Rachel's Democracy & Health News #980

From: Christian Science Monitor ……………………..[This story printer-friendly]
September 30, 2008

HIGH STAKES IN CANADA’S VAST OIL-SANDS FIELDS

[Rachel’s introduction: Canada ranks second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of total oil reserves, thanks to the enormous Athabascan “oil sands” out west in Alberta. Oil worth an estimated $34 trillion can be recovered there with available technology — though at enormous cost to the environment of Alberta and of the Great Lakes (see next story, below). Who will pay these great costs? Future generations.]

By George Tombs, Contributor of The Christian Science Monitor/

The relentless search for oil has led explorers to the boreal forest of northeastern Alberta, among the jack pines and black spruce trees an hour’s drive from the boom town of Fort McMurray. Kelly Hansen, operations manager at ConocoPhillips’s $1 billion Surmont oil-sands plant, holds up the prize: a beaker of sticky black “synbit,” a 50-50 blend of bitumen (a viscous, tarlike petroleum) and synthetic oil.

View a map of the tar sands regions of Alberta, Canada.

“The Athabasca oil sands contain the equivalent of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil,” Mr. Hansen says. “About 20 percent of that total can be produced, using current technology” — namely, surface mining and steam extraction underground. Surmont, a facility of gleaming silver- colored steam generators, process pipes, and holding tanks, is jointly owned with French oil company Total. Its initial pilot phase has ended, and the company estimates it will produce 2.5 billion barrels of oil at Surmont. [One-fifth of 1.7 trillion barrels, priced at $100 per barrel, would have a value of $34 trillion.]

Thanks largely to the prodigious Athabasca oil sands, Canada ranks second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of total oil reserves. At a time of roller-coaster crude prices and concerns over the security of energy supplies, these oil-sand deposits have attracted more than $100 billion of investment from just about every major oil company in the world.

According to Matt Fox, vice president of oil sands at ConocoPhillips, “Canada represented 20 percent last year of US oil imports. By 2020, it could easily represent 40 percent.”

Athabasca’s oil sands produce a heavy oil. “Upgraders” in the province convert it into a blend of lighter oil so it can enter pipelines and reach markets across Canada and the United States for refining.

Fort McMurray is experiencing a gold rush, even if the gold is black. The two-lane highway into town is often jammed with full-size pickup trucks and prefabricated process plants on wide-load trailers. Life in town is a frenzy of skyrocketing house prices, inadequate municipal infrastructure, mountains of freshly earned cash with little for workers to spend it on, and a huge transient population, much of it in temporary work camps. There’s a severe shortage of skilled labor. Mine workers are being recruited from as far away as South Africa and Venezuela.

Huge environmental footprint

But the biggest concern is the environmental footprint being created by oil-sands development. Extracting Athabasca’s oil is costly not only in terms of infrastructure, but also in water, energy used to produce steam, and the enormous amount of greenhouse gas that results. Some question whether the scale of new projects is wise. At today’s prices, tens of trillions of dollars’ worth of oil are at stake.

The oil sands exist in two formations: Surface deposits account for 20 percent of total recoverable reserves. The rest are at various depths underground.

At Syncrude’s Mildred Lake plant, north of Fort McMurray, giant excavators have scarred the landscape. Like giant otherworldly beetles roaming the moon, 400-ton trucks haul the ore to the extraction plant. Two tons of loose rock and soil and two tons of ore have to be moved to produce a single barrel of oil. Surface mining also uses from 2 to 4-1/2 barrels of water per barrel of oil. The water is pumped from the nearby Athabasca River to produce steam, which helps separate sand and bitumen. Much of the water is recycled, but some is left to settle in highly toxic tailings ponds.

At the same time, Syncrude — a joint venture that includes Canadian Oil Sands Ltd., Imperial Oil (an ExxonMobil subsidiary), Petro-Canada, Nexen, Conoco-Phillips, and others — is Canada’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gas, since it must burn 750 cubic feet of natural gas to generate the steam needed to produce a barrel of bitumen. That’s the equivalent of burning one barrel of oil for every eight barrels produced.

According to Steve Gaudet, Syncrude’s manager of environmental services, gradual progress is being made to reclaim land at mined sites by replacing topsoil and replanting shrubs and boreal forest trees. More than 20 percent of the Mildred Lake site has been reclaimed, he says, but desertlike areas remain.

In terms of water use, Mr. Gaudet says Syncrude uses 0.2 percent of the annual flow rate of the Athabasca River. “At the lowest flow rates, during the winter, we use 0.5 percent,” he notes. With the planned expansion, that figure will rise to 1 percent. (Some 60 percent of Alberta’s Bow River flow is exploited by cities like Calgary, as well as by agriculture and industry.)

Some aboriginal communities downstream are worried that contaminated water will seep back into the river and affect the drinking water and fish they depend on. This fall, the Alberta government is due to release a long-awaited report on the impact of oil-sands wastes on public health in the communities.

As surface mines of bitumen ore are gradually depleted, in situ (subsurface) extraction facilities like Surmont are springing up across the northern forest, connected to Alberta’s pipeline grid. They seem environmentally friendlier.

“Surmont is built on swampy muskeg,” Mr. Hansen of ConocoPhillips notes, “so clay had to be hauled in, and piles had to be driven into it to stabilize the plant.” In this particular area, the bitumen reservoir is 1,200 feet underground. “Drawing on a saline aquifer 650 feet down,” Hansen explains, “we inject steam through one well bore, and the steam gives the bitumen the consistency of cream. The bitumen then gravity-drains to a producer well. Once we stop injecting steam, it condenses to water and we recover emulsion, which is the combination of bitumen and water.” Most water is recycled, he says, and waste water is reinjected into the earth below the saline aquifer.

Steam extraction less resource-heavy

Compared with surface mining, this method uses far less water — 1/4 barrel of water per barrel of oil. But for both kinds of extraction, greenhouse gas created by steam generation remain a huge challenge. Even if emissions per barrel decline, oil production is growing rapidly. ConocoPhillips is considering ways to store carbon underground and find alternatives to natural gas to fire the plant.

ConocoPhillips is the biggest landholder in the Athabasca oil sands, with leases on 1 million acres. The company forecasts production of 1 million barrels per day at facilities like Surmont over the next two or three decades. “We know the resource is there,” says Mr. Fox, an oil-industry veteran from Scotland. “The pace of development will be dictated by economics and available technologies.”

The ferocious rate of government approval of new projects is upsetting some Canadian politicians as well as environmental groups from the World Wildlife Fund to the Sierra Club.

Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed is called “father of the oil sands,” since he was such a big factor in starting development in the 1970s and ’80s. But in a speech in August 2007, he warned that Alberta’s practice of bypassing federal environmental laws in its race to approve oil-sands projects “will cause significant stress to Canadian unity…. The government of Alberta, with its acceleration of oil-sands operations, will in my judgment be seen as the major villain in all of this in the eyes of the public across Canada.”

“Who can say ‘no’ to this much oil?” asks Simon Dyer, oil sands program director at the Pembina Institute, a Calgary-based sustainable-energy advocacy group that also consults for the government, aboriginal communities, and the oil industry. “The debate on the pace and scale of development isn’t being held in government. It is irresponsible to approve so many projects without protecting 20 to 40 percent of the environment in northeast Alberta — permanently. Both federal and provincial governments have failed to set limits on oil-sands production, for example, by placing a hard cap on water use of the Athabasca River and tightening rules for land-use reclamation.”

Very weak greenhouse-gas targets

“We have hopelessly weak greenhouse-gas [GHG] targets in Canada,” adds Mr. Dyer. “If you look at Canada’s total projected increase of GHG from 2003 to 2010, 41 to 47 percent of Canada’s increase can be attributed to the oil sands. They are the one single issue dragging us away from reducing GHG emissions.”

In August, the Pembina Institute pulled out of the multistakeholder oil-sands process, citing the lack of credible environmental management the last eight years.

Pembina’s Dyer acknowledges that there has been some progress in the environmental footprint per barrel of oil produced. But the phenomenal rise of oil-sands production will create enormous environmental problems, he says. “Would environmentally friendly measures cost the oil industry more? No one has done a real study of the costs of oil- sands production in terms of mitigation for the environment.”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Globe and Mail (Toronto, Ontario) ………………[This story printer-friendly]
October 8, 2008

OIL SANDS WILL POLLUTE GREAT LAKES, REPORT WARNS

[Rachel’s introduction: Extracting 340 billion barrels of oil (worth $34 trillion) from the “tar sands” in Alberta will create a “pollution delivery system” connecting western Canada to the Great Lakes, according to a new report. Alberta’s burgeoning refineries will extract copious quantities of water from the Lakes and will dump massive quantities of air pollution there.]

By Martin Mittelstaedt

The environmental impacts of Alberta’s oil sands will not be restricted to Western Canada, researchers say, but will extend thousands of kilometres away to the Great Lakes, threatening water and air quality around the world’s largest body of fresh water.

In a new report, the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre says the massive refinery expansions needed to process tar sands crude, and the new pipeline networks for transporting the fuel, amount to a “pollution delivery system” connecting Alberta to the Great Lakes region of Canada and the U.S.

It warns that the refineries will be using the Great Lakes “as a cheap supply” source for their copious water needs and the area’s air “as a pollution dump.”

The report, which is being released today at a conference at the university, says that as many as 17 major refinery expansions around the lakes are being considered for turning the tar-like Alberta bitumen into gasoline and other petroleum products. While not all will be undertaken, enough of them will be to have a regional environmental impact.

Proposed pipeline and refinery projects around the lakes are expected to lead to total investments of more than $31-billion (U.S.) by 2015, spending similar in scale to expenditures at many oil sands projects. For this reason, the report says the various projects, when taken together, threaten to “wipe out many of the pollution control gains” achieved around the lakes since the 1970s.

The massive expenditures are needed because typical refineries can’t process heavy crude derived from tar sands without costly upgrades.

“This expansion promises to bring with it an exponential increase in pollution, discharges into waterways including the Great Lakes, destruction of wetlands, toxic air emissions, acid rain, and huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions,” it says.

Most of the projected spending is on the U.S. side of the lakes. Only one major refinery project has been announced for the Canadian side, but that expansion, at a Shell refinery in Sarnia, was put on hold in July because of surging costs.

However, two big Canadian companies, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. with its Keystone project, and Enbridge Inc., with its Alberta Clipper project, are vying to build pipelines to bring crude from the tar sands to U.S. refineries around the lakes.

The report says the environmental effects in Alberta from tar sands development — from dying ducks caught in tailings ponds to massive carbon dioxide emissions — are well known, but the implications for the Great Lakes “are less well-understood and less extensively explored.”

Policy makers around the lakes, in both Canada and the U.S., are largely unaware that the tar sands will lead to massive industrial development in their region, and consequently have no strategy to minimize the environmental impacts, it says.

Some of the harshest criticism is for the Ontario government, which it characterizes as “remarkably unengaged” over how tar sands oil will affect the province and “doesn’t seem to even be asking the key questions, let alone contemplating the possible policy answers.”

There has been one major dispute in the U.S. over a tar sands-related refinery expansion, at a British Petroleum facility at Whiting, Indiana. The company proposed a $3-billion refinery modernization that would raise discharges of two pollutants by about 35 per cent and 54 per cent respectively. But it backed down and pledged not to increase the pollutants after a public outcry.

The 54-page report, called How the Oil Sands Got To The Great Lakes Basin, is being issued by the Munk Centre’s program on water issues.

Among its recommendations is a call for refineries to offset all of the additional carbon dioxide emissions they produce because of the difficulty of processing oil sands crude.

These emissions are estimated at 2.3 million tonnes a year, or about the same amount as produced by about 500,000 typically driven cars. Another recommendation is to require all refinery expansions to meet California’s strict air-pollution standards, the toughest in North America.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Reuters ……………………………………..[This story printer-friendly]
September 29, 2008

OCEAN “DEAD ZONES” SPREAD, FISH MORE AT RISK — STUDY

[Rachel’s introduction: The number of reported “dead zones” in the world’s oceans has grown to 140 from almost none 30 years ago, rising at about 5% per year and threatening marine fisheries.]

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO — The number of polluted “dead zones” in the world’s oceans is rising fast and coastal fish stocks are more vulnerable to collapse than previously feared, scientists said on Monday.

The spread of “dead zones” — areas of oxygen-starved water — “is emerging as a major threat to coastal ecosystems globally,” the scientists wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Such zones are found from the Gulf of Mexico to the Baltic Sea in areas where algae bloom and suck oxygen from the water, feeding on fertilisers washed from fields, sewage, animal wastes and pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels.

“Marine organisms are more vulnerable to low oxygen content than currently recognised, with fish and crustaceans being the most vulnerable,” said Raquel Vaquer-Sunyer of the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies in Spain.

“The number of reported hypoxic (low oxygen) zones is growing globally at a rate of 5 percent a year,” she told Reuters.

Her study with a colleague showed that the number of “dead zones” had risen to more than 140 in 2004 from almost none until the late 1970s.

Hundreds of millions of people depend on coastal fisheries for food. Crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters and shrimps are less able to escape from low-oxygen waters than fish.

Warming

Higher temperatures tied to global warming, blamed by the U.N. Climate Panel on human use of fossil fuels, may aggravate the problem of “dead zones”, partly because oxygen dissolves less readily in warmer water, the study said.

The first “dead zones” were found in northern latitudes such as Chesapeake Bay on the U.S. east coast and Scandinavian fjords. Others have been appearing off South America, Ghana, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal and Britain.

The study said that most scientists had until now reckoned that oxygen levels could fall to 2 milligrams per litre of sea water before the water was considered starved of oxygen.

But many creatures were far more sensitive. Larvae of one type of crab found off eastern Canada and the United States started suffering at oxygen levels of 8.6 mg per litre, just below normal levels.

“Currently used thresholds… are not conservative enough to avoid widespread mortality losses,” the scientists wrote. They urged a revised minimum of 4.6 mg of oxygen per litre as the lowest before water was considered hostile to life.

(Editing by Tim Pearce)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New Scientist ………………………………..[This story printer-friendly]
October 6, 2008

WORLD’S MAMMALS ARE IN CRISIS, RED LIST REVEALS

[Rachel’s introduction: A quarter of all land mammal species and one- third of all marine mammal species are threated with extinction, according to the latest “Red List” catalog of the world’s disappearing creatures.]

By Debora MacKenzie

In the first comprehensive assessment of the world’s 5487 known mammal species, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has just published a new Red List for mammals, and up to one in four is being pushed towards extinction.

Data on declining populations makes fully one third of marine mammals officially threatened, mainly by pollution and fishing. A quarter of land mammals are threatened, mainly by habitat destruction and hunting, and especially in south and southeast Asia.

Mammals are the most visible and appealing of wildlife — the iconic whales, pandas and tigers which, conservationists complain, grab the lion’s share, literally, of conservation budgets.

But surprisingly little is known about mammals. In a summary of the major findings at the IUCN’s world congress in Barcelona, Spain on Monday, scientists reported 349 newly described species since the last assessment began in 1992, mainly due to research in the Amazon and Madagascar.

Marine mysteries

“The biggest surprise is how much information is lacking,” says Jan Schipper of IUCN, lead author of the summary.

“We have identified the most important threats and the species most likely to go extinct if we continue as we are now: 188 species are critically endangered, of which 29 are possibly extinct,” he says. “I hope this assessment will be seen as a call to action.”

The global scale of the new assessment, by some 1700 scientists in 130 countries, has revealed new insights. Both land and marine mammals have the most species where there is the most to eat: near the tropics on land, around 40 deg. north and south latitudes at sea, where plankton productivity peaks.

There was not enough data to decide whether 836 mammals — 15% of land and 38% of marine mammals — were endangered or not. If they are also in trouble, and experts think that is likely, then fully 36% of land mammals and 61% of marine mammals are threatened.

Species may be vanishing even before they are known to science, Schipper warns, especially in the disappearing forests of West Africa and Borneo; arctic species are also under threat.

Charm no protection

The rest are not out of the woods. Six per cent of all mammal species are “near threatened”, having lost large parts of their ranges, such as the brown bear. Half of all species for which the scientists have data have shrinking populations, including a fifth of species classed as “of least concern” — meaning things will just get worse. Only 5% are increasing, like the European bison.

In south and southeast Asia, 80% of primates are threatened. Worldwide the bigger mammals are the most threatened. They may be what conservationists call “charismatic megafauna”, but they also make a larger target for hunters.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: New York Times ……………………………….[This story printer-friendly]
September 29, 2008

HARSH REVIEW OF RESTORATION IN EVERGLADES

[Rachel’s introduction: A new report from the National Academy of Sciences warns that Florida’s unique “river of grass” — the Everglades — will face irreversible losses if things don’t change soon.]

By Damien Cave

MIAMI — The eight-year-old, multibillion-dollar effort to rescue the Everglades has failed to halt the wetlands’ decline because of bureaucratic delays, a lack of financing from Congress and overdevelopment, according to a new report.

The 287-page study by the National Research Council, a biennial review required by Congress, warned that South Florida’s stunning river of grass was quickly reaching a point of no return. Without “near term progress,” the report said, more species will die off “and the Everglades ecosystem may experience irreversible losses to its character and functioning.”

William L. Graf, chairman of the committee that wrote the report, put it more simply. “There is no other place like this,” Mr. Graf said. “It’s existed for 5,000 years this way, and we’re in danger of losing it for our kids and their kids.”

The harsh review of the federal effort, known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP, comes in the midst of what could be a major shake-up. Florida is negotiating a proposed $1.75 billion purchase of nearly 300 square miles of farmland from the United States Sugar Corporation to add storage space for millions of gallons of water south of Lake Okeechobee.

The plan, which is expected to be finalized by the end of the year, was praised by the National Research Council. But with the acquisition’s impact at least a decade away, the report’s authors concluded that it would not be a panacea.

“The bottom line,” said Mr. Graf, a professor of geology at the University of South Carolina, “is I don’t think we can wait and see what happens.”

He emphasized that there were larger problems that needed to be fixed. Money remains the most obvious. The restoration plan, finalized in 2000, made the federal government and Florida equal partners, but Congress has failed to match the state’s commitment of more than $2 billion.

Behind the shortfall, the report found, is a planning and appropriations process that requires the Army Corps of Engineers to show the benefits of each project individually, making it difficult to get money for the interconnected plumbing and environmental components of the Everglades effort.

Mr. Graf said progress could be forthcoming because the corps and Congress seemed open to rewriting the rules so projects could be clustered. And an amendment in the stopgap spending measure the House passed last week could, 19 years after Congress approved it, create a $225 million, one-mile bridge on the Tamiami Trail to let water flow south toward Florida Bay, alleviating a significant clog.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: USA Today …………………………………….[This story printer-friendly]
October 2, 2008

EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL MAY AFFECT GENITALS OF BABY BOYS

[Rachel’s introduction: Baby boys are more likely to have changes in their genitals — such as undescended testicles and smaller penises — if their mothers were exposed to high levels of common chemicals (called phthalates) during pregnancy. Phthalates are used in countless plastic products and are found in everything from drinking water to breast milk to household dust.]

By Lisa Szabo, USA Today

Baby boys are more likely to have changes in their genitals — such as undescended testicles and smaller penises — if their mothers were exposed to high levels of a controversial chemical during pregnancy, a new study shows.

Virtually everyone has been exposed to the chemicals, called phthalates, which are used in countless plastic products and are found in everything from drinking water to breast milk to household dust, according to the study, published in the current issue of Environmental Research.

Until recently, most studies have been conducted in animals. Those tests suggest that phthalates interfere with the male sex hormone testosterone, causing a “phthalate syndrome” in male fetuses that changes the way their genitals develop, says study author Shanna Swan, a professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Swan says her study of 106 mothers and sons suggests this syndrome may be occurring in humans, too.

In her study, doctors measured phthalate levels in the mothers’ urine during pregnancy, then examined the babies at 12 months.

Boys whose mothers had the highest phthalate levels were more likely than others to show three anatomic differences: smaller penises, a shorter distance between the anus and base of the penis, and undescended or incompletely descended testicles, Swan says.

Swan also notes that most boys had normal sex organs. Twelve had incompletely descended testicles, while 29 babies fell into a category with “shorter” anogenital distances.

In most cases, these aren’t serious problems, Swan says. Babies with undescended testicles often need no treatment, because the organs descend on their own by age 1. Others can be helped with hormone treatments or surgery. And even the smaller penises appeared to be within the normal range.

But Swan says she’s concerned that these changes indicate a deeper problem — that phthalates may have made the boys “less masculine” in key ways. In animals, males with these genital changes also had lower sperm counts, she says.

Swan says she is also concerned about girls. It’s possible that any effects from pre-birth phthalate exposure may not surface until the girls hit puberty or try to have children, she says.

In her paper, she notes that other researchers have linked phthalates to reduced sperm quality and DNA damage, as well as hormone changes, reduced lung function and premature puberty.

More and more Americans are becoming concerned about phthalates.

In August, Congress banned several types of the chemicals in children’s toys and products. Dozens of hospitals around the country are phasing phthalates out of their neonatal intensive care units to protect vulnerable newborns, who may spend weeks or months connected to plastic tubing.

Swan says scientists need to know more about the cumulative effect of these chemicals, since people are exposed to a variety of phthalates and other hormone-like chemicals every day. She also says products made with phthalates should be clearly labeled.

“People should have a choice about limiting their exposure,” Swan says.

Swan notes that the design of her study has limitations. Although the study links phthalates with these anatomical changes, it doesn’t prove cause and effect. In her study, she notes that larger, stronger studies cost at least $1 million and take five years or more.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, says on its website that phthalates are safe. “The trace levels” of phthalates found in humans are below the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety guideline, so they shouldn’t threaten human health, the council says.

In a statement on its website, the council says: “Phthalates have established a very strong safety profile over the 50 years in which they have been in general use. There is no reliable evidence that any phthalate has ever caused a health problem for a human from its intended use.”

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Environmental Health News ………………………[This story printer-friendly]
October 7, 2008

NANOMATERIALS FOUND IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS DAMAGE CELL DNA.

[Rachel’s introduction: Many nanomaterials currently used in sunscreens and other consumer products killed or damaged the DNA of human lung cells when tested in a laboratory. These results show the urgent need to test nanomaterials for safety before they are used in any more consumer products.]

By Stacey L. Harper

A new study finds that several nanomaterials, which are widely used in sunscreens and other consumer products, can damage the DNA of human lung cells. The results highlight the urgent need for proper testing of these small particles to understand the health risks associated with each type of material.

Many nanomaterials currently used in sunscreens and other consumer products killed or damaged the DNA of human lung cells when tested in a laboratory. These results show the immediate need to test nanomaterials for safety before they are used in consumer products. The new study reveals the unique toxic nature of different types of nanomaterials, a class of materials that are literally defined by their very small size. Nanoparticles are used in a growing number of everyday products, such as sunscreens, cosmetics and electronics, so exposure to these mostly untested materials is widespread.

In this study, Swedish researchers exposed human cells from the surface of lungs to eight different types of nanomaterials and measured DNA damage and indicators of stress. The researchers found that different nanomaterials cause different types of adverse responses in the lung cells. Two ingredients found in sunscreens and cosmetics, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles, killed cells or damaged the DNA. Copper based nanomaterials were the most toxic, causing DNA damge, oxidative damage and cell death. Two types of iron oxide nanoparticles that were tested did not result in toxic effects, however a composite nanomaterial made of copper, zinc and iron was able to induce DNA damage. DNA damage also resulted from exposure of the lung cells to carbon nanotubes even at the lowest dose tested.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel’s Democracy & Health News highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren’t the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, “Who gets to decide?” And, “How DO the few control the many, and what might be done about it?”

Rachel’s Democracy and Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

Editors:
Peter Montague – peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague – tim@rachel.org

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel’s Democracy & Health News send a blank Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
dhn@rachel.org