enviromental issues


Congress has big questions for Big Oil

138047256_1e78383026_m.jpg

In WASHINGTON …Top executives of the five biggest U.S. oil companies were pressed Tuesday to explain the soaring fuel prices amid huge industry profits and why they weren’t investing more to develop renewable energy source such as wind and solar.

The executives, peppered with questions from skeptical lawmakers, said they understood that high energy costs are hurting consumers, but deflected blame, arguing that their profits, $123 billion last year, were in line with other industries.

“On April Fool’s Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil,”
Rep. Edward Markey, D~Mass., said as his committee began hearing from the oil company executives.

With motorists paying a national average of $3.29 a gallon at the pump and global oil prices remaining above $100 a barrel, the executives were hard pressed by lawmakers to defend their profits.

2297110439_ee758eedcd_m.jpg

“The anger level is rising significantly,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D~Mo., relating what he had heard in his district during the recent two week congressional recess.

Alluding to the fact that congressmen often don’t rate very high in opinion polls, Cleaver told the executives: “Your approval rating is lower than ours and that means your down low.”

“I heard what you are hearing. Americans are very worried about the rising price of energy,” said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., echoing remarks by the other four executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., BP America Inc., Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillips.

2209971550_6907bc540a_m.jpg Refineries run full blast at night so it won’t be so noticeable how they are POLLUTING!

But the executives rejected claims that their companies’ earnings are out of step with other industries and said that while they earn tens of billions of dollars, they also invest tens of billions in exploration and oil production activities.

“Our earnings, though high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements,” said J.S. Simon, Exxon Mobil’s senior vice president.

But Markey asked Simon why Exxon Mobil hasn’t followed the other companies in investing in alternative energy. The four other companies reported spending as much as $3.5 billion in recent years on solar, wind, biodiesel and other renewable projects.

“Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable revolution,” asked Markey.

197443190_a39695968c_m.jpg

Simon said his company, which earned $40 billion last year, had provided $100 million on research into climate change at Stanford University, but that current alternative energy technologies “just do not have an appreciable impact” in addressing “the challenge we’re trying to meet.”
Executives from the largest U.S oil companies have been frequent targets of lawmakers, frustrated at not being able to do much to counter soaring oil and gasoline costs.

In November, 2005, Hofmeister and the top executives of the same companies represented Tuesday sat in a Senate hearing room to explain high prices and their huge profits.

The prices are of concern, Hofmeister said at the time, adding a note of optimism: “Our industry is extremely cyclical and what goes up almost always comes down,” he told the skeptical senators on a day when oil cost $60 a barrel.

About six months later, when the cost of the same barrel reached $75, the executives were grilled again on Capitol Hill on their spending and investment priorities.

357380879_1592769093_m.jpg

Recently oil prices reached a peak of $111 a barrel. While declining a bit in recent days, the price remains above $100 and there’s talk of $4 a gallon gasoline in the coming months.

Markey challenged the executives to pledge to invest 10 percent of their profits to develop renewable energy and give up $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years so money could be funneled to support other energy and conservation.

The executives said the companies already are spending billions of dollars, more than $3.5 billion over the last five years, on renewable fuels such as wind energy and biodiesel, but rejected any tax increases.

“Imposing punitive taxes on American energy companies, which already pay record taxes, will discourage the sustained investment needed to continue safeguarding U.S. energy security,” Simon insisted.

“These companies are defending billions of federal subsidies … while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone,” complained Markey, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

99562768_7dab47a769_m.jpg

The House last year and again on Feb. 27 approved legislation that would have ended the tax breaks for the oil giants, while using the revenue to support wind, solar and other renewable fuels and incentives for energy conservation. The measure has not passed the Senate.
***************************************************
Thank you AP NEws and H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
***************************************************
The rich get richer and the poor stay that way…

Why not give grants and funding to companies who are looking for alternative fuels? I would love to thumb our/my noses at the oil companies and countires.

But asking questions..isn’t the act of busting a grape, now is it Baby Boomers.

Did you know that last century there was a tire that invented that would have lasted the life of your car…did you ever see it on the market…NO…like the pharmaceutical companies [why sell the cure when you can sell the pill that will continue the disease and keep the public buying more]…why sell one tire when you can sell many…the inventor sold out.

Raise your voices and your fists!

Refineries are in every state and counrty. They are big power and money!

I have a friend that says…protesting is STUPID, it solves nothing…well I hope you are reading this because if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the pollution! You my dear, will not solve anything.

Do not be a cow Baby Boomers…following the cow’s rear end in front of you…be a RHINO! Charge head down and kick some cow, donkey or mule ass!

~The Baby Boomer Queen RHINO ~

45921578_421097f362_m.jpg Grangemounth Oil Refinery HDR

Advertisements

TIPS ON GAS AND PUMPING GAS

99562768_7dab47a769_m.jpg

I don’t know what you guys are paying for gasoline…but here in California we are also paying higher, up to $3.50 per gallon. But my line of work is in petroleum for about 31 years now, so here are some tricks to get more of your money’s worth for every gallon..

Here at the Kinder Morgan Pipeline where I work in San Jose, CA we deliver about 4 million gallons in a 24 hour period thru the pipeline. One day is diesel the next day is jet fuel, and gasoline, regular and premium grades. We have 34 storage tanks here with a total capacity of 16,800,000 gallons.

Only buy or fill up your car or truck in the early morning when the ground temperature is still cold. Remember that all service stations have their storage tanks buried below ground. The colder the ground the more dense the gasoline, when it gets warmer gasoline expands, so buying in the afternoon or in the evening…your gallon is not exactly a gallon. In the petroleum business, the specific gravity and the temperature of the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, ethanol and other petroleum products plays an important role.

197443190_a39695968c_m.jpg

An one (1) degree rise in temperature is a big deal for this business. But the service stations do not have temperature compensation at the pumps.

When you’re filling up do not squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to a fast mode. If you look you will see that the trigger has three (3) stages: low, middle, and high. In slow mode you should be pumping on low speed, thereby minimizing the vapors that are created while you are pumping. All hoses at the pump have a vapor return. If you are pumping on the fast rate, some other liquid that goes to your tank becomes vapor. Those vapors are being sucked up and back into the underground storage tank so you’re getting less worth for your money.

309478227_e6636ba56d_m.jpg

One of the most important tips is to fill up when your gas tank is HALF FULL or HALF EMPTY. The reason for this is, the more gas you have in your tank the less air occupying its empty space. Gasoline evaporates faster than you can imagine. Gasoline storage tanks have an internal floating roof. This roof serves as zero clearance between the gas and the atmosphere, so it minimizes the evaporation. Unlike service stations, here where I work, every truck that we load is temperature compensated so that every gallon is actually the exact amount.

Another reminder, if there is a gasoline truck pumping into the storage tanks when you stop to buy gas, DO NOT fill up, most likely the gasoline is being stirred up as the gas is being delivered, and you might pick up some of the dirt that normally settles on the bottom. Hope this will help you get the most value for your money.

DO SHARE THESE TIPS WITH OTHERS!

244386677_5851c2da47_m.jpg

WHERE TO BUY USA GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON

Gas rationing in the 80’s worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us! The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor.

An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS.

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don’t import their oil from the Saudis.

Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends.

I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil.


These companies import Middle Eastern oil:

Shell……………………… 205,742,000 barrels

Chevron/Texaco……… 144,332,000 barrels

Exxon/Mobil…………… 130,082,000 barrels

Marathon/Speedway… 117,740,000 barrels

Amoco……………………….62,231,000 barrels

258116223_ee907484a0_m.jpg

Citgo gas is from South America, from a Dictator who hates Americans. If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (oil is now $90~$100 a barrel)

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Sunoco………………0 barrels

Conoco………………0 barrels

Sinclair………………0 barrels

BP/Phillips……………0 barrels

Hess………………….0 barrels

ARC0…………………0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. It’s really simple to do. Send them to my blog so that they can read this.

Here is a my link on this article:
https://babyboomeradvisorclub.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/tips-on-pumping-gas-and-getting-your-moneys-worthgas-secrets/
**************************************
I don’t know who wrote this article…it was sent to me vai Cananda…but the tips are correct…I worked for Chevron USA for a while, while in Texas…even as far as being on thier “Energy Crisis Committee.” Is that an OXIE MORON or what???

23156716_9b987df696_m.jpg

The American War: The U.S. in Vietnam

272804585_e5ead483c0_m.jpg

Pinky and Bunny explain “The American War: The U.S. in Vietnam”

]

You should not watch the first you tube with out watching the second.

Agent Orange and it’s effects…

To this day, I still hear opinions about Vietnam. That there was no such thing as Agent Orange and that they do not understand why Vietnam Veterans have P.T.S. If you look to see the madness…it, to me is quite understandable and that our soldiers were effected with Agent Orange as well. Germicides do not know the difference between a Vietnamese or an American.

I see Iraq as I did Vietnam…where are the weapons of mass destruction? I only see a war that was NOT NECESSARY!

269693471_18602ece5d_m.jpg

I pray for World Peace on Easter,
~The Baby Boomer Queen~

448376684_4443c03a17_m.jpg

Sex-For-Gas Offer Ends In Stabbing…Woman Pulls Out Scissors; Victim Attacked, Deputies Say…

491887463_9d01a6f2cb_m.jpg

In MESA, Arizona an east Valley woman who bartered sex for gas money ended up stabbing her victim while partially severing her finger, Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies said.

Kelli Still, 43, was arrested by deputies, transported to the Fourth Avenue Jail and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon.

With gas prices soaring, Still bartered oral sex for gas money with a male acquaintance over the weekend, deputies said.

The encounter did not result in a contractual sex act but an aggravated assault when the woman pulled out a pair of scissors and began attacking the man, according to deputies.

Michael Hamilton suffered numerous stab wounds to the face and chest, sheriff’s investigators said.

Still also suffered wounds from the scissor attack, deputies said.

465086992_18d407d026_m.jpg

When authorities arrived at the residence in Mesa, both people were covered in blood.

Still told deputies the fight was a result of a sex-for-gas contract gone bad.

Arizona’s statewide average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is currently sitting at $3.191 per gallon, 58 cents higher than a year ago, according to AAA Arizona.
*****************************************
OK you gas mongers…see what you are causing??? People are bartering sex for gas…stabing each other when it goes south…and this is only the beginning! I am surprised that clerks at gas stations aren’t attacked and offered sex for gas…

Average people are not able to go places…when it comes to food or gas…what do you think people are going to choose?

What a fine pickle the Bush adminstration has put us in…and leaving us with worse…now, I know that is probably going to ruffle a few feathers..but so be it…look around you…do you think that this administration did not see this coming…

WHY aren’t car companies doing more to get cars out there that don’t need fuel…?

I remember when gas was 25 cents per gallon!
~The Baby Boomer Queen~

38627234_a787b826e9_m.jpg

EPA Tightens Pollution Standards…But Agency Ignored Advisers’ Guidance!!!

ph2008031200027.jpg Smog covers Midtown Manhattan last year. About 85 U.S. counties do not meet government clean air standards. Photo by Adam Rountree, Associated Press.


The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday limited the allowable amount of pollution-forming ozone in the air to 75 parts per billion, a level significantly higher than what the agency’s scientific advisers had urged for this key component of unhealthy air pollution.

This Story
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson also said he would push Congress to rewrite the nearly 37 year old Clean Air Act to allow regulators to take into consideration the cost and feasibility of controlling pollution when making decisions about air quality, something that is currently prohibited by the law. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to base the ozone standard strictly on protecting public health, with no regard to cost.

The new pollution rules, one of the most important environmental decisions facing the Bush administration in the president’s final year in office, will be a major factor in determining the quality of the air Americans will breathe for at least a decade. The standards, which are aimed at protecting both public health and welfare, are designed to limit the amount of nitrogen oxides and other chemical compounds released into the air by vehicles, manufacturing facilities and power plants. In sunlight, the pollutants form ozone.

443456004_00f9d83f61_m.jpg

Johnson said he did “what was required by the law and the recent scientific evidence,” but his decision to set a lower but still less restrictive limit than what the EPA’s advisory committees had recommended sparked a backlash from Democratic lawmakers, public health advocates and his own independent advisers.

With Democrats in control of Congress, the proposal to rewrite the Clean Air Act appears to face long odds. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) called the move “outrageous,” adding in a statement, “The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters.”

Johnson said the law “is not a relic to be displayed in the Smithsonian, but a living document that must be modernized to continue realizing results,” adding that some administration officials urged him to take into consideration the “costs, net benefits and implementation challenges” of adopting stricter ozone limits.

Nearly a year ago, EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were “unanimous in recommending” that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion (ppb) and to consider a limit as low as 60 ppb. EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and public health advocates lobbied for the 60 ppb limit because children are more vulnerable to air pollution.

EPA and other scientists have shown that ozone has a direct impact on rates of heart and respiratory disease and resulting premature deaths. The agency calculates that the new standard of 75 ppb would prevent 1,300 to 3,500 premature deaths a year, whereas 65 ppb would avoid 3,000 to 9,200 deaths annually.

Documents obtained by The Washington Post indicate that White House officials chafed at the idea that they could not factor costs into the ozone rule, which requires setting one standard for protecting health and a separate one for protecting public welfare, and that the president himself intervened in the process Monday. In a March 6 memo to the EPA, Susan E. Dudley of the Office of Management and Budget questioned the need for two different ozone limits, noting that the Clean Air Act’s definition of public welfare includes “effects on environmental values.” The EPA’s Marcus C. Peacock replied the next day that it is important to keep in mind that “EPA cannot consider costs in setting a secondary standard.”

The rule’s preamble indicates Bush settled the dispute March 11, saying the president concluded the secondary standard should be set “to be identical to the new primary standard, the approach adopted when ozone standards were last promulgated.”

Rogene Henderson, who chairs the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, said in an interview that she disagrees with Johnson’s decision even as she welcomed a tighter standard.

“We can’t kid ourselves that this is as health protective as we would like, but this is a step in the right direction,” Henderson said. “I understand that with our dependence on fossil fuels, it’s difficult to reduce ground level ozone. But the fact that it’s difficult doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.”

A slew of industries had recently urged White House officials to keep the current limit, effectively 84 ppb, to minimize the cost of installing pollution controls. The EPA estimated that it will cost polluting industries $7.6 billion to $8.8 billion a year to meet the 75 ppb standard, but that rule will yield $2 billion to $19 billion in health benefits.

1566972908_3cac968d79_m.jpg

John Kinsman, senior director for the environment at the Edison Electric Institute, said in a statement that EPA had made “the wrong call” by lowering the ozone limit.

“The agency’s rationale for tightening the standard significantly skews the scientific record on ozone’s health effects. Ultimately, EPA is promising health benefits that people may never receive, even though they’ll end up paying for them at the pump and through higher energy bills,” added Kinsman, who conferred with White House officials on the rule. The institute represents 70 percent of the U.S. electric power sector.

But S. William Becker, who as executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies represents officials from 48 state and 165 local governments, said his members had been willing to “bear the burden” of complying with stricter regulations.

“It is disheartening that once again EPA has missed a critical opportunity to protect public health and welfare by ignoring the unanimous recommendations of its independent science advisers,” Becker said.

Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government is obligated to reexamine the science underpinning its smog standards every five years. The agency last revised the standards in 1997, and 85 counties have yet to meet those rules.

425804892_651d08ad24_m.jpg

*************************************************
Thank you
*************************************************

OK, Baby Boomers…let it be known that I am a tree hugger, a peacenik and a 60’s hippy cool chick…I have not forgotten what I was so against in the 60’s and 70’s when we were younger and hopeful. AND don’t you either…we are the major population now! Stand up and be heard…raise your fists to the bureaucracy and tell them we will not stand for it that now!

We have even more concerns now, as we have children and grandchildren that we want to protect…that we want them to breath cleaner air…get off your large couches and love seats and protest… Write letters, send emails and bring it up at the water coolers at work…wave those fists in the air!

Speak up or forever hold your breath! Speak oot against the horrible crap of factories, power plants and a whole lot of other killing chemicals and toxins.

MOST of our parents did squat! Do not be the same way!

~The Baby Boomer Queen~

920797720_668abdc997.jpg Carbon pollution affects the pH balance of the oceans. The effects are devastating. Visit oceana.org to show your support

THIS IS A LONG POST…BUT I HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT YOU READ IT ~THE BABY BOOMER QUEEN~

A vast array of pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, anti~convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones, have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

765209458_0bc67f721a_m.jpg

To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs and over the counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen, in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long term consequences to human health.

In the course of a five month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.

Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” and might be unduly alarmed.

How do the drugs get into the water?

People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies, which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public, have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

“We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation’s 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.

Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:

Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city’s watersheds.

Anti~epileptic and anti~anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.

Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.

A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco’s drinking water.

The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.

The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

The federal government doesn’t require any testing and hasn’t set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven’t: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.

The AP’s investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation’s water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.

119925598_77d0bf2ac8_m.jpg

Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water, Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.

The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city’s water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti~convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.

City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that “New York City’s drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system” regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.

In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the sex hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.

Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post 9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.

The AP also contacted 52 small water providers, one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas, that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP’s questions, also citing post 9/11 issues.

Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren’t in the clear either, experts say.

The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City’s upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.

He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. “Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail,” Aufdenkampe said.

Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don’t necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry’s main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.

Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe, even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.

For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.

In the United States, the problem isn’t confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation’s water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

Perhaps it’s because Americans have been taking drugs and flushing them unmetabolized or unused in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

“People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that’s not the case,” said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.

Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti~epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.

One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.

Another issue: There’s evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.

Human waste isn’t the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.

Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.

326456843_0b45179cd6_m.jpg

Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity, sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.

Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. “Based on what we now know, I would say we find there’s little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health,” said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby, director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. said: “There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they’re at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms.”

Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.

Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life, such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.

“It brings a question to people’s minds that if the fish were affected … might there be a potential problem for humans?” EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. “It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven’t gotten far enough along.”

With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.

“I think it’s a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health,” said Snyder. “They need to just accept that these things are everywhere, every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It’s time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental.”

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to “detect and quantify pharmaceuticals” in wastewater. “We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations,” he said. “We’re going to be able to learn a lot more.”

While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it’s being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.

1426454467_9ce88d9a1c_m.jpg
So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.

There’s growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs or combinations of drugs may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.

Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.

Many concerns about chronic low level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood pressure diuretics.

For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants, pesticides, lead, PCBs which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.

However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.

“These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That’s what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects,” says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.

And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That’s why, aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.

“We know we are being exposed to other people’s drugs through our drinking water, and that can’t be good,” says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.

132397331_6f9a5a3f96_m.jpg

***************************************************************************

Good investigation AP NEWS and JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, AP writers.

***************************************************************************

There you go Baby Boomers…you can’t fool Mother Nature. Pharmaceuticals KILL, and do alternate with your body and your mind! That is what they are designed to do. Legal drugs kill more people than illegal drugs, each and every year! What is wrong with this picture?

Here is proof that they are effecting not only the enviroment and those of us who do not fall under the thumb of the large blood sucking, flesh eating pharmaceutical companies…

I could go on and on…but I am sure that those of you who read my posts know how I feel about this serious human and animal endangerment.

~The Baby Boomer Queen~

210337959_ab57a9c51e_m.jpg287399621_82a88562fb_m.jpg

DO NOT eat whale…protest the havesting of them!

Below you will find a site where you can join in the outrage of suffering and murdering of these wonderful creatures.

Each year there are species that are endangered or lost, let’s NOT let the whales be one of them.

whales.jpg

capt1sgegsv97070208071615photo00photodefault-473x512.jpg

A mother whale and her calf are dragged on board a Japanese …Play Slideshow Pause Slow Med Fast Photo View Gallery
Thu Feb 7, 2:26 AM ET A mother whale and her calf are dragged on board a Japanese whaling ship after being harpooned in Antarctic waters. The pictures, plastered over front pages and shown on television were taken from an Australian customs vessel tracking the whalers to gather evidence for possible legal action to stop the annual slaughter.

384473583_63eb547ee7_m.jpg
********************
Thank you AFP/ACS/HO
*********************************
We all know that you are great animal lover.
More and more do we read about the slaughtering of Whales by Japanese
boats.
We have started a campaign to collect supporters and forward the
collected list to our Government.
Please support us;
We all know that you are great animal lover.
More and more do we read about the slaughtering of Whales by Japanese
boats.
We have started a campaign to collect supporters and forward the
collected list to our Government.
Please support us;
http://www.darwinnewsblog.com/?p=656

384473377_9774ca17ca_m.jpg

Next Page »