|
|
Friday, January 21
John Drury: I Need Your Help
by
John Drury
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 11:25 PM CST
 I Need Your Help
Dear Friends and Supporters,
As I’ve said before, when I announced my candidacy for the Iowa Senate
back in March of last year, I really didn’t know what to expect for
support from the Iowa Democratic Party. As it turned out, I received no
monetary help from them so the donations from people at Democracy for
Iowa were more than greatly appreciated.
I want to take another opportunity to thank everyone for the support
along the way. When I would talk to other local candidates struggling
to raise enough money to get their messages out, I would soemtimes
mention the support my campaign was getting from this incredible
organization and individuals nationwide. Needless to say, they
were impressed and amazed. It is a shame that our party picks and
chooses the races they think we can win, and let all the rest get lost
in the shuffle. One more seat won in the senate and two more in the
house, and we would have control of the legislature as well as the
Governor’s office. Some very real progress could have been made for the
state of Iowa.
And now the plea for help …
By now, all of the miscellaneous invoices are in on my Senate campaign
and I'm unhappy to report some considerable debt. Total debt on the
campaign is $894.54 and I'm
asking for your help in getting this taken care of. I know many of you
contributed greatly to the campaign and I really appreciated it.
Anything you can send now would be very much appreciated as I am still
unemployed and looking for work.
Please send whatever you can afford to:
Drury for Iowa Senate
205 6th Street
Swaledale, IA 50477
Thanks again for all your support.
John
EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 04:05 PM CST
 EPA Sweetheart Deal with Factory Farms Exempts Polluters from Clean Air Act
Hastings Group
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(January 21, 2005) In the wake of the EPA release of its CAFO Air
Quality Compliance Agreement today, Michele M. Merkel, senior counsel
of the Environmental Integrity Project issued the following statement
today:
"These
EPA rules amount to a wholesale relaxation of the Clean Air Act as it
relates to factory farms, which are a major source of pollution in
rural America.
All
along, EPA has had the authority under the Clean Air Act to gather the
kind of data it needs to determine emission levels at these industrial
farming operations - it does not need the industry's permission.
The
EPA-proposed amnesty on imposing the Clean Air act protections for the
public can last until 2011. Given that EPA already has had a
moratorium on enforcement for the past four years, that means the
current Administration will stall permits and air pollution controls at
some facilities for more than a decade.
Why is
the EPA doing this? The industry's lobbyists who are operating
hand in glove with the Agency understand they can't defeat emission
controls outright, especially where the public's health is at stake,
but they understand that regulations deferred are money earned, so
their strategy is to postpone the day of reckoning.
This is
another example of what should be a scientific process conducted in the
public's best interest being hijacked by industry. Industry gets
to select the "independent monitoring contractor" who will select the
farms for testing and related steps. The scientific soundness of
the monitoring program can only be ensured if the monitoring protocol
is reviewed by qualified independent experts who do not have ties to
the livestock industry. Furthermore, we are also concerned that the
small number of farms EPA anticipates including in the data collection
process (28) will not provide a significant enough sample to be
representative.
What EPA
is proposing is a sell-out of the public in order to profit the
industry. In practice, this agreement will end up being even
worse than it looks now. Industry will use this agreement to try
and block citizen suits. The idea of preventing citizens from
exercising their rights to hold polluters accountable under federal law
for the next six years (or more) is troubling. Additionally, the
agreement allows companies that have been sued by citizens to sign up
for the amnesty."
For more information, contact Michele M. Merkel at (202) 263-4452 or mmerkel@environmentalintegrity.org.
Keeping Livestock Records Secret?
by
Chad Thompson
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 12:36 PM CST
 Keeping Livestock Records Secret?
This item appeared in the Des Moines Register this morning:
State
agriculture officials want to be allowed to keep secret certain records
dealing with the control of livestock diseases such as mad cow disease.
Key lawmakers are unsure whether they want to take that step, which the Iowa Department of Agriculture has requested.
Senate
Study Bill 1023 would carve out an exception to Iowa's open records law
for any records related to livestock tracking programs that aid in
pinpointing and stopping animal disease outbreaks.
"The
information may relate to an investigation, a person associated with
the animal, or an animal carcass. However, nothing in this subsection
restricts the department from releasing a record to any person," the
proposed law says.
Can anyone think of a situation where it would be a good idea to keep secret any records dealing with livestock disease?
After all, it's only the food supply we're talking about...
Teflon: Is Your Cookware Hurting You?
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 21 Jan 2005 04:00 AM CST
 Teflon: Is Your Cookware Hurting You?
by John Heilprin, Associated Press
The
Environmental Protection Agency warns that people nationwide could face
"a potential risk of developmental and other adverse effects" from
exposure to low levels of a chemical used in making the nonstick
substance Teflon.
EPA
issued a draft assessment of the potential risks of perfluorooctanoic
acid and its salts, known as PFOA, or C-8. The report, based on animal
studies, says some evidence exists that PFOA is carcinogenic in rats,
but the cancer hazard for people is less certain.
It
suggests the chemical targets the liver and is present in the breast
milk of rats. It also says the chemical could raise cholesterol and
triglyceride levels in people - a finding that chemical maker DuPont
Co. publicly released last week. DuPont said its study found no overall
health problems.
While
PFOA is used to make Teflon, it is not present in Teflon itself, which
is applied to cookware, clothing, car parts and flooring. PFOA also is
used to produce materials used in firefighting foam, phone cables and
computer chips.
EPA
officials emphasized that its assessment was preliminary, saying that
while the agency "has concerns with respect to the potential nationwide
presence of PFOA in blood and with the potential for developmental and
other effects suggested by animal studies, there are significant
uncertainties in the agency's quantitative assessment of the risks of
PFOA."
The
Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that brought
DuPont's record on PFOA to EPA's attention, said that based on other
studies of PFOA, it believes the potential cancer and heart disease
risks from the chemical are being played down too much.
"There is a more serious risk, we believe, than what EPA is discussing," the group's spokeswoman, Lauren Sucher, said.
(Click here to read the rest of the article.)
For further related information, click here.
|
|
