Thursday, February 24, 2005

New Scientist Breaking News - Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

New Scientist Breaking News - Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed
Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed
14:29 24 February 2005

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

Duncan Graham-Rowe

Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.
99997046F1
Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.

Seasonal changes in water depth mean there is a continuous supply of decaying material. In the dry season plants colonise the banks of the reservoir only to be engulfed when the water level rises. For shallow-shelving reservoirs these "drawdown" regions can account for several thousand square kilometres.

In effect man-made reservoirs convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into methane. This is significant because methane's effect on global warming is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide's.

Claiming that hydro projects are net producers of greenhouse gases is not new (New Scientist print edition, 3 June 2000) but the issue now appears to be climbing up the political agenda. In the next round of IPCC discussions in 2006, the proposed National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme, which calculates each country's carbon budget, will include emissions from artificially flooded regions.

But these guidelines will only take account of the first 10 years of a dam's operation and only include surface emissions. Methane production will go unchecked because climate scientists cannot agree on how significant this is; it will also vary between dams. But if Fearnside gets his way these full emissions would be included.

With the proposed IPCC guidelines, tropical countries that rely heavily on hydroelectricity, such as Brazil, could see their national greenhouse emissions inventories increased by as much as 7% (see map). Colder countries are less affected, he says, because cold conditions will be less favourable for producing greenhouse gases.

Despite a decade of research documenting the carbon emissions from man-made reservoirs, hydroelectric power still has an undeserved reputation for mitigating global warming. "I think it is important these emissions are counted," says Fearnside.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Rocket fuel found in breast milk across US

New Scientist Breaking News - Perchlorate found in breast milk across US
Perchlorate found in breast milk across US
16:30 23 February 2005

NewScientist.com news service

Maggie McKee

A chemical associated with rocket fuel has turned up in most samples of breast milk and store-bought cow's milk from 23 US states, a new study reveals. The chemical may disrupt metabolism in adults and lead to mental retardation in children.

Perchlorate is a component of fuel for rockets and missiles and also appears to be made naturally in the atmosphere and stored in the soil. It is widely found in the US water supply and has previously been detected in samples of dairy milk and lettuce.

Now, researchers led by Purnendu Dasgupta, a chemist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, US, have published the first known study of perchlorate in breast milk. They found the substance in each of 36 breast-milk samples taken from 18 states and in all but one of 47 dairy milk samples from 11 states.

The average level in breast milk was 10.5 micrograms per litre, while the average in dairy milk was 2.0 micrograms per litre. That compares with the limit of 24.5 micrograms per litre standard for drinking water, according to new guidelines set on Friday by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The new guidelines were drawn up according to the amount deemed safe for an average adult by a recent US National Academy of Sciences study. But the NAS reports that a "safe" perchlorate-intake limit should be set at about 4 micrograms per litre for a baby.

The NAS study concluded there is "insufficient data" to establish a definitive link between perchlorate exposure and neurodevelopmental problems, but animal studies suggest perchlorate can damage the thyroid, which regulates metabolism.

Iodine issues

Perchlorate knocks an iodine ion off a protein that transports the ion to the thyroid. That can lead to iodine deficiency, which impairs thyroid development and is thought to be the main cause of mental retardation in young children, says Dasgupta.

And he says people are not getting enough iodine in their diets as it is. He says dietary levels have fallen to half those in the 1970s and cites a recent study showing that pregnant women are taking in just half the iodine they should. "We have a potential problem with iodine nutrition - and perchlorate on top of it can make things worse," he told New Scientist.

Much of the salt in processed foods is not fortified with iodine, so he recommends people eat dried seaweed capsules, which are packed with the nutrient. "I want people to be activists about good iodine nutrition," he says.

In the study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, he and his co-authors suggest the government may need to raise recommendations of iodine intake for pregnant and nursing women.

Colleague Ernest Smith, a developmental toxicologist at Texas Tech University, says it is not clear why breast milk contained so much more perchlorate than dairy milk. But he says women could be getting the chemical from drinking store-bought milk and from eating food grown in perchlorate-tainted soil or irrigated with water containing the chemical.

Just where the perchlorate is coming from is "the million-dollar question", Smith told New Scientist. Some of the states in the study are not known to host rocket launches, he notes.

Journal reference: Environmental Science & Technology (DOI: 10.1021/es048612x)

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Certains antidépresseurs augmentent les tendances suicidaires

Certains antidépresseurs augmentent les tendances suicidaires
Certains antidépresseurs augmentent les tendances suicidaires

Mise à jour le samedi 19 février 2005 à 9 h 07

Une équipe de chercheurs de l'hôpital d'Ottawa vient de démontrer que le nombre de tentatives de suicide double chez les patients qui consomment certains antidépresseurs.

Ces médicaments sont des inhibiteurs sélectifs du recaptage de la sérotonine (ISRS), commercialisés notamment sous les marques Prozac, Zoloft et Paxil.

Cette recherche est la première à démontrer de façon aussi exhaustive le lien entre les tendances suicidaires et la consommation de ces médicaments, qui sont parmi les plus vendus au monde.

Les chercheurs de l'hôpital d'Ottawa, dirigés par le docteur Dean Ferguson, ont compilé les données de plus de 700 études menées dans le monde auprès de 87 000 patients sur les effets négatifs des antidépresseurs ISRS . Jusqu'à maintenant, les spécialistes soupçonnaient un lien entre la consommation de ces médicaments et les tendances suicidaires. L'étude publiée par les chercheurs d'Ottawa dans le British Medical Journal confirme ces soupçons.

L'augmentation des tentatives de suicide a été observée chez les hommes et femmes qui consomment ces antidépresseurs, peu importe la raison pour laquelle ils sont traités.

Le risque de suicide doublait également lorsque les patients consommaient des antidépresseurs de la classe des tricycliques, à laquelle appartiennent notamment les marques Elavil, Pertofran et Tofranil.

Les chercheurs recommandent aux médecins de suivre très étroitement les patients à qui ils prescrivent ce type de médicament

Friday, February 18, 2005

Mercury Our Preferred Poison - Discover Magazine

Our Preferred Poison - Discover Magazine - science news articles online technology magazine articles Our Preferred Poison
Our Preferred Poison

A little mercury is all that humans need to do away with themselves quietly, slowly, and surely

By Karen Wright

Let’s start with a straightforward fact:

Mercury is unimaginably toxic and dangerous.

A single drop on a human hand can be irreversibly fatal.

A single drop in a large lake can make all the fish in it unsafe to eat.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Exorcisme au Vatican

Radio-Canada.ca
Vade retro satanas

Mise à jour le jeudi 17 février 2005 à 10 h 50

L'université du Vatican offre désormais un cours d'exorcisme aux séminaristes et prêtres catholiques qui y étudient afin de leur apprendre à reconnaître et à combattre les forces du mal.

Un exorcisme est un rituel religieux, présent surtout chez les catholiques et les musulmans, destiné à chasser un ou des démons qui prennent possession du corps d'une personne.

Le cours, intitulé « Exorcisme et prières de libération » est dispensé par l'université pontificale Regina Apostolorum. Il s'agit de la seule formation théologique du genre dispensée dans le monde. Dans les cours et séminaires, plusieurs notions de psychologie, ainsi que l'étude du satanisme, son histoire et ses diverses manifestations sont abordées.

Dispensé par la congrégation des Légionnaires du Christ, le cours d'exorcisme comprend sept séances de trois heures où les étudiants doivent surtout apprendre à discerner les vrais cas de possession diabolique des cas de troubles psychiques afin de référer les personnes possédées aux exorcistes.
Représentation du peintre Blake du Démon prenant possession du corps d'un mortel.

L'arrivée de ce cours à l'université pontificale Regina Apostolorum concorde avec un regain d'intérêt de la jeunesse italienne pour les mouvements et les cultes sataniques qui auraient une certaine influence dans le pays.

À ce chapitre, sept jeunes membres d'une secte baptisée « Les Bêtes de Satan » ont été arrêtés en juin dans les environs de Milan pour avoir, au nom d'un culte satanique, tué trois de leurs amis. Il sont aussi soupçonnés d'en avoir poussé deux autres au suicide. Il y aurait actuellement en Italie un millier de sectes s'adonnant au culte de Satan, selon un groupe de parlementaires qui suit de près le problème.

Conversation with artist Guylaine Nadeau

WARNING: Just for fun I wrote this fake interview based on many conversations I had with my wife Guylaine. Although everything discussed in the text comes from her and represents her beliefs, there was never a real interview.
-----------------------------

A conversation with artist, Guylaine Nadeau about her latest creation –
A Wheatgrass Winter Walk

By Paul Ruobra (Gilles Arbour)
Natureweb News

On a snowy Wednesday morning, February 9, 2005, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Guylaine went for a leisurely stroll in downtown Montreal. She looked like everyone else on Ste-Catherine Street that day with one striking exception: she was holding and balancing a rather large, live, green wheatgrass tray on her head.
Guylaine-solo
A few days later, on a gorgeous sunny Saturday, I met Guylaine at the Mont St- Hilaire trailhead, near her residence. An avid fan of Guylaine’s work, I have followed her evolution as an artist since 1996. I have not missed a single exhibition or event where she was a participant and I love her philosophy. Knowing that her usual media are acrylic, collage and papier-mâché I was curious to learn how she would integrate her environmental concerns with a performance in the middle of a large city. I was not disappointed.

Paul
Hi Guylaine! Thank you for inviting me to see your performance in Montreal. It was literally a breath of fresh air! Last year I had the privilege to learn about the research process and careful preparation for your unusual “Mémoires du Nord.” So, I already know that every part of your work is cautiously chosen after hours of reflection and meditation and you leave little to chance. Was it the same process with your Wheatgrass Winter Walk?

Guylaine
Oh yes, because I really can’t do otherwise. Sometimes I wish I could just “wing it,” but that is not me. In fact, I enjoy the reflection, questioning and preparation at least as much as the end product.

Paul
In regard to your latest performance, I am obviously curious as to how you made the decision to wear the wheatgrass tray on your head. Wouldn’t it be considered somewhat demeaning for a Western woman to wear anything other than a hat on her head?

Guylaine
Ha ha ha!…(laughter)… Well maybe it was a hat! But seriously, yes, I’m aware of that interpretation, but if you let yourself be bothered by other people’s prejudices you end up paralyzed in your own expression. Instead of talking about why not, let me talk about why. You see, the prevailing societal vision of nature is very offensive to me. The Judeo-Christian biblical idea that the Earth belongs to humans and that we must dominate and exploit the Earth has brought us to the verge of an ecological catastrophe – in fact we are already experiencing one. We hear about it every day: global warming, threatened biodiversity, loss of green spaces such as tropical rain forests, etc. By wearing the grass on top of my head, I wanted to elevate Nature, to put it above us – the human animals – and express a reverence and respect for the matrix of all life. The simple truth is that we absolutely need Nature to survive, while Nature doesn’t necessarily need us. We are here as guests – her guests. When we allow this perspective to permeate our minds and spirits, our relationship with Nature is transformed. That’s what I was trying to illustrate.

Paul
Hmmm…you are quite a dreamer. I like that your work is always deeply rooted in ecological philosophy. Why did you dress in your usual clothes? Why not dress in all green, for example?

Guylaine
My assignment was to “infiltrate the ordinary.” For that purpose it was important to look like one of the pack, with the one exception. I remember seeing, many years ago, a cartoon from Gary Larson’s “The Far Side” in which a pack of lemmings was running toward a precipice that fell into the ocean. They all looked alike except one had a life ring around its waist. That is me with my wheatgrass tray! Because I am dressed as I always am people see me as ordinary, as one of “them.” So, they have a tendency to interact more freely with me. They talk, smile, make faces, etc.
I had a woman telling me, with a splendid smile, that it reminded her of how much she loves gardening and that she should start her seedlings right away. I am sure that she had a marvelous day at work thinking about her garden. Being dressed in all green or in any other special way would have accomplished something entirely different. It would have separated me from them. I would have been seen as a comedian or a clown or an activist - someone with an agenda, rather than a simple citizen taking a walk with a strange green tray on her head. As a matter of fact a few weeks ago I walked around the same area with one of my puppet heads (Le Prince cent rires) and everyone avoided looking at me. They actively ignored me.
sourire
Paul
Why did you choose wheatgrass? Why not flowers or anything else natural?

Guylaine
I wanted to use something that I had grown myself from seeds. From a practical point of view it allowed me to plan ahead and make sure that my grass would be just right on the date I’d chosen. It is a 12 day process so it was easy to calculate. On a symbolic level, I used organically grown wheat seeds planted in organic soil mixed with rock dust powder. That is part of showing my respect and love for the Earth. I wanted my performance to be congruent with my values at every level.

Also, in some small personal way, this is how I participate in actualizing the Kyoto protocol. I see it as an invitation – or imperative – to be proactive instead of reactive. In this sense I carry my own little oxygen factory instead of wearing a protective mask. The other important aspect in choosing wheatgrass is its nutritional value. Did you know that many experts consider wheatgrass to be the most nutrient rich food on the planet? Without exploiting the land, the wheatgrass tray has provided me with generous amounts of vitamins, amino acids and minerals as well as precious phytonutrients. When I returned to my home that afternoon, I carefully cut the grass to the root level and made a delicious juice from it. I then added the leftover soil and organic matters to my compost pile. It will be recycled into my garden vegetables during the summer, completing a life cycle. By growing some of my own food, I show a sense of cooperative responsibility for being on this beautiful planet as a guest of Mother Nature. Contrast that with the usual process in North America, where food travels an astounding average of 2,000 kilometers before reaching our plate. Reducing petroleum combustion by growing our food locally is also part of the solution.

Paul
Thank you, Guylaine, that is all the time we have for today. I do know that aside from being an artist you have training in science as well. I remember listening to your talk about the ecology of Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon and was quite impressed with the scope of your vision. Next time, I would like to hear more about your environmental views and why you choose to devote yourself to the world of Art rather than Science. But maybe there is not such a big difference after all.
+++

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Vioxx, Celebrex, et Bextra

Radio-Canada.ca
Vioxx, Celebrex et Bextra jugés dangereux pour la santé
Mise à jour le mardi 15 février 2005 à 23 h 29
Une étude menée par la plus grande compagnie américaine d'assurance médicaments, WellPoint, révèle que trois médicaments antidouleur, très populaires utilisés pour contrer l'arthrite, soit le Vioxx, le Celebrex et le Bextra, augmentent le risque de crise cardiaque et d'accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC).

Le Vioxx, médicament de la compagnie pharmaceutique Merck, et le Celebrex, produit par Pfizer, augmenteraient ces risques d'environ 20 %, tandis que le Bextra, aussi produit par Pfizer, les augmenterait de 50 %.

Wellpoint a étudié les dossiers de 7232 patients de plus de 40 ans qui prenaient l'un de ces trois médicaments, puis les a comparés aux dossiers de 629 245 personnes de la même tranche d'âge qui n'en prennaient pas.

Selon le docteur Sam Nussbaum, vice-président exécutif et médecin en chef de WellPoint, cette étude prouve une fois de plus que ces drogues haussent le risque de crise cardiaque et d'AVC chez les patients.

Une autre étude a, en effet, démontré auparavant que le Vioxx faisait doubler le risque de crise cardiaque et d'AVC. La firme Merck a d'ailleurs retiré le médicament du marché, l'an dernier. Le Bextra et le Celebrex, fabriqués par Pfizer, sont toujours vendus.

Une porte-parole de Pfizer a dit que la compagnie était au courant des résultats de l'étude, mais qu'elle n'avait pas encore pris connaissance de toutes les données ou de la méthodologie utilisée. Elle a ajouté que le rapport de Wellpoint ne modifiait pas la prépondérance des études scientifiques faisant état de la sûreté du Celebrex.

Pfizer a déjà déclaré qu'une révision de ses études internes ne montrait pas que le Celebrex ou le Bextra faisait grimper le risque de problèmes cardiovasculaires chez les patients. La compagnie Merck n'a jusqu'à présent fait aucun commentaire.

Christian-right views are threatening the environment

The Godly Must Be Crazy

Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment
By Glenn Scherer
27 Oct 2004

A kind of secular apocalyptic sensibility pervades much contemporary writing about our current world. Many books about environmental dangers, whether it be the ozone layer, or global warming or pollution of the air or water, or population explosion, are cast in an apocalyptic mold.
- Historian Paul Boyer

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale; the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place ...
- Revelation 6:12-14

Abortion. Same-sex marriage. Stem-cell research.

U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection.

Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

These statistics are puzzling at first. Opposing abortion and stem-cell research is consistent with the religious right's belief that life begins at the moment of conception. Opposing gay marriage is consistent with its claim that homosexual activity is proscribed by the Bible. Both beliefs are a familiar staple of today's political discourse. But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism?*

Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress. (The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who earlier this year quoted from the Book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord!") These politicians include some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government, as well as key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Senate Republican Policy Chair Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and quite possibly President Bush. (Earlier this month, a cover story by Ron Suskind in The New York Times Magazine described how Bush's faith-based governance has led to, among other things, a disastrous "crusade" in the Middle East and has laid the groundwork for "a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.")

And those politicians are just the powerful tip of the iceberg. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

Like it or not, faith in the Apocalypse is a powerful driving force in modern American politics. In the 2000 election, the Christian right cast at least 15 million votes, or about 30 percent of those that propelled Bush into the presidency. And there's no doubt that arch-conservative Christians will be just as crucial in the coming election: GOP political strategist Karl Rove hopes to mobilize 20 million fundamentalist voters to help sweep Bush back into office on Nov. 2 and to maintain a Republican majority in Congress, says Joan Bokaer, director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University.

Because of its power as a voting bloc, the Christian right has the ear, if not the souls, of much of the nation's leadership. Some of those leaders are End-Time believers themselves. Others are not. Either way, their votes are heavily swayed by an electoral base that accepts the Bible as literal truth and eagerly awaits the looming Apocalypse. And that, in turn, is sobering news for those who hope for the protection of the earth, not its destruction.

Once Upon End Time

Ever since the dawn of Christianity, groups of believers have searched the scriptures for signs of the End Time and the Second Coming. Today, most of the roughly 50 million right-wing fundamentalist Christians in the United States believe in some form of End-Time theology.

Those 50 million believers make up only a subset of the estimated 100 million born-again evangelicals in the United States, who are by no means uniformly right-wing anti-environmentalists. In fact, the political stances of evangelicals on the environment and other issues range widely; the Evangelical Environmental Network, for example, has melded its biblical interpretation with good environmental science to justify and promote stewardship of the earth. But the political and cultural impact of the extreme Christian right is difficult to overestimate.

It is also difficult to understand without grasping the complex belief systems underlying and driving it. While there are many divergent End-Time theologies and sects, the most politically influential are the dispensationalists and reconstructionists.

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heady dose of dispensationalism, an End-Time doctrine invented in the 19th century by the Irish-Anglo theologian John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalists espouse a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that offers a detailed chronology of the impending end of the world. (Many mainstream theologians dispute that literality, arguing that Darby misinterprets and distorts biblical passages.) Believers link that chronology to current events -- four hurricanes hitting Florida, gay marriages in San Francisco, the 9/11 attacks -- as proof that the world is spinning out of control and that we are what dispensationalist writer Hal Lindsey calls "the terminal generation." The social and environmental crises of our times, dispensationalists say, are portents of the Rapture, when born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven.

"All over the earth, graves will explode as the occupants soar into the heavens," preaches dispensationalist pastor John Hagee, of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. On the heels of that Rapture, nonbelievers left behind on earth will endure seven years of unspeakable suffering called the Great Tribulation, which will culminate in the rise of the Antichrist and the final battle of Armageddon between God and Satan. Upon winning that battle, Christ will send all unbelievers into the pits of hellfire, re-green the planet, and reign on earth in peace with His followers for a millennium.

Dispensationalists haven't cornered the market on End-Time interpretation. The reconstructionists (also known as dominionists), a smaller but politically influential sect, put the onus for the Lord's return not in the hands of biblical prophesy but in political activism. They believe that Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, and that the first step in readying His arrival is to Christianize America.

"Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ," writes reconstructionist George Grant. Christian dominion will be achieved by ending the separation of church and state, replacing U.S. democracy with a theocracy ruled by Old Testament law, and cutting all government social programs, instead turning that work over to Christian churches. Reconstructionists also would abolish government regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. EPA, because they are a distraction from their goal of Christianizing America, and subsequently, the rest of the world. "World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish," says Grant. "We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less." Only when that conquest is complete can the Lord return.

Don't Worry, Be Happy

People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word?

Many End-Timers believe that until Jesus' return, the Lord will provide. In America's Providential History, a popular reconstructionist high-school history textbook, authors Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell tell us that: "The secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's Earth. The resources are waiting to be tapped." In another passage, the writers explain: "While many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

Natural-resource depletion and overpopulation, then, are not concerns for End-Timers -- and nor are other ecological catastrophes, which are viewed by dispensationalists as presaging the Great Tribulation. Support for this view comes from an 11-word passage in Matthew 24:7: "[T]here shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." Other End-Timers see suggestions of ecological meltdown in Revelation's four horsemen of the Apocalypse -- War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death -- and they cite a verse mentioning costly wheat, barley, and oil as foretelling food and fossil-fuel shortages. During the End Time, the four horsemen shall be "given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth." Some End-Timers note that Revelation 8:8-11 predicts a fiery mountain falling into the sea and causing great destruction, followed by a blazing star plummeting from the sky. This star is called "Wormwood," which dispensationalists say translates loosely in Ukrainian as "Chernobyl."

A plethora of End-Time preachers, tracts, films, and websites hawk environmental cataclysm as Good News -- a harbinger of the imminent Second Coming. Hal Lindsey's 1970 End-Time "non-fiction" work, The Late Great Planet Earth, is the classic of the genre; the movie version pummels viewers with stock footage of nuclear blasts, polluting smokestacks, raging floods, and killer bees. Likewise, dispensationalist author Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" novels -- at one point selling 1.5 million copies per month -- weave ecological disaster into an action-adventure account of prophesy.

At RaptureReady.com, the "Rapture Index" tracks all the latest news in relation to biblical prophecy. Among its leading environmental indicators of Apocalypse are oil supply and price, famine, drought, plagues, wild weather, floods, and climate. RaptureReady webmaster Todd Strandberg writes to explain why climate change made the list: "I used to think there was no real need for Christians to monitor the changes related to greenhouse gases. If it was going to take a couple hundred years for things to get serious, I assumed the nearness of the End Times would overshadow this problem. With the speed of climate change now seen as moving much faster, global warming could very well be a major factor in the plagues of the tribulation."

Another prophecy index points to acts of nature (drought in Ethiopia, famine in South Africa, floods in Russia, fires in Arizona, heat waves in India, and the breakup of the Antarctic ice shelf) as proof of the approaching doomsday, noting that "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:28).

According to a chart on the End-Time website ApocalypseSoon.org, we are at "the beginning of sorrows" (Matthew 24:3-8) marking the Great Tribulation. The site links to a BBC News article on infectious diseases and a chronicle of extreme weather events on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan's climate-change website as evidence of those unfolding sorrows. However, it adds a stern disclaimer regarding these external links: "We do not, by any means, approve or recommend some of the sites that this page links to. They were chosen simply because they document literally what the Word of God prophesies for the End Days."

If I Had a Hammer

To understand how the Christian right worldview is shaping and even fueling congressional anti-environmentalism, consider two influential born-again lawmakers: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

DeLay, who has considerable control over the agenda in the House, has called for "march[ing] forward with a Biblical worldview" in U.S. politics, reports Peter Perl in The Washington Post Magazine. DeLay wants to convert America into a "God centered" nation whose government promotes prayer, worship, and the teaching of Christian values.

Inhofe, the Senate's most outspoken environmental critic, is also unwavering in his wish to remake America as a Christian state. Speaking at the Christian Coalition's Road to Victory rally just before the GOP sweep of the 2002 midterm elections, he promised the faithful, "When we win this revolution in November, you'll be doing the Lord's work, and He will richly bless you for it!"

Neither DeLay nor Inhofe include environmental protection in "the Lord's work." Both have ranted against the EPA, calling it "the Gestapo." DeLay has fought to gut the Clean Air and Endangered Species acts. Last year, Inhofe invited a stacked-deck of fossil fuel-funded climate-change skeptics to testify at a Senate hearing that climaxed with him calling global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

DeLay has said bluntly that he intends to smite the "socialist" worldview of "secular humanists," whom, he argues, control the U.S. political system, media, public schools, and universities. He called the 2000 presidential election an apocalyptic "battle for souls," a fight to the death against the forces of liberalism, feminism, and environmentalism that are corrupting America. The utopian dreams of such movements are doomed, argues the majority leader, because they do not stem from God.

"DeLay is motivated more than anything by power," says Jan Reid, coauthor with Lou Dubose of The Hammer, a just-published biography of DeLay. "But he also believes in the power of the coming Millennium [of Jesus Christ], and it helps shape his vision on government and the world." This may explain why DeLay's Capitol office furnishings include a marble replica of the Ten Commandments and a wall poster that reads: "This Could Be The Day" -- meaning Judgment Day.

DeLay is also a self-declared member of the Christian Zionists, an End-Time faction numbering 20 million Americans. Christian Zionists believe that the 1948 creation of the state of Israel marked the first event in what author Hal Lindsey calls the "countdown to Armageddon" and they are committed to making that doomsday clock tick faster, speeding Christ's return.

In 2002, DeLay visited pastor John Hagee's Cornerstone Church. Hagee preached a fiery message as simple as it was horrifying: "The war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse!" he said, urging his followers to support the war, perhaps in order to bring about the Second Coming. After Hagee finished, DeLay rose to second the motion. "Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "what has been spoken here tonight is the truth from God."

With those words -- broadcast to 225 Christian TV and radio stations -- DeLay placed himself squarely inside the End-Time camp, a faction willing to force the Apocalypse upon the rest of the world. In part, DeLay may embrace Hagee and others like him in a calculated attempt to win fundamentalist votes -- but he was also raised a Southern Baptist, steeped in a literal interpretation of the Bible and End-Time dogma. Biographer Dubose says that the majority leader probably doesn't grasp the complexities of dispensationalist and reconstructionist theology, but "I am convinced that he believes [in] it." For DeLay, Dubose told me, "If John Hagee says it, then it is true."

Onward Christian Senators

James Inhofe might be an environmentalist's worst nightmare. The Oklahoma senator makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and probably an apocalyptic worldview -- and he chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

That committee's links to corporate funders are both easier to trace and more infamous than its ties to religious fundamentalism, and it's true that the influence of money can scarcely be overstated. From 1999 to 2004, Inhofe received more than $588,000 from the fossil-fuel industry, electric utilities, mining, and other natural-resource interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Eight of the nine other Republican members of Inhofe's committee received an average of $408,000 per senator from the energy and natural resource sector over the same period. By contrast, the eight committee Democrats and one Independent came away with an average of just $132,000 per senator from that same sector since 1999.

But the influence of theology, although less discussed, is no less significant. Inhofe, like DeLay, is a Christian Zionist. While the senator has not overtly expressed his religious views in his environmental committee, he has when speaking on other issues. In a Senate foreign-policy speech, Inhofe argued that the U.S. should ally itself unconditionally with Israel "because God said so." Quoting the Bible as the divine Word of God, Inhofe cited Genesis 13:14-17 -- "for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever" -- as justification for permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and for escalating aggression against the Palestinians.

Inhofe also openly supports dispensationalist Pat Robertson, who touts every tornado, hurricane, plague, and suicide bombing as a sure sign of God's return; who accused both Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. of being followers of Lucifer; and who makes no secret of the efforts of his Christian Coalition to control the Republican Party, according to Theocracy Watch.

A good fundamentalist, Inhofe scored a perfect 100 percent rating in 2003 from all three major Christian-right advocacy groups, while earning a 5 percent from the League of Conservation Voters (and a string of zeroes from 1997 to 2002). Likewise, eight of the nine other Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee earned an average 94 percent approval rating in 2003 from the Christian right, while scoring a dismal 4 percent average environmental approval rating. The one exception proves the rule: Moderate Lincoln Chafee (R.-R.I.) last year earned a 79 percent LCV rating and just 41 percent from the religious right.

As committee chair, Inhofe has subtly chosen scripture over science. The origins of his 2003 Senate speech attacking the science behind global climate change, for example, reveal his two masters: the speech is traceable to fossil fuel industry think tanks and petrochemical dollars -- but also to the pseudo-science of Christian right websites. In that two-hour diatribe, Inhofe dismissed global warming by comparing it to a 1970s scientific scare that suggested the planet was cooling -- a hypothesis, he fails to note, held by only a minority of climatologists at the time. Inhofe's apparent source on global cooling was the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, a Christian-right and free-market economics think tank. In an editorial on that site called "Global Warming or Globaloney? The Forgotten Case for Global Cooling," we hear echoes of Inhofe's position. The article calls climate change "a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restriction on our cherished freedoms. Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism." Inhofe's views can be heard in the words of dispensationalist Jerry Falwell as well, who said on CNN, "It was global cooling 30 years ago ... and it's global warming now. ... The fact is there is no global warming."

Inhofe's views are also closely tied to the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship, a radical-right Christian organization founded by radio evangelist James Dobson, dispensationalist Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who has been editing Vatican texts to align the Catholic Church's historical teachings with his free-market philosophy, according to E Magazine.

The ICES environmental view is shaped by the Book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth." The group says this passage proves that "man" is superior to nature and gives the go-ahead to unchecked population growth and unrestrained resource use. Such beliefs fly in the face of ecology, which shows humankind to be an equal and interdependent participant in the natural web.

Inhofe's staff defends his backward scientific positions, no matter how at odds they are with mainstream scientists. "How do you define 'mainstream'?" asked a miffed staffer. "Scientists who accept the so-called consensus about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream." But Inhofe is no Galileo. In fact, his use of lawsuits to try to suppress the peer-reviewed science of the National Assessment on Climate Change -- which predicts major extinctions and threats to coastal regions -- arguably puts him on the side of Galileo's oppressors, the perpetrators of the Christian Inquisition, writes Chris Mooney in The American Prospect.

"I trust God with my legislative goals and the issues that are important to my constituents," Inhofe has told Pentecostal Evangel magazine. "I don't believe there is a single issue we deal with in government that hasn't been dealt with in the Scriptures." But Inhofe stayed silent in that interview as to which passages he applies to the environment, and he remained so when I asked him if End-Time beliefs influence his leadership of the most powerful environmental committee in the country.

And the Cow Jumped Over the Moon

So weird have the attempts to hasten the End Time become that a group of ultra-Christian Texas ranchers recently helped fundamentalist Israeli Jews breed a pure red heifer, a genetically rare beast that must be sacrificed to fulfill an apocalyptic prophecy found in the biblical Book of Numbers. (The beast will be ready for sacrifice by 2005, according to The National Review.)

It can be difficult for environmentalists, many of whom cut their teeth on peer-reviewed science, to fathom how anyone could believe that a rust-colored calf could bring about the end of the world, or how anyone could make a coherent End-Time story (let alone national policy) out of the poetic symbolism of the Book of Revelation. But there are millions of such people in America today -- including 231 U.S. legislators who either believe dispensationalist or reconstructionist doctrine or, for political expediency, are happy to align themselves with those who do.

That's troubling, because the beliefs in question are antithetical to environmentalism. For starters, any environmental science that contradicts the End-Timer's interpretation of Holy Writ is automatically suspect. This explains the disregard for environmental science so prevalent among Christian fundamentalist lawmakers: the denial of global warming, of the damaged ozone layer, and of the poisoning caused by industrial arsenic and mercury.

More important, End-Time beliefs make such problems inconsequential. Faith in Christ's impending return causes End-Timers to be interested only in short-term political-theological outcomes, not long-term solutions. Unfortunately, nearly every environmental issue, from the conservation of endangered species to the curbing of climate change, requires belief in and commitment to an enduring earth. And yet, no amount of scientific evidence will likely shake fundamentalists of their End-Time faith or bring them over to the cause of saving the environment.

"It's like half this country wants to guide our ship of state by compass -- a compass, something that works by science and rationality, and empirical wisdom," quipped comedian Bill Maher on Larry King Live. "And half this country wants to kill a chicken and read the entrails like they used to do in the old Roman Empire."

Those who doubt the dangers of such faith-based guidance need only recall the 9/11 hijackers, who devoutly believed that 72 black-eyed virgins awaited them as their reward in paradise.

In the past, it was not deemed politically correct to ask probing questions about a lawmaker's intimate religious beliefs. But when those beliefs play a crucial role in shaping public policy, it becomes necessary for the people to know and understand them. It sounds startling, but the great unasked questions that need to be posed to the 231 U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right, and to President Bush himself, are not the kind of softballs about faith lobbed at the candidates during the recent presidential debates. They are, instead, tough, specific inquiries about the details of that faith: Do you believe we are in the End Time? Are the governmental policies you support based on your faith in the imminent Second Coming of Christ? It's not an exaggeration to say that the fate of our planet depends on our asking these questions, and on our ability to reshape environmental strategy in light of the answers.

Many years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to his "religious grandparents," who, whenever they were asked about the future, proclaimed, "Armageddon's comin'!" And they believed it. Christ was due back any day, so they never bothered to paint or shingle their house. What was the point? Over the years, I drove by their place and watched the protective layers of paint peel, the bare clapboards weather, the sills and roof rot. Eventually, the house fell into ruin and had to be torn down, leaving my friend's grandparents destitute.

In a way, their prediction had proven right. But this humble apocalypse, a house divided against itself, was no work of God, but of man. This is a parable for the 231 Christian right-backed legislators of the 108th Congress. Their constituency's cherished beliefs may lead to the most dangerous and destructive self-fulfilling prophecy of all time.

*[Correction, 04 Feb 2005: The asterisked section of the article, above, originally read:

But a scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism -- when was the last time you heard a conservative politician talk about that?

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan's first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

Today's Christian fundamentalist politicians are more politically savvy than Reagan's interior secretary was; you're unlikely to catch them overtly attributing public-policy decisions to private religious views. But their words and actions suggest that many share Watt's beliefs. Like him, many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future.
In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book Setting the Captives Free by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress. Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation.]

[Update, 11 Feb 2005: Grist has been unable to substantiate that Watt made this statement. We would like to extend our sincere apologies to Watt and to our readers for this error.]

Glenn Scherer is an author and freelance journalist whose stories have recently appeared in Salon.com, TomPaine.com, and other publications. He is former editor of Blue Ridge Press, a syndicated environmental commentary service in the Southeast.

Battlefield Earth: the religious right doesn't care

AlterNet: Battlefield Earth: "The environment is in trouble and the religious right doesn't care. It's time to act as if the future depends on us – because it does."
Battlefield Earth

By Bill Moyers, AlterNet
Posted on December 8, 2004, Printed on February 16, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/20666/


Recently the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School presented its fourth annual Global Environment Citizen Award to Bill Moyers. In presenting the award, Meryl Streep, a member of the Center board, said, "Through resourceful, intrepid reportage and perceptive voices from the forward edge of the debate, Moyers has examined an environment under siege with the aim of engaging citizens." Following is the text of Bill Moyers' response to Ms. Streep's presentation of the award.

I accept this award on behalf of all the people behind the camera whom you never see. And for all those scientists, advocates, activists, and just plain citizens whose stories we have covered in reporting on how environmental change affects our daily lives. We journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. We tell their stories.

The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend, Bill McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the environment. His best seller "The End of Nature" carried on where Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" left off.

Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described how the problems we journalists routinely cover – conventional, manageable programs like budget shortfalls and pollution – may be about to convert to chaotic, unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all, he writes, could be the accelerating deterioration of the environment, creating perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is causing the melting of the Arctic to release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic that even the Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream could yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that could radically alter civilizations.

That's one challenge we journalists face – how to tell such a story without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the people we most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what they read and hear.

As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion a readable narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and viewers, there is an even harder challenge – to pierce the ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the bible is literally true – one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That's right – the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the Messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed – an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 – just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of god will return, the righteous will enter heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer – "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election – 231 legislators in total – more since the election – are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." he seemed to be relishing the thought.

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in the motel turn some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same god who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, America's providential history. You'll find there these words: "the secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in god is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in god's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that god has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

I can see in the look on your faces just how hard it is for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that – it's just that I read the news and connect the dots:

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.

That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for cars, sports utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.

That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.

That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.

That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars – two million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council – to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

I read all this in the news.

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the international policy network, which is supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising," [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer – pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, 9 months. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

What has happened to our moral imagination?

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"

I see it feelingly.

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free – not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites called "hochma" – the science of the heart ... the capacity to see ... to feel ... and then to act ... as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/20666/

Friday, February 11, 2005

Et le roi lui?

Radio-Canada.ca
L'activité sexuelle prolonge la vie de la reine

Mise à jour le vendredi 11 février 2005 à 14 h 21

Une équipe germano-danoise a démontré que les fourmis reines sexuellement actives vivaient plus longtemps que leurs congénères non actives.

Les chercheurs de l'institut de biologie de Copenhague et de l'université de Regensburg soutiennent que la reine Cardiocondyla obscurior augmente significativement sa longévité en ayant des relations sexuelles.

En effet, leurs travaux montrent que celles qui ont eu un partenaire sexuel vivent beaucoup plus longtemps, jusqu'à deux fois plus que celles qui n'en ont pas.

Les scientifiques pensent que le sperme du mâle transfère des protéines oxydantes, ce qui aiderait sa majesté à rester jeune et en bonne santé.

Ils tentent maintenant de savoir de quoi est faite la substance contenue dans le sperme afin de mieux comprendre ses effets.

Les résultats complets sont publiés dans la revue Current Biology.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

La fumée de tabac

Saviez-vous que...

La fumée du tabac contient plus de 4000 substances chimiques parmi lesquelles la nicotine, des produits toxiques et plus de 650 cancérogènes, substances qui peuvent favoriser l'apparition de cancers

Que vos aliments soient vos médicaments - Hippocrates

Radio-Canada.ca
Une carotte par jour éloigne le cancérologue
À chaque jour, on découvre de nouvelles vertus curatives et/ou préventives pour nos aliments naturels. Voici un exemple de plus.

Mise à jour le mercredi 9 février 2005 à 10 h 58

Les vertus des carottes ne sont pas qu'oculaires... Des chercheurs britanniques soutiennent que le fait de consommer ce légume réduit significativement le risque de développer un cancer.

Une équipe de l'université de Newcastle a démontré qu'un pesticide naturel, qui préserve les légumes des maladies fongiques, réduisait du tiers le risque de voir apparaître cette maladie chez le rat.

Les propriétés anticancéreuses de certains légumes, notamment des carottes, étaient déjà connues, mais il n'était pas clairement établi quel était le composant qui les possédait.

Le rôle du falcarinol désormais connu, pourrait éventuellement servir à développer des médicaments contre le cancer. D'ici là, il peut certainement aider à le prévenir.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Le mercure dans nos poissons

Got Mercury?
Attention, nos poissons sont empoisonnés. Le tilapia ne contient pas de mercure parce qu'il provient de fermes d'élevage. Il ne contient presque pas d'oméga 3. Donc ce n'est pas un très bon choix non plus. Les 80,000 produits synthétiques que nous répandons dans l'environnement se retrouvent dans nos aliments et dans nos organismes. La pollution est interne - dans mon foie, mon cerveau, mes muscles, etc. "Ce que nous faisons à la terre c'est à nous-mêmes que nous le faisons" disait l'autre...

Sunday, February 06, 2005

L'intelligence de Gaia: Coral reefs create clouds to control the climate

New Scientist Breaking News - Coral reefs create clouds to control the climate
Coral reefs create clouds to control the climate
10:00 06 February 2005

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
Alison George

When the temperature soars, coral reefs might cool off by creating their own clouds.

Research from the Great Barrier Reef off the Australian coast shows that corals are packed full of the chemical dimethyl sulphide, or DMS. When released into the atmosphere, DMS helps clouds to form, which could have a large impact on the local climate.

In the air, DMS is transformed into an aerosol of tiny particles on which water vapour can condense to form clouds. This sulphur compound is also produced in large amounts by marine algae and gives the ocean its distinctive smell. Algae play a vital part in regulating Earth's climate, but no one had looked at whether coral reefs might have a similar role.

Graham Jones of the Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia, and colleagues measured DMS concentrations in corals in the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounding water. They found that the mucus exuded by the coral contained the highest concentrations of DMS so far recorded from any organism. A layer rich in DMS formed at the sea surface above the reef, where it was picked up by the wind.

"Although globally the emission of DMS from the Great Barrier Reef is not huge, on a regional basis it is very significant," says Jones.

Missing link

The big question now is what effect this will have on the climate. "The coral is a concentrated source of DMS, which could affect the formation of clouds in that region," says Peter Liss, an environmental chemist and DMS expert at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

The Australian team plans to study the impact of the reef and other corals on local climate over the next few years. "We don't know how the DMS emitted by the coral relates to cloudiness and the radiative climate over the reef," says Jones. "That's the missing link."

But their findings help to solve a 30-year puzzle. Surveys in the 1970s found very high concentrations of aerosol particles in the air above the Great Barrier Reef. The coral was thought to be the source, but the mechanism by which the reef might have caused the aerosol count to soar was not known. "They didn't know about DMS in the 1970s," says Jones.

Gaia-like feedback

The research also raises another intriguing possibility: that coral can use a Gaia-like feedback mechanism to regulate the amount of sunlight they are exposed to. The "Gaia theory" is that life on Earth regulates its environment to keep itself healthy.

In lab experiments, Jones and his team showed that corals produce more DMS when the symbiotic algae inside their tissues become stressed by high temperatures or UV radiation. If this DMS seeds more clouds, the coral could have evolved a way to reduce the water temperature or UV exposure. "We've got a long way to go to conclusively demonstrate this, but we've got a lot of ammunition," says Jones.

For 20 years, scientists have been hunting for evidence that free-floating marine algae can operate a DMS-dependent feedback mechanism to dampen global warming's effects. Because reefs are a static source of DMS, it might be easier to show an effect, says Jones. "Coral reefs would be a great place to show Gaia in action," he says. "This is the first time that processes going on in coral reefs are being connected to climatic processes."

Journal reference: Marine and Freshwater Research (vol 55, p 849, and the upcoming issue)

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Apples for Alzheimer’s

ScienCentral: Apples for Alzheimer’s
Apples for Alzheimer’s

Up to 4 million Americans are thought to suffer from Alzheimer's disease, most of them in old age. Now, as this ScienCentral News video reports, scientists looking for ways to prevent the disorder have turned to the kind of advice you would expect from Grandma.

The Big Apple

Before there was a U.S.D.A food pyramid, there was the 19th century proverb "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." Now, researchers at Cornell University are finding that an apple a day might also keep Alzheimer's at bay.

Cy Lee, a food scientist at Cornell's New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, has been studying apples for over 20 years. In 2000, he reported that apples have a healthy dose of cancer-fighting agents called antioxidants. Since then he's been studying how they might affect neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

In one study, Lee pre-treated rat brain cells with extract containing a phytonutrient found in apples called quercetin (which is also found in onions and some berries). "And then we exposed these nerve cells to hydrogen peroxide, which creates oxidative stress," he says. Oxidative stress is a condition characterized by the release of free radicals and which results in cellular degeneration. It's believed to cause the damage in brain cells that leads to Alzheimer's. In Lee's study, cells pre-treated with the apple extract were 70 to 90 percent more resistant to oxidative stress than untreated cells; the higher the concentration of apple extract the cells were treated with, the greater the protection against oxidative stress was. "If we are able to prevent this oxidative stress we hope that the nerve cell damage will maybe be prevented," he says.

In another study, Lee literally compared apples to oranges—he pitted the quercetin in apples against vitamin C, a major antioxidant in oranges. He cultured rat brain cells and treated some with vitamin C, and others with quercetin. Compared to untreated cells, both compounds protected the cells from oxidative damage, but quercetin was much more protective than vitamin C.

D.P. Devanand, an Alzheimer's researcher at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, points out that this research is in very early stages. "Whether it actually applies to humans is not clear, because humans are obviously much more complex and that needs to be really tested before we can say for sure antioxidants are the way to go in humans," he says.

Lee agrees, and says the next step is to determine how much quercetin actually makes it from your stomach to your brain. But in the meantime he says there's certainly no harm in eating an apple a day. "I definitely recommend apples," Lee says. "Apples are low in fatty acid, no saturated fatty acid, no cholesterol, high fiber content, high quercetin…therefore, consuming one apple a day will provide a good dose of antioxidants and other health benefits."

This research appeared in the November/December, 2004 issue of the Journal of Food Science; the December, 2004 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry; his research on apples and cancer was in the June 22, 2000 issue of Nature. Lee's work was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Apple Association; the New York State Apple Research and Development Program; and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.

by Karen Lurie

Friday, February 04, 2005

Traffic pollution revs up allergens

Traffic pollution revs up allergens
Traffic pollution revs up allergens
Mark Peplow

Reaction between smog and pollen could explain allergy increases.

Exhaust fumes from traffic could be turning airborne proteins into more powerful allergens, explaining why asthma and other allergies are on the rise in urban areas.

Researchers have found that the mixture of nitrogen dioxide and ozone produced by vehicles can add the chemical group nitrate to the protein molecules that account for up to 5% of the particles in our air.

Nitration could boost the power of existing allergens, or even make benign proteins allergenic, says Ulrich Pöschl, an atmospheric chemist from the Technical University of Munich, Germany, who worked on the study. Previous research has shown that nitrated proteins bind more strongly to the antibodies that cause allergic reactions.

"There is clear evidence that allergies are on the increase," says Pöschl. "The question is: 'Why?'."

Medical studies have shown a link between air pollution and rising allergy rates. But scientists have not been able to pin down how one causes the other. Nitration is now a prime suspect, Pöschl says.

Birch boost

The team collected samples of urban dust. Up to 0.1% of the proteins in the dust had been nitrated by traffic smog, they found.

But for allergenic proteins from birch pollen left at a busy Munich road junction for a few days, that figure rises to 10%. And for allergenic proteins exposed to smog in the laboratory, nitration rose to 20%, they report in Environmental Science and Technology1.

The smog reacts with the amino acid tyrosine, a common component of proteins. Birch-pollen protein has seven tyrosine components and was readily nitrated by traffic smog. Proteins that are easiest to nitrate might trigger the strongest allergic reaction, says Pöschl.

It's not clear how nitrate groups increase the allergic response, he adds, but previous studies have suggested that the body uses tyrosine nitration as a marker to attract antibodies to inflamed tissue.

Pöschl thinks that the finding could help to develop drugs that stop nitrated proteins disrupting our immune systems. And it strengthens the case for reducing nitrogen-dioxide emissions, he adds.

Full gamut

Scientists are still unsure what makes a protein allergenic, and nitration is unlikely to be the only factor. Recent studies (see "Allergens reveal common contours" ) have suggested that allergens tend to share shapes that are particularly good at activating the body's immune response.

Clare Mills, an allergy expert at the Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK, who led the research on shape, thinks that traffic pollution affects allergies in several different ways. Others have suggested that traffic pollution could make urban trees emit more allergens, she says.

"Life is often a mixture," says Mills. "I think research like this will help us unpick that."

Pöschl's team are trying to pin down how much traffic smog boosts proteins' power to cause allergies by giving normal and nitrated proteins to mice. Preliminary results suggest that the nitrated proteins are significantly more active. "These results will be very important when they come out," says Mills.

References

Franze T., Weller M. G., Niessner R. & Pöschl U. Environ. Sci. Technol. published online doi:10.1021/es0488737 (2005).

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Kelp can reduce level of hormone related to breast cancer risk | Science Blog

Kelp can reduce level of hormone related to breast cancer risk | Science Blog
Kelp can reduce level of hormone related to breast cancer risk

A type of vegetation that can often be found washed ashore on beaches may soon emerge as a new player in the field of cancer-fighting foods. A new study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, has found that a diet containing kelp seaweed lowered levels of the potent sex hormone estradiol in rats, and raised hopes that it might decrease the risk of estrogen-dependent diseases such as breast cancer in humans.

"This study opens up a new avenue for research leading to cancer preventive agents," said Martyn Smith, UC Berkeley professor of environmental health sciences and co-author of the study. "Kelp is a little studied nutrient, but there's good reason to look at it more closely."

These new results, to be published Feb. 2 in the Journal of Nutrition, shine a new light onto the Japanese diet. Prior studies have shown that Japanese women have longer menstrual cycles and lower serum estradiol levels than their Western counterparts, which researchers say may contribute to their lower rates of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers. Scientists have been searching Asian diets for clues to the lower rates of cancer, with the lion's share of attention being given to soy.

"Brown kelp seaweed makes up more than 10 percent of the Japanese diet," said Christine Skibola, assistant research toxicologist at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health and lead author of the study. "Soy has gotten most of the attention, but our study suggests that kelp may also contribute to these reduced cancer rates among Japanese women."

The researchers say that the type of kelp used in this study, bladderwrack seaweed (Fucus vesiculosus), is closely related to wakame and kombu, the brown seaweeds that are most commonly consumed in Japan. Bladderwrack seaweed is the primary form of kelp sold in the United States. They say these study results support the need for more research on wakame and kombu.

Skibola said she began the animal study after obtaining encouraging results from earlier case studies of women with highly irregular menstrual cycles.

"The most profound thing I found was that two women with endometriosis and a lot of menstrual irregularities experienced significant improvement in their symptoms after three months of taking 700 milligrams of seaweed capsules per day," said Skibola. "It reduced much of the pain associated with endometriosis and significantly lengthened the total number of days of their menstrual cycles. In one of these women with high estrogen levels, I also saw a drop in blood estradiol levels from 600 picograms per milliliter down to 90 picograms per milliliter after she included kelp in her diet. That led me to believe it was worth doing further controlled studies on kelp."

For the new study, the researchers randomly divided 24 female rats into three groups. One group was fed a high daily dose of 70 milligrams of dried, powdered kelp for four weeks, while a second group was fed a low daily dose of 35 milligrams. Both groups were compared with a third control group of rats that did not receive kelp. To ensure that all the kelp was eaten, Skibola and study co-author John Curry, a UC Berkeley post-doctoral fellow in molecular and cell biology, sprinkled the powdered kelp onto apple wedges, one of the rats' favorite foods.

The researchers said the experimental doses of kelp consumed by the rats were roughly equivalent to the amount of brown seaweed eaten by people in Japan.

Skibola and Curry took on the task of taking daily vaginal swabs to monitor the rats' menstrual cycles. The researchers found that the rats' estrous cycles increased from an average of 4.3 to 5.4 days for the low dose kelp group, and to 5.9 days for the high dose kelp group. Overall, dietary kelp resulted in a 37 percent increase in the length of the rat estrous cycle.

Studies in humans have linked longer menstrual cycle lengths to lower risk of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers. "If you have longer cycles, you actually have fewer periods over a lifetime, which means less time is spent overall in the phases where hormone levels and breast and endometrial cell proliferation are at their highest," said Skibola.

During the early part of a woman's menstrual cycle, estradiol levels remain relatively constant. Almost halfway through the cycle, estradiol levels surge, peaking just before ovulation. These cyclic periods of high estrogen, which continues over a span of about 40 years from puberty to menopause, stimulates the division of breast cells that already have DNA mutations, as well as increases the chances of developing new mutations, factors that may increase one's risk of breast cancer.

To test the impact of dietary kelp on estradiol levels, researchers took baseline blood samples from 19 rats immediately before their low dose diet of kelp began. After just two weeks of eating 35 milligrams a day, estradiol levels were reduced from an average of 48.9 nanograms per liter to 40.2 nanograms per liter. After four weeks, estradiol levels dropped further to 36.7 nanograms per liter.

In a separate test of human ovarian cell cultures, conducted in collaboration with colleagues at UC Davis, dosing with kelp extract led to a 23 to 35 percent decrease in estradiol levels.

"One possibility is that the kelp may be acting as an estrogen antagonist by preventing estradiol from binding with its estrogen receptors," said Skibola. "Our next step is to try to isolate the active compound in kelp that is having this hormone-modulating effect."

She noted that seaweed contains several complex compounds, including polyphenols that are considered antioxidants. Kelp supplements are available in health food stores since they are taken as a source of iodine by people with thyroid conditions. However, the researchers caution against a run on kelp because of these early results, particularly because kelp can accumulate heavy metals.

"People should be careful about excessive kelp intake," said Skibola. "The high levels of iodine and the low levels of heavy metals contained in kelp means that it's not recommended for people who are pregnant, nursing, or who have hyperthyroid conditions."

The researchers say they are working to isolate the active compounds in kelp that affect estradiol levels to avoid the possible toxicity of the iodine and metals. They say there is hope that kelp could eventually be used as an anti-estrogen in the treatment of hormone-dependent cancers if further tests demonstrate its effectiveness in humans.

"It's a study that points to the need for more studies," said Smith, the study co-author. "But this certainly suggests that there are other elements of the Asian diet beyond soy that should be explored."

Other study co-authors are Catherine VandeVoort, a UC Davis associate adjunct professor at the California National Primate Research Center, and Alan Conley, UC Davis associate professor of veterinary medicine.

From UC Berkeley

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

mercola.com: The Mythical Link of Sunshine and Skin Cancer Debunked

mercola.com: The Mythical Link of Sunshine and Skin Cancer Debunked
The Mythical Link Between Sunshine and Skin Cancer Debunked
One of the more persistent health myths going: Health "experts" and the media preaching the dangers of sun exposure to your health. That's completely wrong because everyone needs sunshine to maintain their optimal health. A pair of new studies go along way toward debunking the mythical link between skin cancer and sun exposure.

In a Danish study on lymphoma, ultraviolet rays from the sun and sun lamps reduced a patient's risk of developing cancer by as much as 40 percent. The findings were based on interviews with some 6,000 patients, including more than 3,000 who suffered from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Researchers at the University of New Mexico -- studying the influence of sun exposure on the mortality rate of patients suffering from malignant melanomas -- found those with higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than their fellow melanoma patients who didn't. The authors believe sun exposure increases the production of vitamin D which reduces one's risk of cancer.

Glad to read conventional medicine may be finally coming around to the fact that maintaining optimal vitamin D levels -- by having them tested -- is one of the most important things you can do to prevent and treat cancers.

The safest way to do that is through sun exposure, but many of us are not able to do that in the winter, and some of us prefer to stay indoors in the summer. For those who don't get enough, taking a high-quality fish or cod liver oil is a reasonable alternative, and more important than any supplement because it is an essential food.

BBC News February 1, 2005

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | CO2 emissions put corals at risk

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | CO2 emissions put corals at risk
CO2 emissions put corals at risk

By Roger Harrabin
BBC special correspondent

Israeli scientists predict the world's coral reefs could begin to collapse in as little as 30 years from now.

Studies show the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic as they soak up manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem researchers say this will make it difficult for many coral organisms to produce skeletal and other hard parts.

The team's work on corals in the Red Sea suggests a tipping point will be reached in between 30 and 70 years.

Then the forces of erosion eating away at corals will outstrip the organisms' ability to make the reefs.

If the researchers are right, the economic consequences for nations that rely on coral could be serious. Coral brings tourists, serves as a nursery for fisheries and buffers small island states against the waves.

Chemical clues

The Red Sea work conducted by Professor Jonathan Erez and colleagues is awaiting publication.

The team has been taking chemical samples of the seawater on the reef at Eilat. These show how much calcium carbonate is being extracted from the ocean and indicate how fast the reef is growing.

Levels of acidity fluctuate in the Red Sea seasonally, depending on the cycling of water. The team says it has found that at times when natural causes make the water more acidic, the corals grow more slowly.

"This ecosystem, which is the most productive and diverse in the ocean, is going to disappear as an ecosystem," Professor Erez told the BBC Newsnight programme.

"The individual components may survive here and there but as an ecosystem our grandchildren will not see coral reefs any more and I think this is too big a loss for our society."

The Israeli open water study builds on experiments at Columbia University's Biosphere 2 Center, which suggested that coral growth could be reduced by as much as 40% from pre-industrial levels over the next 65 years.

Pace of change

Ocean scientists generally accept that the pH level measuring acidity and alkalinity has fallen by around 0.1 since the Industrial Revolution. Absorption of CO2 appears to be patchy with some areas worse than others.

The oceans currently have a pH of about eight, but experts predict this could drop as far as 7.6, depending on whether CO2 emissions are cut. Professor Erez believes that reefs could begin to crumble if pH drops by 0.3 or 0.4.

The effects could be equally serious for cold water organisms, although the science on these is not so far advanced.

Professor Ulf Riebesell, from Kiel University, and a member of the UK Royal Society's working group examining ocean acidification, told the BBC that if CO2 levels continued to rise, the oceans could be more acidic in 2100 than they had been for 400 million years.

This is beyond the evolutionary memory of most sea creatures. And many of them may not be able to adapt to the pace of change.

Complex climate

Dr Carol Turley, from Plymouth Marine Laboratories told this week's Met Office and UK government-organised climate conference in Exeter she was very worried.

Countless species, she said, depend on a relatively stable pH to extract calcium to build their shells or skeleton. These include shellfish, snails, starfish, sea urchins and some sea worms that play an important part in cycling minerals in the ocean mud.

She is particularly concerned about the effects of acidification on plankton at the bottom of the fisheries food chain called coccolithophorids.

These precipitate calcium to make tiny shells called liths. Each lith is only about 2.5 micrometres (millionths of a metre) across but when the algae bloom en masse the effects can be seen from space.

Unpublished research from Norway suggests that increasing acidity harms the coccolithophorids. This might have consequences for fisheries. Scientists think coccolithophorids will probably be replaced if they drop out of the food chain but they cannot be sure.

Coccolithophorids also play a role in climate change. The algae give off CO2 when they bloom and thus contribute to climate change. But they also produce dimethyl sulphide when they bloom which helps the formation of clouds which reflect back heat from the Sun. The science here is still in its early stages.

The chairman of the Royal Society working group, Professor John Raven, told the BBC that scientists had been slow to spot the implications of the rise in mankind's CO2 for the oceans.

"We were all taught that the pH of the sea was a constant," he said.

"We are rather embarrassed to find out that is not the case, because it is really only basic chemistry that [tells you] it would not be possible for the ocean to absorb ever-increasing amounts of CO2 without becoming more acidic.

"We have started a great experiment here and we don't know yet what the consequences will be."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4226917.stm

Published: 2005/02/01 16:31:44 GMT

© BBC MMV

Birdbrain


Birdbrain, originally uploaded by Bourouba.


Feathered friends no bird brains

The term "bird brain" is out of date as birds' brains are just as advanced as mammals', scientists have said.

Birds can perform amazing tasks beyond the reach of cats and dogs, the Avian Brain Nomenclature Consortium of 29 world neuroscientists found.

Researchers spent more than 10 years studying behavioural patterns of birds around the world, to see if there was a link between bird and mammal brains.

They said the findings could be used to study brain disorders like Alzheimer's.

In one study in Japan pigeons were shown pictures by Picasso from his cubist period and impressionist Monet.

They were encouraged to peck a different key on a keyboard for each artist in return for food rewards.

Once they had mastered the technique they were given paintings by other cubist and impressionist artists.

The birds consistently came up with the correct answers.

Newcastle University's Dr Tom Smulders said: "Many people have outdated notions of what bird brains are like - but there are lots of smart birds who do amazing things it would be difficult to get mammals such as rats or dogs to carry out.

"Comparing birds with mammals can teach us a lot about how brains work."

Full details of the findings are published in the journal, Nature.