Florida Cabinet OK's first new nuclear plant in 33 years
Similar stories:
•Crist, Cabinet to decide on new nuclear plant
Crist, Cabinet to decide on new nuclear plant
Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet have approved Progress Energy's bid to build a nuclear power plant in Levy County.
However, that doesn't mean the St. Petersburg-based company's request will ultimately go through.
Progress Energy still requires approval from environmental regulators and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it can begin construction on the project, about 10 miles north of Crystal River and eight miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
•Twisting in the Wind
Twisting in the Wind
In the push to stop global warming, many experts are hearing a mighty rushing wind.
Clean and abundant wind power in vast stretches of America is not only far cheaper than solar, but as oil prices soar, it's proving to be less expensive than natural gas, a prime source of the nation's power.
At present, wind provides only 1 percent of U.S. electricity, but a federal report predicts the wind could be providing 20 percent of American power by 2030.
Florida's plan for renewables was a lot of wasted energy
For a year, while the green movement was at its height, Florida environmentalists, new solar companies, utility lobbyists and state regulators spent thousands of hours trying to determine how much of the state's power supply should come from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
They did it because the Legislature in 2008 ordered them to do it. After sifting through thousands of pages of documents and sitting in lengthy workshops, the Public Service Commission sent its recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. A renewable-energy bill passed the Senate but died in the House. The result: A year of work wasted.
Among the major victims: The ballyhooed Babcock Ranch project, which is trying to become the first solar-powered city in the world, and thousands of construction workers who would have been hired to build new power plants.
FPL reactor proposal advances
State regulators Tuesday approved Florida Power & Light's request to build two new nuclear reactors and opened the door for the utility to start charging customers for the multibillion-dollar investment as early as next year -- even though the reactors won't be finished for a decade.
In a major victory for FPL, the Public Service Commission shrugged off the concerns of dozens of environmental groups and unanimously agreed there was a need for the new reactors at Turkey Point in South Miami-Dade.
The utility's nuclear plans still face more state and federal approvals, but on Tuesday they received the green light from their primary regulators.
•With nuclear waste piling up, FPL seeks Turkey Point rezoning
After more than two million pounds of nuclear waste has piled up in South Dade over 35 years, Florida Power & Light is quietly seeking a zoning change to allow six acres of its Turkey Point site to be used for new above-ground storage casks.
Environmentalists have known for a long time FPL planned to use casks but they knew little, if anything, about the need for a zoning change, which generally allows for public discussion that could lead to modifications of the utility's plans.
''It's news to me,'' said Lloyd Miller of the South Florida National Parks Trust. ''Haven't heard a thing,'' said Mark Oncavage, who follows South Florida energy issues for the Sierra Club. ``I definitely think we should have a say in this.''
BY SHANNON COLAVECCHIO
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Cabinet on Tuesday approved Progress Energy's controversial proposal to build a nuclear plant in Levy County, the first such plant approved in Florida in 33 years. The vote by Gov. Charlie Crist, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink comes as Progress seeks to raise its base rates by 30 percent to pay for the nuclear plant, which would not be up and running until at least 2018.
``I want to commend Progress for this initiative,'' McCollum said. ``It's a very, very important project. I am impressed with the passion of the opponents here today, but I want to assure them that I have spent a long time studying this issue. . . , We are going to have a tremendous demand for energy in the coming years. We're going to have to increase our capacity for electricity and power, and nuclear is a part of that.''
Crist, who has been pushing for a stronger renewable and clean energy plan for Florida, lauded the clean energy the plant will produce. He also is enthusiastic about jobs to be created with the plant's construction and operation -- as many as 5,000 short- and long-term, by Progress' estimate.
``We need to diversify our energy resources,'' Crist said. ``I encourage solar and wind and wave and nuclear development. The more diversified we are, the more opportunity we have to never suffer when one is less available than the other.''
Crist noted Florida has become No. 2 in the country for solar energy production.
Progress officials hailed the plant as a major step toward that diversified energy future, and they insist the plant will result, over time, in cost savings for customers.
``This will save customers approximately $1 billion a year by lowering fuel costs,'' said Jeff Lyash, executive vice president for Progress. ``This is an important part of Florida's energy future.''
But critics, several of whom showed up at the Capitol to protest the vote and complain about ``corporate greed,'' question the safety of the plant and its impact on wetlandssurrounding the 5,000-acre site north of the town of Inglis.
``I'm concerned about the time it is going to take to build this plant. I am concerned about the danger and about the legacy we are leaving to our children,'' said state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkle-Vasilinda. ``We are leaving a legacy of waste. It is not truly clean. There is waste, and it has to be permanently disposed. We have not figured out how to do that, and I am concerned.''
Progress had hoped to start producing power from the plant in 2016 but on May 1, Progress Energy announced that construction had been delayed 20 months because the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not allow it to begin building anything before all site and safety reviews are complete.
The plant won't come cheap. Progress Energy, which has about 129,500 customers in Pasco County and more than 10,000 in Hernando, wants to raise base rates by more than 30 percent, which would generate about $500 million for construction.
Although the plant won't start producing power until March 2018 at the earliest, customers are already paying for its construction. In January, customers saw a monthly increase of $12.11 per 1,000 kilowatt hours to pay for nuclear projects, sparking such an uproar that the utility then lowered its rates, reducing the monthly nuclear charge to $4.31 per 1,000 kilowatt hours.
Critics have complained about the site the company picked. In many places, the water table on the site is above ground for half the year or longer, according to documents the company filed with the NRC. Most of the site lies in the 100-year floodplain, meaning after heavy rain, it is likely to remain inundated for some time.
``Any hurricane event would inundate the vicinity of the plant with storm surge,'' the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council noted in a report. ``On-site, the plant and associated facilities may be especially vulnerable to flood hazard.''
The utility's plans call for wiping out about 765 acres of wetlands, according to a public notice posted in May by the agency that issues federal wetland permits, the Army Corps of Engineers. Mike Sole, head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, called the 765 acres ``the worst case scenario'' and said his department ``will work diligently to minimize this impact.''
Even with the Cabinet vote, there are more hurdles for Progress, Sole stressed. The federal government has much oversight of the proposed project, in particular over nuclear safety matters. In July, as public hearings were held around the state to discuss the proposal, federal regulators with the National Regulatory Commission ruled that environmental groups could challenge Progress Energy's plans to build a nuclear plant in Levy County.
One issue: The utility has yet to figure out where it will send the new plant's radioactive waste, and thus may have to store it on site longer than expected.
The board also found that the utility may have underestimated the impact of building the plant in a floodplain. That will require filling in and paving over hundreds of acres of wetlands, which may hurt both the underground aquifer and the Withlacoochee River, not to mention the wildlife species that depend on them, the board found.
And the licensing board said the utility may not have adequately addressed the impact of ``salt drift'' into the remaining wetlands on the site. The plant will pump 120 million gallons of saltwater a day from the Cross Florida Barge Canal, evaporate a third of it for cooling, and pump the warm, salty remainder into waters near the Big Bend Aquatic Seagrasses Preserve. The question the plant's critics raised is what happens to the vapor from the cooling towers.
Shannon Colavecchio can be reached at scolavecchio@sptimes.com
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Chevy Volt To Get 230 MPG
AP updated 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
DETROIT - General Motors Corp. said Tuesday its Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car should get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, more than four times the mileage of the current champion, the Toyota Prius.
GM came up with the figure in early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles, said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt.
If the figure is confirmed by the EPA, which does the tests for the mileage posted on new car door stickers, the Volt would be the first car to exceed triple-digit gas mileage, Posawatz said.
The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.
Most automakers are working similar plug-in designs, but GM could be the leader with the Volt, which is due in showrooms late in 2010.
Toyota's Prius, the most efficient car now sold in the U.S., gets 48 miles per gallon of gas. It is a gas-electric hybrid that runs on a small internal combustion engine assisted by a battery-powered electric motor to save gasoline.
The first-generation Volt is expected to cost near $40,000, making it cost-prohibitive to many people even if gasoline returns to $4 per gallon. The price is expected to drop with future generations of the Volt, but GM has said government tax credits and the savings on fuel could make it cost-effective, especially at 230 miles per gallon.
"We get a little cautious about trying to forecast what fuel prices will do," Posawatz said. "We achieved this number and if fuel prices go up, it certainly does get more attractive even in the near-term generation," he said.
GM was to present details of the mileage figure on Tuesday morning at an event at its technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren. INTERACTIVE
Traded-in clunkers
Figures for the Volt's highway and combined city/highway mileage have not yet been calculated, Posawatz said. The combined mileage will be in the triple digits as well, he said, but both combined and highway will be worse than city because the engine runs more on longer highway trips.
The EPA guidelines, developed with input from automakers, figure that cars like the Volt will travel more on straight electricity in the city than on the highway. If a person drives the Volt less than 40 miles, in theory they could go without using gasoline.
The mileage figure could vary as the guidelines are refined and the Volt gets further along in the manufacturing process, Posawatz said.
GM is about halfway through building about 80 Volts that will look and behave like the production model, and testing is running on schedule, Posawatz said.
Two critical areas, battery life and the electronic switching between battery and engine power, are still being refined, but the car is on schedule to reach showrooms late in 2010, he said.
GM is simulating tests to make sure the new lithium-ion batteries last 10 years, Posawatz said.
"We're further along, but we're still quite a ways from home," he said. "We're developing quite a knowledge base on all this stuff. Our confidence is growing."
The other area of new technology, switching between battery and engine power, is proceeding well, he said, with engineers just fine-tuning the operations.
Click for related content
Vote: Would you buy a Volt for $40,000
Scrap yards get busy crushing clunkers
eBay, GM set to start car-selling trial Tuesday
"We're very pleased with the transition from when it's driving EV (electric vehicle) to when the engine and generator kick in," he said,
GM also is finishing work on the power cord, which will be durable enough that it can survive being run over by the car. The Volt, he said, will have software on board so it can be programmed to begin and end charging during off-peak electrical use hours.
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are all developing plug-ins and electric cars, and Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a plug-in version of its gas-electric hybrid system. Nissan Motor Co. announced last month that it would begin selling an electric vehicle in Japan and the U.S. next year.
DETROIT - General Motors Corp. said Tuesday its Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car should get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, more than four times the mileage of the current champion, the Toyota Prius.
GM came up with the figure in early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles, said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt.
If the figure is confirmed by the EPA, which does the tests for the mileage posted on new car door stickers, the Volt would be the first car to exceed triple-digit gas mileage, Posawatz said.
The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.
Most automakers are working similar plug-in designs, but GM could be the leader with the Volt, which is due in showrooms late in 2010.
Toyota's Prius, the most efficient car now sold in the U.S., gets 48 miles per gallon of gas. It is a gas-electric hybrid that runs on a small internal combustion engine assisted by a battery-powered electric motor to save gasoline.
The first-generation Volt is expected to cost near $40,000, making it cost-prohibitive to many people even if gasoline returns to $4 per gallon. The price is expected to drop with future generations of the Volt, but GM has said government tax credits and the savings on fuel could make it cost-effective, especially at 230 miles per gallon.
"We get a little cautious about trying to forecast what fuel prices will do," Posawatz said. "We achieved this number and if fuel prices go up, it certainly does get more attractive even in the near-term generation," he said.
GM was to present details of the mileage figure on Tuesday morning at an event at its technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren. INTERACTIVE
Traded-in clunkers
Figures for the Volt's highway and combined city/highway mileage have not yet been calculated, Posawatz said. The combined mileage will be in the triple digits as well, he said, but both combined and highway will be worse than city because the engine runs more on longer highway trips.
The EPA guidelines, developed with input from automakers, figure that cars like the Volt will travel more on straight electricity in the city than on the highway. If a person drives the Volt less than 40 miles, in theory they could go without using gasoline.
The mileage figure could vary as the guidelines are refined and the Volt gets further along in the manufacturing process, Posawatz said.
GM is about halfway through building about 80 Volts that will look and behave like the production model, and testing is running on schedule, Posawatz said.
Two critical areas, battery life and the electronic switching between battery and engine power, are still being refined, but the car is on schedule to reach showrooms late in 2010, he said.
GM is simulating tests to make sure the new lithium-ion batteries last 10 years, Posawatz said.
"We're further along, but we're still quite a ways from home," he said. "We're developing quite a knowledge base on all this stuff. Our confidence is growing."
The other area of new technology, switching between battery and engine power, is proceeding well, he said, with engineers just fine-tuning the operations.
Click for related content
Vote: Would you buy a Volt for $40,000
Scrap yards get busy crushing clunkers
eBay, GM set to start car-selling trial Tuesday
"We're very pleased with the transition from when it's driving EV (electric vehicle) to when the engine and generator kick in," he said,
GM also is finishing work on the power cord, which will be durable enough that it can survive being run over by the car. The Volt, he said, will have software on board so it can be programmed to begin and end charging during off-peak electrical use hours.
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are all developing plug-ins and electric cars, and Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a plug-in version of its gas-electric hybrid system. Nissan Motor Co. announced last month that it would begin selling an electric vehicle in Japan and the U.S. next year.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama To Do Fewer Toxic Cleanups
updated 10:04 p.m. PT, Sun., Aug 9, 2009
WASHINGTON - AP -For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of America's most contaminated waste sites. The Obama administration plans to do even less.
Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record. But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.
In Obama's first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records. The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.
During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites on average a year.
"Certainly, we are very disappointed that we can't get our ... numbers up," said Elizabeth Southerland, the acting deputy of the EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, known as Superfund.
Obama’s team gives familiar explanation
The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly. That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.
Of the 527 contaminated properties still needing cleanup on the Superfund list, 40 have progressed to the point where all that's left is removing the last piles of contaminated soil, building a treatment plant to strip the groundwater of toxic pollutants, or capping a landfill so contamination does not enter the drinking water or air in surrounding neighborhoods.
At the other 1,060 hazardous waste sites still on the list, construction is finished and the last stages of the cleanup are under way — a process begun before Obama took office.
When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer replied: "That's the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I don't buy it."
Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Boxer elaborated. "It doesn't matter to me who the president is. What matters to me is these sites get cleaned up," she said.
But not everyone is so critical of Obama's Superfund numbers.
Lack of money plagues Superfund
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent. They say it's because Obama, unlike Bush, wants to address the problem that has plagued Superfund for years — a lack of money.
A tax on petroleum, chemicals and large companies once helped EPA pay for the multimillion cleanups. It expired in 1995 and Superfund has been on financial life support since.
The pool of money ran dry in 2004, when Superfund cleanups that did not have a company to foot the bill ceased to be subsidized by the tax on polluters and started being paid by taxpayers.
Obama, unlike Bush, has called for the reinstatement of the tax in 2011. That will require action by Congress. It will also be up to Congress to set aside more money for cleanups if the tax is reinstated. In the past, when Superfund was flush in cash from the tax, Congress did not always provide more money for cleanups.
Sometimes, cleanup comes with delays
Supporters also point out that the Obama administration has asked for slightly more money in its budget for Superfund — $1.31 billion compared with the $1.29 billion in Bush's last year. There's also an extra $600 million from the economic stimulus plan for cleanups at 50 sites across the country.
But neither has helped boost the number of sites ready for the final stage of cleanup, although they could down the road.
Cleanups come with surprises. Workers can discover contamination they didn't know existed, leading to a new series of delays.
Poisoned mining town about to expire
Mercury in dental fillings not risky, officials say
California bans suction dredge mining
Southerland, the Superfund manager, says that has happened more often in recent years as money has been more targeted on the cleanup, rather than studies to map out the contamination.
"The problems are the same," said Katherine Probst, an expert on Superfund at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Resources for the Future. "The point is they need more money, whether it is under Bush or Obama."
In the meantime, EPA officials say they are looking to find a new way to measure Superfund progress.
WASHINGTON - AP -For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of America's most contaminated waste sites. The Obama administration plans to do even less.
Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record. But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.
In Obama's first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records. The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.
During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites on average a year.
"Certainly, we are very disappointed that we can't get our ... numbers up," said Elizabeth Southerland, the acting deputy of the EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, known as Superfund.
Obama’s team gives familiar explanation
The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly. That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.
Of the 527 contaminated properties still needing cleanup on the Superfund list, 40 have progressed to the point where all that's left is removing the last piles of contaminated soil, building a treatment plant to strip the groundwater of toxic pollutants, or capping a landfill so contamination does not enter the drinking water or air in surrounding neighborhoods.
At the other 1,060 hazardous waste sites still on the list, construction is finished and the last stages of the cleanup are under way — a process begun before Obama took office.
When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer replied: "That's the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I don't buy it."
Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Boxer elaborated. "It doesn't matter to me who the president is. What matters to me is these sites get cleaned up," she said.
But not everyone is so critical of Obama's Superfund numbers.
Lack of money plagues Superfund
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent. They say it's because Obama, unlike Bush, wants to address the problem that has plagued Superfund for years — a lack of money.
A tax on petroleum, chemicals and large companies once helped EPA pay for the multimillion cleanups. It expired in 1995 and Superfund has been on financial life support since.
The pool of money ran dry in 2004, when Superfund cleanups that did not have a company to foot the bill ceased to be subsidized by the tax on polluters and started being paid by taxpayers.
Obama, unlike Bush, has called for the reinstatement of the tax in 2011. That will require action by Congress. It will also be up to Congress to set aside more money for cleanups if the tax is reinstated. In the past, when Superfund was flush in cash from the tax, Congress did not always provide more money for cleanups.
Sometimes, cleanup comes with delays
Supporters also point out that the Obama administration has asked for slightly more money in its budget for Superfund — $1.31 billion compared with the $1.29 billion in Bush's last year. There's also an extra $600 million from the economic stimulus plan for cleanups at 50 sites across the country.
But neither has helped boost the number of sites ready for the final stage of cleanup, although they could down the road.
Cleanups come with surprises. Workers can discover contamination they didn't know existed, leading to a new series of delays.
Poisoned mining town about to expire
Mercury in dental fillings not risky, officials say
California bans suction dredge mining
Southerland, the Superfund manager, says that has happened more often in recent years as money has been more targeted on the cleanup, rather than studies to map out the contamination.
"The problems are the same," said Katherine Probst, an expert on Superfund at the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Resources for the Future. "The point is they need more money, whether it is under Bush or Obama."
In the meantime, EPA officials say they are looking to find a new way to measure Superfund progress.
Generics - page 2
The FDA, says Buehler, is meticulous in studying the effect of different time-release formulas. If clinicians observe a significant difference between the two, they will not permit pharmacists to substitute the generic for the brand-name drug. Patients on Coumadin, for example, are not advised to alternate between the brand-name blood thinner and the generic warfarin. Torprol XL does not fall into this category.
But Lever's concerns go beyond patient experiences. He has counted 150 recalls of both generic and brand-name drugs in the past several years, a figure that makes him wonder if the manufacturing process needs further regulatory scrutiny.
Indeed, in late June the FDA ordered U.S. Marshals to seize 33 generic drugs manufactured in Michigan by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories. The company had been warned last October that it had violated manufacturing standards by, among other things, failing to investigate inconsistent batches and distributing products whose ingredients may have been compromised.
Buehler characterizes this incident as an exception instead of the rule and proof that the FDA is closely regulating the production process. Manufacturing problems, he says, aren't exclusive to generic-drug makers either. Brand-name producers, for example, have been forced to recall several asthma drugs, including Advair and Pulmicort. In one case, Schering-Plough shipped asthma inhalers without any medicines in them.
Patients, of course, should discuss complications related to generic or brand-name prescriptions with a physician or pharmacist. If a generic drug seems less effective and is meant to control a condition that can be measured, such as high blood pressure or cholesterol, Graedon recommends keeping a diary of laboratory tests to evaluate the results.
What the Research Shows
Patients do themselves a disservice, however, when they correlate an emergent symptom with a new drug regimen without further investigation. The connection could be coincidence, or it could stem from the perception that generics are inferior.
Researchers have compared generic and brand-name drugs in one conclusive study published last December in the Journal of the American Medical Association and found no difference between such drugs used to treat cardiovascular conditions. The study reviewed 47 previously published articles in which researchers compared several drugs, including statins and beta-blockers.
Despite the lack of convincing evidence to show that generics are harmful, the study's co-author Dr. William Shrank wrote that among the 43 editorials he reviewed, more than half "expressed a negative view of generic-drug substitution."
Shrank can't explain why some physicians discourage generic drugs, but the American Medical Association has discredited this position, noting that the scientific evidence is too weak to support such concerns.
Buehler agrees. "If there was a problem with generics," he says, "we'd be hearing much more than we hear now."
But Lever's concerns go beyond patient experiences. He has counted 150 recalls of both generic and brand-name drugs in the past several years, a figure that makes him wonder if the manufacturing process needs further regulatory scrutiny.
Indeed, in late June the FDA ordered U.S. Marshals to seize 33 generic drugs manufactured in Michigan by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories. The company had been warned last October that it had violated manufacturing standards by, among other things, failing to investigate inconsistent batches and distributing products whose ingredients may have been compromised.
Buehler characterizes this incident as an exception instead of the rule and proof that the FDA is closely regulating the production process. Manufacturing problems, he says, aren't exclusive to generic-drug makers either. Brand-name producers, for example, have been forced to recall several asthma drugs, including Advair and Pulmicort. In one case, Schering-Plough shipped asthma inhalers without any medicines in them.
Patients, of course, should discuss complications related to generic or brand-name prescriptions with a physician or pharmacist. If a generic drug seems less effective and is meant to control a condition that can be measured, such as high blood pressure or cholesterol, Graedon recommends keeping a diary of laboratory tests to evaluate the results.
What the Research Shows
Patients do themselves a disservice, however, when they correlate an emergent symptom with a new drug regimen without further investigation. The connection could be coincidence, or it could stem from the perception that generics are inferior.
Researchers have compared generic and brand-name drugs in one conclusive study published last December in the Journal of the American Medical Association and found no difference between such drugs used to treat cardiovascular conditions. The study reviewed 47 previously published articles in which researchers compared several drugs, including statins and beta-blockers.
Despite the lack of convincing evidence to show that generics are harmful, the study's co-author Dr. William Shrank wrote that among the 43 editorials he reviewed, more than half "expressed a negative view of generic-drug substitution."
Shrank can't explain why some physicians discourage generic drugs, but the American Medical Association has discredited this position, noting that the scientific evidence is too weak to support such concerns.
Buehler agrees. "If there was a problem with generics," he says, "we'd be hearing much more than we hear now."
Generic Drugs Better ?
Generic drugs--cheaper forms of name-brand medicines--account for most of the pills dispensed by pharmacies in the U.S. Using these alternatives saved American consumers $121 billion last year, according to Generic Pharmaceutical Association, a trade group.
Yet many people doubt that the less expensive pills are as effective as the brand-name drugs they replace. Thirty percent of 1,000 adults polled in May by Prescription Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, either didn't believe generics were as good as their brand-name counterparts or were unsure. People tend to associate cost with quality, says Jacqueline B. Kosecoff, Prescription Solutions' chief executive. "Generic often connotes something different."
In Pictures: What You Should Know About Generic Drugs
That's one reason some consumers hesitate to trust generic drugs. They also read about patients' accounts of their troubling experiences online and even occasionally hear about drug manufacturing companies that violate standards and are forced to issue product recalls.
Yet Gary J. Buehler, director of the office of generic drugs in the Food and Drug Administrations' Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, sees little cause for concern. The FDA, he says, is confident that generics perform as well as brand-name medicines. The agency says rigorous quality and safety measures show that generics are of identical strength, purity and quality as the original brand-name drug.
"I don't think consumers should be worried," he says. "There's a lot of anecdotes out there, but we haven't seen any real scientific evidence."
Why the Concern?
While there is no evidence to support the claim that generics are inferior, patients often cite their own experiences as proof--and the Internet is home to countless testimonials.
Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist who runs People's Pharmacy, a Web site clearinghouse for drug-based medical advice, says he has received "hundreds and hundreds" of patient complaints about dozens of drugs. One of the most frequently discussed drugs has been the generic antidepressant Bupropion (brand names Wellbutrin and Zyban). Patients have cited a lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects such as severe depression and fatigue. (Wellbutrin IS an antidepressant and IS for patients who are deoressed. Fatigue is a familar sign of depression.)
The FDA is investigating these claims, and while Buehler cannot comment on the case, he does note that "hundreds of thousands of people take this drug successfully."
Dr. Harry Lever, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, shares Graedon's concerns about the number of patient complaints. In particular, he is puzzled by occasional reports from patients that they fare better on the brand-name beta-blocker Toprol XL--which is used to treat cardiac conditions such as high blood pressure--than they do when taking the generic version. Since the time-release formula of the generic Toprol is not identical to the brand name, he says, it may not be as effective.
(Good enough for the FDA, good enough for me- and WAY cheaper.)
Yet many people doubt that the less expensive pills are as effective as the brand-name drugs they replace. Thirty percent of 1,000 adults polled in May by Prescription Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager, either didn't believe generics were as good as their brand-name counterparts or were unsure. People tend to associate cost with quality, says Jacqueline B. Kosecoff, Prescription Solutions' chief executive. "Generic often connotes something different."
In Pictures: What You Should Know About Generic Drugs
That's one reason some consumers hesitate to trust generic drugs. They also read about patients' accounts of their troubling experiences online and even occasionally hear about drug manufacturing companies that violate standards and are forced to issue product recalls.
Yet Gary J. Buehler, director of the office of generic drugs in the Food and Drug Administrations' Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, sees little cause for concern. The FDA, he says, is confident that generics perform as well as brand-name medicines. The agency says rigorous quality and safety measures show that generics are of identical strength, purity and quality as the original brand-name drug.
"I don't think consumers should be worried," he says. "There's a lot of anecdotes out there, but we haven't seen any real scientific evidence."
Why the Concern?
While there is no evidence to support the claim that generics are inferior, patients often cite their own experiences as proof--and the Internet is home to countless testimonials.
Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist who runs People's Pharmacy, a Web site clearinghouse for drug-based medical advice, says he has received "hundreds and hundreds" of patient complaints about dozens of drugs. One of the most frequently discussed drugs has been the generic antidepressant Bupropion (brand names Wellbutrin and Zyban). Patients have cited a lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects such as severe depression and fatigue. (Wellbutrin IS an antidepressant and IS for patients who are deoressed. Fatigue is a familar sign of depression.)
The FDA is investigating these claims, and while Buehler cannot comment on the case, he does note that "hundreds of thousands of people take this drug successfully."
Dr. Harry Lever, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, shares Graedon's concerns about the number of patient complaints. In particular, he is puzzled by occasional reports from patients that they fare better on the brand-name beta-blocker Toprol XL--which is used to treat cardiac conditions such as high blood pressure--than they do when taking the generic version. Since the time-release formula of the generic Toprol is not identical to the brand name, he says, it may not be as effective.
(Good enough for the FDA, good enough for me- and WAY cheaper.)
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Global Warming a Military Concern?
Barack Obama. Al Gore. John Kerry. These are the names of some of the most frequent and forceful advocates for climate action. But because of their political affiliations, all three have baggage and so their massage can fall upon deaf ears when it reaches those who question the reality of climate change. Would those same climate deniers listen and change their beliefs if the messenger was not a politician but instead a member of the military, perhaps the most revered institution in the country?
I would wager that many would. Climate deniers, and those who wish to convert them, would do well to read John Broder's New York Times article today, "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security." In it, Broder reports that for some time the military has been factoring in climate change into their war game scenarios. They expect that in the decades to come, global warming will cause population displacement, mass drought, and food shortages that will provide the U.S. will significant national security threats.
Writes Broder:
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Changing the Frame
Climate activists have shifted their messages over the years to reflect what they viewed the American public wanted to hear a the time. The message has gone from one about far away places ("Save the Polar Bears", "Save the Arctic") to an economic one ("Green Jobs Now"). Sadly, no message, issue report, or organizing push has been strong enough to overcome the myriad reasons that those who oppose strong climate action put forward.
Skeptics don't believe in the science and probably don't spend much time sitting around reading IPCC reports. Climate change is a slow process and its invisible causes--methane, CO2, and HFC gases--don't stir the public to take immediate action.
The time might be right for a national security message, delivered by the right spokespeople--the military. Imagine if General David Petraeus addressed the Congress on climate change. As the commander of the United States Central Command, he has the authority and position to bring great weight to the fact that we need action now. Think Limbaugh has the guts to shout him down? Think Glenn Beck would dismiss him as a loon? I doubt it. Business has come over to the side of climate action. Maybe it's time some smart green group start to work with the national security crowd to amplify a message that must be heard now.
Point well taken. If the military is a believer and taking global warming into consideration in their different military preparations for various scenarios, perhaps the rest of the world should too.
I would wager that many would. Climate deniers, and those who wish to convert them, would do well to read John Broder's New York Times article today, "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security." In it, Broder reports that for some time the military has been factoring in climate change into their war game scenarios. They expect that in the decades to come, global warming will cause population displacement, mass drought, and food shortages that will provide the U.S. will significant national security threats.
Writes Broder:
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Changing the Frame
Climate activists have shifted their messages over the years to reflect what they viewed the American public wanted to hear a the time. The message has gone from one about far away places ("Save the Polar Bears", "Save the Arctic") to an economic one ("Green Jobs Now"). Sadly, no message, issue report, or organizing push has been strong enough to overcome the myriad reasons that those who oppose strong climate action put forward.
Skeptics don't believe in the science and probably don't spend much time sitting around reading IPCC reports. Climate change is a slow process and its invisible causes--methane, CO2, and HFC gases--don't stir the public to take immediate action.
The time might be right for a national security message, delivered by the right spokespeople--the military. Imagine if General David Petraeus addressed the Congress on climate change. As the commander of the United States Central Command, he has the authority and position to bring great weight to the fact that we need action now. Think Limbaugh has the guts to shout him down? Think Glenn Beck would dismiss him as a loon? I doubt it. Business has come over to the side of climate action. Maybe it's time some smart green group start to work with the national security crowd to amplify a message that must be heard now.
Point well taken. If the military is a believer and taking global warming into consideration in their different military preparations for various scenarios, perhaps the rest of the world should too.
Florida Bay Dying?
updated 6:30 a.m. PT, Wed., Aug 5, 2009 AP
ISLAMORADA, Florida - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He has been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations — Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys — but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades — starting some 300 miles north near Orlando — used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
'Virtual garden of Eden'
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
Ill effects
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he says.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
Struggle to curb pollution
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
Lawsuits
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
National parks try to shrink carbon footprints
Fla. budget forces Everglades deal to shrink
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."
ISLAMORADA, Florida - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He has been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations — Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys — but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades — starting some 300 miles north near Orlando — used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
'Virtual garden of Eden'
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
Ill effects
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he says.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
Struggle to curb pollution
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
Lawsuits
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
National parks try to shrink carbon footprints
Fla. budget forces Everglades deal to shrink
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)