Author Archives: GemmaHornung

It only took 28 years to get solar panels back on the White House roof!

It only took 28 years to get solar panels back on the White House roof!

Daniel Zimmerman

Today, Jimmy Carter gets to enjoy a gleeful chuckle while Ronald Reagan rolls over in his grave. Today is a good day.

After four years of repeated grumblings of “we’re going to do this, we promise,” the Obama administration has plunked some solar panels on the White House roof. And like all great things, they’re American-made, American-installed, and run off of good ol’ American sunlight!

A little bit of backstory: Back in 1979, Carter was ahead of the curve in installing solar panels at the presidential residence. At their dedication, he provided an apt analysis of what they symbolized at the time: “A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people—harnessing the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

Reagan honored that sentiment with a resounding “SIKE NAW” when he removed the panels in 1986.

And nearly 30 years later, here we are again! Time is a flat circle, after all.

During a speech today in California, President Obama unveiled new plans to promote the use of solar energy by businesses, households, and the government, plus a $2 billion initiative to make federal buildings more energy efficient by 2017.

“Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar, and every panel is pounded into place by a worker whose job cannot be overseas,” Obama said.

What better place to continue that trend than his own house?

“Being at the White House, we do have some security concerns, and we can’t cover the entire roof,” says White House Usher James Doherty in an official video (watch below) showing the installation of the panels. “Although that would be good from an energy saving standpoint,” he adds with an uncomfortable giggle.

Hopefully, these solar panels will enjoy a slightly longer life than Carter’s.

Eve Andrews is a Grist fellow and new Seattle transplant via the mean streets of Chicago, Poughkeepsie, and Pittsburgh, respectively and in order of meanness. Follow her on Twitter.

Want a new set of wheels? Donate to Grist by May 20 and you could win this sweet electric bike.

Donate Now

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Continue reading here – 

It only took 28 years to get solar panels back on the White House roof!

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Paradise, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It only took 28 years to get solar panels back on the White House roof!

5 Unanswered Questions About Chris Christie’s Bridge Scandal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, emails and text messages surrendered by a friend and former political appointee of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie revealed that Christie’s inner circle masterminded a massive September traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey, as political retribution against the city’s Democratic mayor. The messages show gleeful Christie aides gloating that their plan had wreaked so much havoc. One text message read, “Is it wrong that I’m smiling?”

The messages came from David Wildstein, who was Christie’s high school buddy and, until he resigned due to suspicions about his involvement with the bridge scandal, the director of interstate capital projects for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Wildstein divulged the messages in response to a subpoena from a panel of New Jersey lawmakers investigating the scandal.

Wildstein is testifying under oath this afternoon about the documents before the New Jersey Assembly’s Committee on Public Works, Infrastructure, and Independent Authorities. Here are five questions lawmakers should put to him:

Is there any evidence that the “traffic study” ever existed?
As suspicions about the Fort Lee traffic jam grew, Christie and his staff said repeatedly that the governor believed a Port Authority traffic study had caused the whole mess.

In his Thursday press conference, Christie maintained that the bridge scandal may have had its roots in a legitimate traffic study, saying, “I don’t know if this was a traffic study that morphed into a political vendetta or a political vendetta that morphed into a traffic study.”

Why does Christie still think his top Port Authority aide was in the dark about this scandal?
On Thursday, Christie also expressed his confidence that David Samson, the Port Authority chairman, played no role in causing Fort Lee’s traffic disaster, saying:

Samson put out a statement yesterday that he had no knowledge of this. I interviewed him yesterday. He was one of my interviews. I am convinced that he had absolutely no knowledge of this, that this was executed at the operational level and never brought to the attention of the Port Authority board of commissioners…And so I sat and met for two hours yesterday with Mr. Samson—General Samson—and again, I’m confident that he had no knowledge of this, based upon our conversations and his review of the information.

Yet messages released on Wednesday make it clear Samson was involved in plans to close Fort Lee’s access lanes on the day of the traffic jam. When New York officials at the Port Authority reopened the lanes, reducing the traffic jam, Wildstein wrote to Kelly, “We are appropriately going nuts. Samson helping us to retaliate.”

Did Christie learn about the bridge plot in his mystery meeting with the Port Authority chairman?
During a text message conversation in which a Christie aide and a Port Authority official planned the lane closures, the pair also tried to plan a meeting between Christie and Samson.

Naturally, some have speculated that the subject of the meeting was the Fort Lee lane closures—which would explode Christie’s claims that he wasn’t aware of plans to close Fort Lee’s access lanes.

What did the traffic jam’s planners think would happen in case of an emergency?
The architects of the Fort Lee traffic jam appear to have considered its potential public safety consequences. In one text message conversation that was sent once the lanes were closed, Port Authority appointee Wildstein waved away the Fort Lee mayor’s complaints about school buses getting stuck in traffic by noting, “Bottom line is he didn’t say safety.”

But officials in Fort Lee, including two members of the borough council and the chief of police, later reported that the traffic jam had slowed down emergency responders—including police who were searching for a missing child. So what was the plan in case of an emergency?

Are there other instances in which the Port Authority and Christie staffers wielded their power for political reasons?
At his Wednesday press conference, Christie claimed he knew nothing about the lane closures that brought Fort Lee to a standstill. So it wasn’t surprising that Christie denied knowing anything about other instances in which his appointees in his administration or at the Port Authority might’ve used their positions to enact political retribution.

The messages Wildstein surrendered illustrate a close relationship with the Christie administration. If any other Fort Lee-like incidents took place, he would know.

View article: 

5 Unanswered Questions About Chris Christie’s Bridge Scandal

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Unanswered Questions About Chris Christie’s Bridge Scandal

Drug-Company CEO: Top Morning-After Pill May Not Work Over 165 Pounds, Regardless of BMI

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Since Mother Jones broke the news on Monday that a European drugmaker, HRA Pharma, found that its popular morning-after pill may not work in heavier women, many readers have asked why the company chose to update its product labels with a hard weight limit—instead of a limit on BMI, an obesity measurement that relies on a height-to-weight ratio.

HRA Pharma was prompted to rethink its labels after University of Edinburgh Professor Anna Glasier linked emergency contraceptive failures and an obese body mass index (or BMI) in a 2011 analysis. The new label for the drug, Norlevo—a brand of emergency contraceptive pills which uses levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy, and is identical to several US drugs, including Plan B—says it is not recommended for women who weigh 165 pounds or more, no matter their height.

Glasier, analyzing data from one study sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health and another sponsored by HRA Pharma, found that the risk of pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel pills increased significantly if a woman had a body mass index of 30 or higher—which the US Centers for Disease Control considers obese.

On Tuesday, HRA Pharma CEO Erin Gainer explained the company’s decision further to Mother Jones. When HRA statisticians reviewed the data Glasier used for her analysis, Gainer says, they confirmed Glasier’s findings about BMI—but they also found that their products’ failure correlated even more strongly with weight, regardless of a woman’s height.

“We were surprised,” Gainer says. “But the findings were really quite striking from a statistical point of view.” She adds that weight is easier for health care providers to discuss with their patients. “People don’t walk down the street knowing what their body mass index is,” she says.

HRA Pharma has not made its analysis public. But based on the media uproar after I first revealed Norlevo’s new guidelines, Gainer says, “We’re thinking now about how best to publish these findings.”

A New York Times article highlights another change HRA Pharma will make to the leaflets included with Norlevo: the new leaflets will say that Norlevo “cannot stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.” This is significant because it contradicts assertions made by abortion opponents in their lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate—the so-called “Hobby Lobby” cases that the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear this spring. The Times’ Pam Belluck explains:

The cases coming before the Supreme Court involve corporations that object on religious grounds to the health care law’s requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception, including emergency contraception. The cases are based on the claim that some types of contraception, including Plan B One-Step, prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, tantamount to an abortion.

While labels of Plan B One-Step and related pills, which contain the drug levonorgestrel, say they work mostly by blocking the release of eggs before fertilization, they also say the drugs may inhibit fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.

Last year, the New York Times reported on new evidence that emergency contraceptive pills do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and the FDA now tentatively agrees with their assessment. But HRA Pharma appears to be the first drug company to adjust its labels accordingly—a significant data point against the abortion foes appearing before the Supreme Court.

In her research, Glasier did not determine why the effects of levonorgestrel diminished as BMI or weight increased. She published her research in the international peer-reviewed journal Contraception.

The FDA is investigating whether US emergency contraceptives that use levonorgestrel must change their labels.

Diana Blithe, a contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and an author of one of the studies Glasier analyzed, told NPR on Tuesday that she supports such a change. “I think it is incumbent upon American manufacturers to put that information on the label now that they’re aware of it,” she said.

But Glasier told CNN that she was still skeptical of warning heavier women not to use Norlevo or similar drugs. “You are probably better to take levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills after unprotected sex than just to leave it to chance even if you are obese,” she said.

Original article:  

Drug-Company CEO: Top Morning-After Pill May Not Work Over 165 Pounds, Regardless of BMI

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Drug-Company CEO: Top Morning-After Pill May Not Work Over 165 Pounds, Regardless of BMI

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sugar kills. The delicious white crack has been linked to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. So what’s a person with a sweet tooth to do? Artificial sweeteners are a tempting choice, since they don’t have calories or rot your teeth, and they’re recommended for people with diabetes. But some of the fake stuff comes with its own potential health risks: Links to cancer in animal studies, reported side effects of dizziness and headaches, and exacerbated stomach problems, to name a few. And in one case, an artificial sweetener that the FDA had proposed banning was kept on the shelves after an aggressive advertising campaign from the pro-sweetener lobbying industry. Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, tells Mother Jones that, “We always encourage people to make informed choices by reviewing the credible research available.” So without further ado, here’s everything you need to know about the safety of your favorite fake sugar.

1. Stevia (Brand names: Truvia, PureVia)

Truvia.com

What is it? Stevia is short for Stevia Rebaudiana, a plant from the Chrysanthemum family that grows in parts of Brazil and Paraguay. The compound that makes the Stevia sugar is extracted from the leaves. It’s used in the EU, East Asia, Russia, Mexico, Israel, and many South American countries, and is about 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? In the 1990s, the FDA rejected Stevia as a food ingredient after research linked it to reproductive problems and possible genetic mutations in rats. In 2008, the FDA approved a specific formula of pure Stevia—Rebaudioside A. PureVia and Truvia both contain the Reb A version of Stevia, which is FDA-approved. The FDA recommended daily dosage is no more than 1.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, for healthy adults. You’d need to have at least 29 Truvia packets a day to exceed that.

What do the experts say? If your Stevia isn’t made from Reb A—like, for example, the whole-leaf extract version that’s sold at natural food markets and labeled as a “dietary supplement”—it hasn’t been vetted for safety by the FDA. For Truvia and PureVia, the FDA concluded with “reasonable certainty that Reb A is not harmful under its intended conditions of use” based on studies it looked at concerning reproductive, blood pressure, and toxicity effects. Although scientific studies in the 1960s and 1980s found that Stevia-derived products decreased fertility in female rats and potentially led to mutations, the FDA concluded that those problems didn’t apply to Reb A, based on additional research. (The World Health Organization has also determined that Reb A has no cancer link.) The FDA did note that one form of Stevia was deadly to rats at a dose of 15,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, but that’s an enormous amount of Stevia. Atalanta Rafferty, a spokesperson for Truvia, says that “A panel of independent experts reviewed a dossier of all available toxicity and safety information relevant to Truvia stevia leaf extract, and concluded that Truvia stevia leaf extract is safe.” Pura Via says on its website that, “An extensive library of more than 85 studies exists for Reb A and other components of the stevia plant which supports Reb A’s use in tabletop sweeteners.”

2. Aspartame (Brand Names: Equal, NutraSweet)

Soap.com

What is it? Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol, all of which are found in common foods. It’s about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? It was approved in the United States for limited use in 1974. But if you’re taking more than 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, you’re exceeding the FDA’s recommended daily limit. (A 165-pound person would have to be drinking more than 20 cans of diet coke to exceed that.)

What do the experts say? Aspartame has been controversial for decades. In 1987, the Government Accountability Office investigated the FDA after the sweetener was approved. It determined that the “FDA adequately followed its food additive approval process,” but noted that 12 of the 69 scientists interviewed by GAO expressed “major concerns” about aspartame’s safety.

In 2006, cancer researchers in Bologna, Italy, released the results of a $1 million, seven-year study of the use of aspartame in rats. The team found that, at a dosage equivalent to a 150-pound person drinking at least four 20-oz bottles of diet soda daily, the sweetener caused cancer in the animals. But the FDA shot down the study, noting that the researchers wouldn’t give them all of their information, and found major shortcomings in the data that was available. According to the FDA, five other cancer studies found that the sweetener was safe. The American Cancer Society says on its website, “Aside from the possible effects in people with phenylketonuria a rare genetic disorder, there are no health problems that have been consistently linked to aspartame useâ&#128;&#139;” but adds that “research continues.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends that Americans avoid it on the basis that the independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents (although again, not in humans), and it’s been anecdotally linked to other health issues. In a 2002 FDA report, reported aspartame side effects included nausea, heart palpitations, headaches and depression, among other things. NutraSweet and Equal both say that its products are very safe. “Aspartame offers one simple step in helping people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet,” notes NutraSweet’s website.

3. Sucralose (Brand Name: Splenda)

Splenda

What is it? Sucralose is a chemical that’s produced by chemically reacting sugar with chlorine. It’s about 600 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Sucralose was approved in 1998. The FDA recommended daily dose is 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

What do the experts say? There have been more than 110 studies on sucralose over a 20 year period, and the American Cancer Society says the studies have shown “no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest says that “sucralose is safer than aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, and cyclamate,” but notes that people with inflammatory bowel disease and other gastrointestinal issues should try avoiding the substance, since it’s been known to aggravate symptoms (Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, says that this finding “is not consistent with the extensive data base on sucralose and its more than 20 years of safe use.”) In 2008, Duke University researchers also found that Splenda can harm intestinal bacteria, although that study was funded by a pro-sugar lobbying group, and Ballman says that “no regulatory agency has acted on the results from that study.” In 2012, the same controversial research team in Italy that busted aspartame announced that sucralose increases cancer in rats, but the results of the study have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “In contrast, more than 110 studies have proven the safety of Sucralose. Worldwide authorities, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization, have reviewed these studies and confirm that results show no link between sucralose and any form of cancer,” says Ballman.

4. Saccharin (Brand names: Sweet’N Low)

Amazon

What is it? Saccharin is made from benzoic sulfilimine, a chemical compound that was accidentally discovered in 1879 when a professor, Constantin Fahlberg, was analyzing coal tar at John Hopkins University. He spilled saccharin on his hands and later noticed that the bread he was eating at dinner tasted sweeter, according to Elmhurst College. Saccharin is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Saccharin has been around since before the FDA governed food additives, but the FDA has put the acceptable daily limit at 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. A 150 pound person could consume 340 milligrams of saccharin per day, which is equal to more than 48 12-ounce servings of Diet Wild Cherry Fanta.

What do experts say? In the 1970s, tests showed that high doses of saccharin caused bladder stones in rats, which could lead to bladder cancer, particularly in male rats. Studies after that found similar results. Initially, the FDA proposed banning the substance—but on Congress’ recommendation in November 1977, the FDA kept it on shelves, with warning labels that the sweetener was found to be a carcinogen. According to Christopher Foreman, Jr.â&#128;&#139;, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a number of congress members fought against actually banning the substance, pushed along by the Calorie Control Council, a sugar substitute and diet-food lobbying group, which “launched an advertising campaign ridiculing both the FDA and the studies on which it based its decision.” In 1991, the FDA finally stopped proposing to ban the sweetener, and in 1996, the warning labels were done away with. In 2000, the US National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens finally removed saccharin from its list. According to the National Cancer Institute, “the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” Stephanie Meyering, a spokesperson for Sweet’N Low, says, “Saccharin is the one of the most thoroughly tested food ingredients in the world and it has the longest safe human consumption record among non-nutritive sweeteners.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn’t convinced and puts it on its list of substances to “avoid.”

View post – 

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Paul Ryan, who’s apparently hard at work on a conservative plan to fight poverty:

You cure poverty eye to eye, soul to soul. Spiritual redemption: That’s what saves people.

Well, maybe so. But here on Earth, money helps out too. The quote above is from a Washington Post story about Ryan’s newfound focus on poverty, and Jared Bernstein reads through the rest looking for some more worldly policy recommendations. He doesn’t come up with much:

Then you read page after page, trying to figure out what the dude is actually saying he’d do to lower poverty, and here’s what you’re left with: vouchers, tax credits, and volunteerism.

All sizzle, no steak.

And is that not the story of Rep. Ryan? His is the classic example of the adage that if you’ve got a reputation for being an early riser, you can sleep til noon….His proposals to block grant major safety net programs (freeze their spending levels and hand them over to states), like SNAP and Medicaid, would gut their critical countercyclical function (as was the case with TANF). He used the Heritage Foundation’s economic wizards to predict the his budget would reduce unemployment to less than 3% (don’t look for this forecast, though–his team pulled it once they actually, you know, looked at it).

For the life of me, I can’t figure out the media’s love affair with Ryan. Sure, he’s young, fit, good looking, and he’s not a screamer. He’s also a smart guy who understands the details of the federal budget. But everything he’s ever done—everything—boils down to a single sentence: reduce taxes on the rich and reduce spending on the poor. That’s it. There’s literally nothing else he’s ever seriously proposed.

It doesn’t even take much digging to figure out that this is what he’s saying. You only have to be barely numerate, just enough to draw the obvious conclusions from his budget proposals (conclusions that he’s very careful not to draw himself). When you do that, you find that his budgets always propose lower taxes and lower domestic spending. Much lower. How is it that so many people seem so willing to pretend otherwise?

Continue reading here:  

Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty