognizing the need to preserve dwindling Florida Panther populations.
Readers can help by getting educated about the plight of the big cats and pressuring their elected officials to take action. Another way to help is by supporting wildlife groups working on the issue. Defenders of Wildlife’s “Adopt a Panther” program, for one, puts donations into public education, preserving habitat and promoting sound transportation planning to prevent panther deaths on Florida’s roads and highways.
CONTACTS: Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; USFWS, www.fws.gov; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, www.myfwc.com.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Submit it at www.emagazine.com
or e-mail
earthtalk@emagazine.com
Join NBC's Green Week
Al Gore on U.S. climate change deniers' image abroad
Nov. 6: Rachel Maddow talks to former Vice President Al Gore about how American legislators who deny global warming will be received at the climate change convention in Copenhagen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean creek becomes poster child for healthy waterways
Finding the right side of the road
Corwin fights to save endangered species
Al Gore on climate change
China stocks up on trash
Tension on the tundra
Solar city on National Mall
Climate conditions
China’s ‘cancer villages’
Harnessing the wind
Running dry in much of India
Calif. farm areas drying up
Lights out for Earth Hour
D.C.-area sniper ‘died very peacefully’
Top 10 great-value Caribbean islands
9 surprising places where germs lurk
Wedding ring found amid 10 tons of trash
Chemical in plastic bottles linked to impotence
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Famed Navajo Code Talkers break silence
West Africa's giraffes make a big comeback
Vanished Persian army said found in desert
Alleged Ohio serial killer likened to Dahmer
Big changes at home, work in ‘Mad Men’ finale
Most viewed on msnbc.com
Wedding Studio Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft
N.C. school selling test scores to raise funds
Chemical in plastic bottles linked to impotence
Catholic bishops shape health care bill
Men more likely to leave spouse who has cancer
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 2:49 p.m. ET, Sat., Nov . 7, 2009
EarthTalk, a column written by the editors at "E/The Environmental Magazine," answers readers' environmental questions. EarthTalk archives are at emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. Got a question? Submit it at www.emagazine.com or e-mail earthtalk@emagazine.com
Dear EarthTalk: I don’t understand why many people oppose wind power just because they have to look at the turbines. If you ask me, wind turbines are much nicer-looking than coal-fired, waste-to-energy or nuclear power plants.
-- Michael Hart, via e-mail
Whether it’s a wind farm, a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear reactor or even just a big box store, there are always going to be locals opposed to it, declaring “not in my back yard!” (NIMBY).
As to the attractiveness of wind farms, people do seem to come down on one side or the other rather vehemently. Those in favor of wind development have been known to extol the visual virtues of a horizon full of windmills not only for the turbines’ graceful sculptural lines but also for the fact that their very presence advertises the coming of a modern, almost futuristic age of clean, renewable
Writing in the online magazine Contemporary Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito waxes eloquent about the visual appeal of wind farms when created thoughtfully. “[I]t is possible to create an aesthetically pleasing effect by choosing the color, shape and height of the turbines appropriate…to the particular landscape, making them uniform in their appearance and movement, and…arranging them in proportion to the landscape,” he says. “One writer admires the windmills in Sweden as ‘graceful objects’ because ‘the slender airfoils seem both delicate and powerful…while their gentle motion imparts a living kinetic nature’.”
On the flip side, detractors begrudge wind turbines for destroying their views—a classic NIMBY stance. According to Saito, opposition to wind farms stems from their being sited on previously “open, unhindered lands” and as such “are viewed as machines intruding in a garden.” He adds: “[T]hey are almost invariably decried as ‘marring’, ‘spoiling’, ‘ruining’, and ‘intruding on’ the otherwise relatively natural landscape, such as desert, open field, mountainside, and…ocean, and for creating an ‘eyesore’.”
Respondents to a survey by the British magazine Country Life listed wind turbines as the most egregious type of architectural blemish across England. They disliked wind farms even more than other “eyesores”—such as highway service areas, conventional power stations and ugly office buildings—because of the size of the turbines, some of which are 300 feet tall, and their intrusion on the landscape.
Opponents of a proposed wind farm in the waters of Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound cite similar gripes. The builder, Cape Wind Associates, has campaigned for seven years for approval of the development, to be located 16 miles off the shore of Nantucket Island. Homeowners, politicians and some evidently conflicted environmentalists have mounted stiff opposition to the facility, which would appear from shore as distant white smears on the horizon. The decision rests with the U.S. Interior Department which, despite stated desires to expand offshore wind energy, is taking its time on the highly contentious matter.
But with wind now the hottest renewable energy source going, those opposed to seeing windmills better get used to it. In 2008 wind power provided 1.5 percent of global electricity—having doubled its output every year now for five years in a row—and should account for as much as eight percent by 2018.
CONTACTS: Contemporary Aesthetics, www.contempaesthetics.org; Country Life, www.countrylife.co.uk; Cape Wind Associates LLC, www.capewind.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I’m a travel agent and our firm has several clients wanting to go with green vendors, including for travel (airline or rental car) and lodging. Our company is supportive so would like to know which airlines, hotels and car rental agencies are going affordably green?
-- Carol Biggar, via e-mail
Just like every other industry, going green has become a mantra among airlines, car rental companies and even hotel chains. The fuel crunch of a few years ago forced all the airlines into belt-tightening mode and the results—lower fuel consumption and fewer emissions—are good news for the environment.
Boeing, one of the world’s leading aircraft makers, is doing its part: Its new 787 is some 20 percent more fuel efficient than other big passenger planes. Beyond saving fuel—which also reduces emissions—airlines are instituting in-flight recycling initiatives, incorporating carbon-neutral biofuels, and going paperless to reduce waste. Continental, British Airways, Singapore Air, American Airlines, JetBlue, Southwest and Virgin are among the leaders in the industry-wide effort to go green, but most airlines have made huge strides in recent years to lower their carbon footprints overall.
With regard to lodging, going green isn’t just for youth hostels and campgrounds anymore. In a recent survey, upwards of two-thirds of U.S. hotels said they had energy-efficient lights and had implemented towel- and linen-reuse programs—up from just over half five years ago. According to Budget Travel magazine, Accor/Motel6, Intercontinental, Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, Hyatt, Best Western and Wyndham/Super8 have all made huge strides in energy and water conservation, recycling and green design over the last few years. Beyond the chains, many independent hotels have taken up the green baton; you’ll likely find one or more at your destination via the website of the Green Hotels Association.
As for rental car companies, just about all of them offer large selections of fuel efficient cars these days, if for no other reason than to meet the demands of both business and vacationing customers not interested in spending lots of money on gas. Hertz, Avis, Budget and Enterprise each have large fleets of hybrid and/or flex-fuel (ethanol) cars for rent at hundreds of airport and in-town locations around the U.S. Advantage Rent-a-Car has pledged to turn 100 percent of its rental fleet “green” by 2010. For now, renting a hybrid still typically costs $5-15 more per day than an equivalent conventional car, but as rental car companies bring more of the vehicles online, prices should start to reach parity. And if you’re driving a long way in the car, you may just make up the difference in fuel savings. Travelers to the Bay Area should keep in mind that San Francisco International Airport offers a $15 credit for renting a hybrid from any of the rental car companies operating there.
Traveling by any means other than foot, bicycle or paddle always takes some toll on the environment, but those who watch their carbon footprints—and stay abreast of which vendors offer the greenest courses of action—can keep their impacts to a minimum. Stay tuned to websites like Go Green Travel Green for the latest info on what airlines, hotels, car rental companies and other travel-related businesses are doing to green up their industry.
CONTACTS: Budget Travel magazine, www.budgettravel.com; Green Hotels Association, www.greenhotels.com; Go Green Travel Green, www.gogreentravelgreen.com
Dear EarthTalk: Celebrities and billionaires are shelling out big bucks for cutting edge green-friendly cars like the Tesla Roadster. But what are the rest of us—who live in the budget-constrained real world—to do about buying a new car that does right by the environment?
-- M.G., Stroudsburg, Penn.
With so many new energy efficient cars in showrooms today, there’s never been a better time to go green with your next car purchase. A few years ago the Toyota Prius was the go-to model for those with an environmental conscience and up to $30,000 to pay for the privilege of getting 35-40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 45-55 on the highway. But today there is such a wide selection of fuel efficient and low-emissions vehicles that even those on a budget can afford to go green.
To wit, Honda’s new Insight is the first hybrid gasoline-electric car available new for less than $20,000 (starting at $19,800). With fuel efficiency ratings of 40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 43 on the highway, the Insight surely won’t cost much to operate either.
There are plenty of other hybrids to choose from today, too, though most cost at least a few thousand dollars more than equivalent non-hybrid models. Toyota’s Prius, which is only available as a hybrid, still leads the pack as the world’s top selling and most fuel efficient hybrid. Its cost has dropped some, now starting at $22,400, and the “3rd generation” Prius 10 now claims an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) combined city/highway rating of 50 mpg. This most recent edition even features a whimsical solar panel on the roof to power a ventilation system that keeps the interior of the car cool even on scorching hot days. Hybrid versions of Honda’s Civic ($23,800), Nissan’s Altima ($26,780), Ford’s Fusion ($27,625) and Escape SUV ($31,500), Mercury’s Milan ($31,590) and Mariner SUV ($29,995), Toyota’s Camry ($26,150) and Highlander SUV ($34,700) are also in showrooms in dealerships across the U.S.
Many smaller cars with regular gasoline engines also get great mileage with low emissions for even less money. Some examples include the Corolla ($15,350), Matrix ($16,550) and Yaris ($12,355) from Toyota, Honda’s Fit ($14,900), the Mazda 3 ($16,045), Chevy’s Aveo ($11,965) and Cobalt ($14,990), the Hyundai’s Accent ($9,970) and Elantra ($14,145), Pontiac’s G3 ($14,335), the Kia Rio ($11,495), the MINI Cooper ($19,500), Ford’s Focus ($15,995), and the Smart Car ForTwo ($11,990).
Diesel fuel is now cleaner than ever, and a few automakers are going down that road. Volkswagen’s Jetta TDI ($22,660), Audi’s A3 TDI ($29,950) and BMW’s 335d ($43,900) are three examples of high performance vehicles with solid green credentials regarding fuel efficiency and emissions. An added bonus is that such cars can run on carbon-neutral biodiesel as well as petroleum-based diesel fuel.
Consumers just starting their search for a new ride should check out GreenCar.com, which provides detailed information on the many greener vehicles available today as well as those on the horizon. Also, the federal government’s website FuelEconomy.gov provides detailed mileage and emissions information on dozens of new cars every year, and provides users with an easy and free way to compare different vehicles along the lines of environmental impact.
CONTACTS: GreenCar.com, www.greencar.com; FuelEconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov.
Dear EarthTalk: Why is the plankton in the oceans dying? And what does this mean for the health of the oceans and marine life?
-- Marilynn Block, Portland, Ore.
As the lowest link on the marine food chain, plankton—that tiny aquatic plant, animal and bacterial matter floating throughout the world’s oceans—is a vital building block for life on Earth. Besides serving as a primary food source for many fish and whales, plankton plays a crucial role in mitigating global warming.
Indeed, the ocean is the world’s largest “carbon sink”: As much as one-third of man-made CO2 emissions are stored in the oceans and therefore do not contribute to global warming. This is because its plant component, phytoplankton (its animal component is called zooplankton), pulls massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere as it photosynthesizes.
But various environmental factors are taking their toll on plankton the world over. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported recently that marine phytoplankton is declining across the oceans. Even Canadian cod fishermen are noticing that the plankton-feeding fish they catch are often nearly starving as a result of lack of this crucial food source.
A 2007 study published in the scientific journal Nature found that human-caused increase in CO2 pollution is altering the pH (acidity) levels in the oceans. This change in chemistry is expected to have adverse effects on the entire ecosystem. More acidic ocean water inhibits the ability of shell-forming marine organisms—from plankton to mollusks to corals—to form properly. Smaller and less healthy populations of plankton would be bad news for all the other creatures above it on the ocean’s food chain.
Higher water temperatures, also attributable to our fossil fuel addiction, can also have a devastating effect on plankton. A recent report in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom noted that, in the Adriatic Sea cooler winter conditions—which are less frequent in a warmer world—are needed for plankton production and nutrient availability. Furthermore, warmer sea temperatures can cause “blooms” of other sea life (such as happens with algae), resulting in oxygen starvation in the water, a condition that is devastating to plankton and other marine creatures and organisms.
In other situations, blooms of phytoplankton themselves—the tiny plants can gorge on the nutrients from the run-off from farms and lawns on land—can lead to oxygen starvation in the water. “The decomposition of these multitudes of phytoplankton removes oxygen from seawater, creating oxygen-poor ‘dead zones’ where fish cannot live,” reports Carly Buchwald, a researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Satellite imagery shows that these “dead zones” are expanding. Some scientists are advocating “iron fertilization”—the spreading of large amounts of iron across the world’s seas—to spur plankton growth. But others worry that such tinkering with complex ecosystems could have potentially harmful effects.
CONTACTS: Nature, www.nature.com; Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=mbi; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, www.whoi.edu.
Dear EarthTalk: Has anyone ever studied the environmental impact of discarded cigarettes? I’m constantly appalled at the number of drivers I see pitching their butts out their car windows.
-- Ned Jordan, via email
It’s true that littered cigarette butts are a public nuisance, and not just for aesthetic reasons. The filters on cigarettes—four fifths of all cigarettes have them—are made of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that is very slow to degrade in the environment. A typical cigarette butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose, depending on environmental conditions.
But beyond the plastic, these filters—which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs—contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly—out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below—they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.
Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants can get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.
While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem. Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. The non-profit Keep America Beautiful reports that cigarette butts constitute as much as one-third of all litter nationwide when measured by the number of discarded items, not volume. According to the Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit that advocates for stronger protection of marine ecosystems, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America’s salt and fresh water beaches according to feedback received by hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking part in the group’s annual Coastal Clean-up event.
While the tobacco industry may have its hands full just trying to stay afloat in the maelstrom of ongoing bad publicity, critics say it should be doing more to prevent cigarette butt litter. “Just as beverage manufacturers contribute to anti-litter campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should the tobacco industry,” says Kathleen Register, founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, a non-profit that has spearheaded the fight against cigarette butt litter in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. She adds that cigarette manufacturers “need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to the cleanup of cigarette litter.”
Register suggests a number of strategies including putting anti-litter messages on all cigarette packaging and advertisements, distributing small, free portable ashtrays, and placing and maintaining outdoor ashtrays in areas where smokers congregate. She also suggests putting an extra tax on cigarette sales, with proceeds going toward anti-litter education efforts and to defray the costs of cleaning up butts. “Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools, businesses and park agencies money,” she says. “By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers.” One way or another, Register hopes, smokers will learn that the Earth is not one giant ashtray.
CONTACTS: CDC, www.cdc.gov, Clean Virginia Waterways, www.longwood.edu/cleanva.
Dear EarthTalk: I recently had a tissue mineral analysis indicating that my levels of the nutritional element, molybdenum, were off the chart. I believe this may be leaching from my stainless steel cookware. Is this element toxic to my body?
-- Barbara, Fruitland Park, Fla.
Having trace amounts of molybdenum in our bloodstreams is not only normal but beneficial. The element piggybacks onto bacteria to help us metabolize proteins and grow new cells, and also helps keep our vertebrae and tooth enamel strong. But too much of it can indeed be toxic.
Health care practitioners worry more about miners exposed to molybdenum dust on a daily basis than they do about everyday folks with occasional and incidental exposure via cookware and ingested foods. Few if any cases of acute toxicity in humans have been documented, though animal studies have shown that ingesting small but frequent amounts can lead to diarrhea, growth retardation, infertility, low birth weight and even gout. It has also been shown to negatively affect the lungs, kidneys and liver.
But most of us need not fear, as the amount of molybdenum we get naturally from eating foods like green beans, eggs, sunflower seeds, wheat flour, lentils and cereal grain is not enough to cause any severe health reactions, and, again, is an important building block component of our diets. In fact, a deficiency of molybdenum in one stretch of northern China—where the element does not occur naturally in the region’s soils—has been linked to a higher-than-normal rate of esophageal cancer.
Additional amounts of molybdenum could be getting into your foods from stainless steel cookware, but manufacturers insist that if their products are not dinged and pocked from overuse or abused with abrasive brushes or detergents during clean-up they shouldn’t leach much of anything into the food cooking inside.
Of all the elements used to make stainless steel, molybdenum is one of the most able to tolerate high heat without expanding, softening or otherwise breaking down. That’s largely why it is approved for use in food-grade products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Incidentally, its heat tolerance is also why it is used in the making of missiles, aircraft, rifle barrels, light bulb filaments and furnace components.
While it is unlikely that the amount of molybdenum in a normal human diet is enough to cause severe health reactions, no one would fault someone with reason for concern to take precautions. For starters, if you do have too much molybdenum in your systems, add some tungsten (sodium tungstate) into your diet, which naturally reduces the concentration of molybdenum in human tissues.
With regard to cookware, switching away from stainless steel might be a good idea for anyone with high molybdenum levels in their bloodstreams. No cookware is perfect, but cast iron and anodized aluminum seem to be the top choices today for cooks concerned about leaching elements. While cast iron is known to leach some iron into food, iron deficiencies were far less common before World War II when most of our grandparents cooked with it. And anodized aluminum is an ideal non-stick, acid- and scratch- resistant surface which locks-in aluminum that could otherwise leach into food.
CONTACTS: International Molybdenum Association, www.imoa.info.
Dear EarthTalk: Do you have current facts and figures about how much rainforest is being destroyed each day around the world, and for what purpose(s)?
-- Teri, via e-mail
Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall.
According to researcher and writer Rhett Butler, who runs the critically acclaimed website, Mongabay.com, tropical rainforests are incredibly rich ecosystems that play a key role in the basic functioning of the planet. They help maintain the climate by regulating atmospheric gases and stabilizing rainfall, and provide many other important ecological functions.
Rainforests are also home to some 50 percent of the world’s species, Butler reports, “making them an extensive library of biological and genetic resources.” Environmentalists also point out that a quarter of our modern pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, but less than one percent of the trees and plants in the tropics have been tested for curative properties. Sadly, then, we don’t really know the true value of what we’re losing as we slash, burn, and plant over what was once a treasure trove of biodiversity.
According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), overall tropical deforestation rates this decade are 8.5 percent higher than during the 1990s. While this figure pertains to all forests in the world’s tropics, researchers believe the loss of primary tropical rainforest—the wildest and most diverse swaths—has increased by as much as 25 percent since the 1990s.
Despite increased public awareness of the importance of tropical rainforests, deforestation rates are actually on the rise, mostly due to activities such as commercial logging, agriculture, cattle ranching, dam-building and mining, but also due to subsistence agriculture and collection of fuel wood. Indeed, as long as commercial interests are allowed access to these economically depressed areas of the world, and as long as populations of poor rural people continue to expand, tropical rainforests will continue to fall.
Some scientists see light at the end of the tunnel. Joseph Wright of the Panama-based Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute says the tropics now have more protected land than in recent history, and believes that large areas of tropical forest will remain intact through 2030 and beyond: “We believe that the area covered by tropical forest will never fall to the exceedingly low levels that are often predicted and that extinction will threaten a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted.”
Only time will tell whether Wright’s optimistic predictions ring true, or whether a more doomsday scenario will play out. To stay informed and be part of the solution, stay tuned to the websites of Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, the Rainforest Site and, of course, Mongabay.com.
CONTACTS: Mongabay, www.mongabay.com; Rainforest Alliance, www.rainforestalliance.org; Rainforest Action Network, www.ran.org; Rainforest Site, www.rainforestsite.com; FAO, www.fao.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I recently saw a reference to “Enertia houses” that require little in the way of external sources for heating or cooling. Do you have any information on this housing design?
-- Alan Marshfield, via e-mail
Enertia is a brand name for homes designed and sold in kits by North Carolina-based Enertia Building Systems (EBS). The idea essentially marries the concepts of geothermal and passive solar heating/cooling into what amounts to a highly energy efficient hybrid system. Architectural inventor Michael Sykes coined the term “Enertia” in the 1980s to describe the innovative homes he was designing that would store solar and geothermal energy and make use of it for most if not all heating and cooling needs.
Under such a system, solid wood walls replace siding, framing, insulation and paneling, while an air flow channel—or “envelope”—runs around the building inside the walls, creating what Sykes terms a miniature biosphere. Inside the envelope, solar heated air circulates, pumping and boosting geothermal energy from beneath the house and storing it within the wood mass of the walls, where it is doled out gradually.
By harnessing the properties of thermal inertia—the ability of materials to store heat and give it off slowly—an “Enertia” house maintains a relatively fixed and comfortable temperature throughout the warmer day (when solar heat is collected and stored) and cooler night (when the wood walls give off heat to keep things toasty as the mercury dips).
The heart of the system is a south-facing sun space within the envelope that is dominated by windows and which therefore soaks up lots of solar energy, filling the house’s wood walls with thermal energy that in turn radiates into the primary living space. The entire house functions like an electric heat pump—moving warm and cool air around to accommodate the comfort needs of the occupants. It works even throughout the seasonal changes of the year—with minimal to no fossil fuels consumed or pollution generated.
In one Enertia house in North Carolina, the only power bill the owners typically pay is $35/month for electricity. They also have a back-up in-floor radiant heating system powered by natural gas for long cloudy stretches or unusually cold weather. Gas bills for heat typically total $150 for the year, meaning the owners’ total annual outlay for heating, cooling and electricity is less than $600—some $1,000 less than traditional homes in the same zip code are paying, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
EBS markets several different designs for its Enertia houses, but all share the basic premise of primary interior living space heated and cooled by air channeled in from a south-facing “buffer zone” envelope and from below grade. Smaller houses in the line top out at about 2,000 square feet over two floors of living space, while larger ones encompass some 4,000 square feet of living space over three floors. Depending on the model, you could spend anywhere from $66,000 to $292,000 for a complete plan and building materials kit. The rest—including the selection and cost of the land and the labor to build the house—is up to you.
CONTACTS: Enertia Building Systems, www.enertia.com.
Dear EarthTalk: How can I make good use of the rainwater that runs down my roof and into my gutters?
-- Brian Smith, Nashua, N.H.
For most of us, the rain that falls on our roof runs off into the ground or the sewer system. But if you’re motivated to save a little water and re-distribute it on your lawns or plants—or even use it for laundry, dishes or other interior needs—collecting rainwater from your gutters’ downspouts is a no-brainer.
If it’s allowed in your state, that is. Utah and parts of Washington State have antiquated but nonetheless tough laws banning anyone but owners of water rights from collecting rainwater flowing off privately owned rooftops. Such laws are rarely enforced, however, and one in Colorado was recently overturned.
According to John C. Davis, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, just about any homeowner can collect rainwater, given that the roof and gutters do most of the work. And since an inch of rain falling on a 2,000-square-foot roof produces some 1,200 gallons of runoff, one can harvest enough to supply all the water needs of a family of four for about two weeks. Of course, most of us would only use rainwater to irrigate our lawn or garden, and there should be plenty to go around for doing that in all but the most drought stricken areas.
Plants and grass actually do better when fed rainwater instead of tap water, which is usually treated with softeners that actually inhibit plant growth. And, reports Davis, the lack of minerals in rainwater actually makes it more effective than tap water for shampooing or doing dishes. Using rainwater for plumbing uses can also extend the life of pipes and water heaters, since the salts added to tap water facilitate corrosion. Homeowners should set up a water purification system if they do plan to use rainwater for interior needs.
Beyond the benefits to individual homeowners, rainwater harvesting can also be good for the local community, as it reduces the erosion, flooding and pollution runoff associated with heavy rainfall, and lessens reliance on public water supplies, alleviating some of the burden on utilities. Given these benefits, some states, including even drought-prone Texas, subsidize residential rainwater collection systems.
Many varieties of rain barrel systems, starting at just $100, are available for home installation. A typical set-up is simply a rain barrel positioned under a gutter’s downspout. “The barrel is typically fitted with a spigot at its base to fill a watering can or attach a soaker hose (which bleeds out water all along its length, providing effortless drip irrigation), and a filter or screen at its top to prevent a buildup of leaves and other debris,” writes Davis. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a single 100 gallon rain barrel can save up to 1,300 gallons of utility-provided water during the high demand summer months.
Handy homeowners can make their own water harvesting systems, but buying one pre-made is a lot easier. Most nurseries and garden centers offer a range of choices (as well as advice), but websites such as Aquabarrel, Clean Air Gardening and Rainxchange make it easy to order a system online.
CONTACTS: Aquabarrel, www.aquabarrel.com, Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com; Rainxchange, www.rainxchange.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I heard that goats are being used to prevent some of those catastrophic fires that seem to happen increasingly. What’s the story with that?
-- Ali B., New Canaan, Conn.
As wildfires consume parts of California larger than some smaller states, everyone is talking about how we can prevent such disasters from getting going in the first place. One novel approach is to enlist goats. Not as firefighters—although their surefootedness and determination would probably serve them well in such situations—but as grazers to keep the forest underbrush clear of the tinder-like grasses, bushes and small trees that allow flames to jump to the higher forest canopy and get further spread by the wind.
“Goats help prevent forest fires…by eating the dry stuff before the fire season strikes,” says Lani Malmberg, owner of Colorado-based Ewe4ic (pronounced “u-for-ik”) Ecological Services, which uses goats to gradually and naturally remove weeds and return lands to a healthier more natural state.
Goats have been called in for fire mitigation purposes across parts of California, Arizona and other drought-prone parts of the western U.S. In the Oakland and Berkeley hills regions of California’s Bay Area, where the combined effects of drought and a bark beetle infestation have killed thousands of acres of trees, public agencies and residents have enlisted the help of goat herds to suppress weeds and keep down the fire risk in the process for what remains of the area’s forest cover.
“The goat clearance scheme is one of the key reasons the Bay Area hasn’t had a recurrence of a catastrophic fire in decades,” says Tom Klatt, former manager of the Office of Emergency Preparedness at UC Berkeley and the author of UC Berkeley's 2007 Fire Mitigation Program Annual Report.
Other earth-minded land managers are going goat as well. The Nature Conservancy recently hired goats to keep dry grasses and other tinder-like plant matter down at its Hassayampa River Preserve in Arizona, where the constant threat of summer fires haunts nearby homeowners while endangering the integrity of the area’s unique and fragile riparian ecosystem.
Using goats to control forest brush may seem like a novel idea, but it’s really been around as long as grazing animals have roamed the planet looking for nourishment. But with ever-increasing human development, wild grazers are fewer and farther between. The problem is exacerbated by our building our homes so close to (and sometimes within) forested areas that naturally burn occasionally. Efforts to then suppress all forest fires—even naturally occurring undergrowth burns—to protect these homes have led to “tinderbox” conditions ripe for those large destructive fires that spread for hundreds of miles, blown by the wind from treetop to treetop.
Grazing goats are also used in other endeavors. “Goats can be utilized as an effective bio-control agent to reduce weed populations to economically acceptable levels,” says Malmberg, adding that weeding with goats requires no pesticides or herbicides and generates zero greenhouse gas or other harmful emissions.
CONTACTS: Ewe4ic Ecological Services, www.goatseatweeds.com; Office of Emergency Preparedness at UC Berkeley, www.oep.berkeley.edu.
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental non-profits have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and has this had an impact on their effectiveness?
-- Bridget W., Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Non-profits of every stripe have been suffering from the economic downturn. In a recent survey of 800 U.S.-based non-profits, 75 percent reported feeling the effects of the downturn, with more than half already experiencing significant cuts in funding from both government and private foundation sources.
According to a recently released report from Civic Enterprises and the Democratic Leadership Council entitled “Quiet Crisis: The Impact of the Economic Downturn on the Nonprofit Sector,” few of these groups have strong reserves to weather the downturn—more than half have less than three months of operating funds on hand, while three-quarters cannot make it six months on existing cash reserves.
And the outlook is not promising. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which reports on trends in grantmaking, says that foundation assets have declined by some 28 percent following the economy’s nosedive; two-thirds of them expect to have reduced grants significantly by the end of 2009. Many grantmakers have, in fact, suspended grants altogether for the time being.
Despite their funding troubles, many environmental groups continue to provide core services. According to the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), many cash-strapped groups are adapting by using more volunteers to get their work done, and actively seeking partnerships with other groups in order to make the most of limited resources and share overhead costs. And, of course, many green groups have cut costs through hiring freezes, layoffs and forced reductions in pay and hours for existing employees.
To Mark Tercek, president of the non-profit Nature Conservancy, the silver lining in the funding crisis for green groups is that it forces them to operate more efficiently and focus on core priorities: “Non-profits…have to be smart about adjusting to a tougher economic environment, including setting priorities,” he says. “If resources are going to be constrained…then organizations have to ask the questions: ‘What are we really best at? What are we uniquely positioned to do?’” Tercek adds that the recession also provides an “opportunity to connect the economic stimulus to environmental matters.”
And that’s just what the Obama administration hopes to do. By encouraging development of green technologies and services, the federal government aims to leverage environmental progress for an overall economic benefit. Most federal funding will go toward incentives for businesses and homeowners to adopt greener ways, but green groups with related expertise are in a good position to benefit as well.
Another boost for green groups could come if Congress passes the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which aims to flood non-profits with some 250,000 volunteers each year in a program akin to the Peace Corps but on the domestic front. Non-profits are also seeking changes to the federal tax code to further encourage corporate, foundation and individual donations.
CONTACTS: Quiet Crisis Report, www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/quietcrisis.pdf; EGA, www.ega.org; Serve America Act, www.nationalservice.gov/about/serveamerica.
Dear EarthTalk: I am considering upgrading some older appliances in my home. Where can I find information on which models are the most energy efficient?
-- Jonathan Duda, Olivebridge, N.Y.
There has never been a better time to upgrade some of those older creaky appliances that are gobbling up much more energy (or water) than they need to in your home. Fortunately, most of the sifting-through to find the best values has already been done for you.
The first thing to do when shopping for new equipment is to look for models emblazoned with the blue EnergyStar logo. This helps you zero in on those models that have been determined by the federal government—EnergyStar is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy—to be at least 10 to 25 percent more energy-efficient (and often much more) than conventional models.
For dishwashers, for example, EnergyStar qualified models use 31 percent less energy and 33 percent less water than conventional machines while performing as well as or better, according to EnergyStar. With clothes washers, EnergyStar models can cut energy use by over a third and water use by half. EnergyStar-rated refrigerators will cut electrical use in half, compared to older machines made before 1993. With air conditioners, the savings is there, too, though at a more modest 10 percent over conventional models.
EnergyStar, which began in 1992 and first evaluated only computers and monitors, is a great jumping off point for evaluating everything from major appliances to home heating and cooling, lighting, home electronics, office equipment and more. The EPA recently extended the label to cover new homes and commercial and industrial buildings.
After first zeroing in on EnergyStar models, be sure to check out the accompanying yellow EnergyGuide sticker, which gets down to the nitty-gritty and estimates how much energy the appliance uses, compares its energy use to similar products and lists approximate annual operating costs. EnergyGuide labels also appear on appliances not EnergyStar compliant. Visit the EnergyStar website (address below) and immerse yourself.
Another way to help sort through the thousands of appliances out there that are EnergyStar-compliant is by checking out the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine) free Greener Choices website, which compares a wide range of merchandise according to their relative environmental impact.
Greener Choices provides detailed information on dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioners, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. Each appliance is assessed in comparison to other models via the website’s Green Buying Guides, which can help consumers decide how green they should go. It also offers up a series of calculators to determine the energy use of your current appliances, new or old. By providing the efficiency and price of various models, the site helps consumers decide how much green “bang” they want for a specific amount of bucks.
CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Greener Choices, www.greenerchoices.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that hybrid engine technology is now being used to power boats. What’s happening with that?
-- D. Smith, Portland, Maine
With concerns about climate change and the fate of the world’s imperiled oceans and waterways at an all time high, it makes sense that the boating industry would be looking into greener ways to try to do their part and to attract some of those increasing numbers of environmentally conscious customers.
Americans spend 500 million hours zipping around in recreational boats each year. But until recently the engines on these boats were held to much lower efficiency standards than their automotive counterparts. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced new more stringent emissions standards for marine engines—both in-board and outboard—that will go into effect in 2010. In fact, several hybrid boats are already on the market, boasting emission ratings well below the new standards.
The 24-foot Endeavor Green Electric Hybrid can run all day on an electric charge that costs only 11 cents and generates no emissions, kicking into a small diesel generator only if the boat’s eight batteries run dry. And when owners can charge the batteries via solar or wind power, the boats have a zero carbon footprint. Florida-based Craig Catamaran Corp. last year launched a hybrid version of its compact catamaran-style speedboat. The sporty little two-seater, which is light enough to be towed by a Mini Cooper or Smart Car, can run for eight hours on less than a gallon of gas, and costs less than $6,000 all in.
For those looking for a larger, more luxurious ride, the 25-foot Frauscher hybrid might be just the ticket. The speedy $155,000 Austrian-built pleasure boat combines an electric engine with a 256 horsepower Steyr diesel motor to allow for emissions-free harbor cruising or high octane speeding across open water.
If you’re not quite ready to take the plunge on a hybrid boat yourself, check out one in action on your next visit to San Francisco. The recently retrofitted Hornblower ferry to Alcatraz and Angel islands is powered by several alternative energy sources, including a hybrid diesel-electric system powered by solar cells and wind turbines right on deck. Alcatraz Cruises, the private company that runs the service claims the Hornblower is the first hybrid ferry boat in the country. The 64-foot vessel has an advanced power management system that regulates when and how the different power sources are used so it can make best use of its energy and minimize emissions. Passengers can see many of the technological advancements on the vessel, making for not only a fun and scenic but educational ride.
In another development, the U.S. Navy has reportedly contracted with Solomon Technologies, makers of the famous Zodiac line of rugged inflatable boats, to create a series of hybrid boats where fuel efficiency and stealthy (quiet) passage is of paramount importance. Recreationists, pacifists and Greenpeace anti-whaling activists alike may get the chance to check one out soon, too, as Solomon is already looking into incorporating hybrid technologies into its recreational and commercial product lines as well.
CONTACTS: Endeavour Green, www.endeavourgreen.com; Craig Catamaran, www.craigcat.com; Frauscher Boats, www.frauscherboats.com; Alcatraz Cruises, www.alcatrazcruises.com; Solomon Technologies, www.solomontechnologies.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Hunting seems to be a real controversy among environmental advocates. Can you set the record straight: Is hunting good or bad for the environment?
-- Bill Davis, New York, N.Y.
Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to cull the herds of prey animals that, as a result, now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.
On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as barbaric, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals…” and is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He adds that, despite hunters’ claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game [target] species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”
Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels and raccoons—“provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.”
Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms ‘therapeutic hunting’—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.
Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for its most recent (2006) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.
Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc., a social research firm specializing in natural resource issues, found that 78 percent of Americans support hunting today versus 73 percent in 1995. Eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percent of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.
Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating for cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both lament urban sprawl and habitat destruction.
CONTACTS: The Animals Voice, www.animalsvoice.com; HSUS, www.hsus.org; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html; Responsive Management Inc., www.responsivemanagement.com
Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with the Florida Panther these days? Is it still teetering on the brink of extinction, or is it on the rebound?
-- Alex T., via email
One of more than 20 subspecies of cougar and native to the southeastern United States, the Florida Panther is most certainly still highly endangered. Biologists estimate that less than 100 of the animals are alive in the wild today, hanging on in the southern tip of Florida below the Caloosahatchee River. Their current range represents less than five percent of where they originally roamed across Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and parts of Tennessee and South Carolina.
Perceived as a threat to humans, livestock and game animals, the Florida Panther was persecuted and hunted to near extinction by the mid-1950s. Today, primary threats are habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of human development. According to Defenders of Wildlife, the main culprits in the decline of the animals’ numbers are: urban sprawl; the conversion of once diversified agricultural lands into intensified industrial farming uses; and the loss of farmland to commercial development. Other factors include collisions with automobiles, territorial disputes with other panthers as habitat shrinks, and inbreeding resulting from their isolated population. Additional threats include mercury poisoning from the fallout of coal-fired power plants, parasites, and diseases such as feline leukemia and feline distemper.
Efforts to help the Florida Panther recover have had limited success. Many public agencies and nonprofit groups have worked together to try to bring back the panther—Florida’s state animal—since it was first listed as endangered by the federal government back in 1967. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), panthers require large areas of contiguous habitat: Each breeding unit of one male and two to five females requires some 200 square miles of territory to thrive. Biologists report that a population of 240 panthers requires between 8,000 and 12,000 square miles of habitat and sufficient genetic diversity in order to avoid inbreeding as a result of small population size. The introduction of eight female cougars from a closely related Texas population in 1995 helped mitigate inbreeding problems, but most analysts fear that the effort was too little, too late for the threatened cats.
Since the animals were first listed as endangered, the human population of Florida has more than tripled, meaning that rescue efforts are swimming against the tide. Defenders of Wildlife reports that, since 2004, human-panther encounters have been on the rise, as have documented instances of panthers preying on livestock and pets. In response, the USFWS, the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have drafted a landmark Florida Panther Response Plan, which guides game managers and law enforcement officials in handling such interactions in ways that ensure public safety while recognizing the need to preserve dwindling Florida Panther populations.
Readers can help by getting educated about the plight of the big cats and pressuring their elected officials to take action. Another way to help is by supporting wildlife groups working on the issue. Defenders of Wildlife’s “Adopt a Panther” program, for one, puts donations into public education, preserving habitat and promoting sound transportation planning to prevent panther deaths on Florida’s roads and highways.
CONTACTS: Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; USFWS, www.fws.gov; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, www.myfwc.com.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Submit it at www.emagazine.com
or e-mail
earthtalk@emagazine.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)