|
|
Friday, May 6
What's In Iowa's Water?
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 06 May 2005 01:36 PM CDT
 What's In Iowa's Water?
WHOtv.com
What's in Iowa's water? Would you believe antibiotics, steroids, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, acetaminophen (Tylenol), ibuprofen, caffeine, cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine), deet (an insect repellent) and carbamazepine, an anti-seizure medication used to treat people with epilepsy and bi-polar disorder?
An Exclusive Report from WHO's 13 News
Des Moines, May 5th, 2005 - Do you know what's in your water? The Environmental Protection Agency sets standards for and monitors pollutants in the water. Things like chemicals from manufacturing and pesticides from farm run-off. But other contaminants are now showing up in the water and many of them come from you and me.
They're called "emerging pollutants". Things like hormones and antibiotics. They aren't necessarily new to the water but scientists are just starting to test for them. In this Channel 13 Investigation, Sonya Heitshusen takes a look at what's in your water and how it might impact your health.
More than 70-thousand miles of rivers and streams in Iowa provide the state with the majority of its drinking water. In central Iowa, your water primarily comes from two rivers, the Des Moines and the Raccoon.
Rain, run off and treated waste water fill the rivers. This is the same water that, after purification, flows through your pipes. The quality of that water directly effects your health. That's why the government implemented the safe drinking water act more than 30 years ago.
The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) is in charge of setting and enforcing standards for known toxins like arsenic and lead. But the E.P.A. does not have standards for other pollutants like antibiotics and hormones used in people and animals. We have not been monitoring for these chemicals in the past and now that we're developing sensitive techniques, we're finding them. And now that they're finding them, scientists also want to know how they might impact our health.
Dr. John Vargo, Phd. says, "One of the biggest concerns is the effect of antibiotics in the environment. Some studies have shown there is a correlation between bacteria resistant to antibiotics and presence of these drugs in the environment but testing is still limited."
more »
Has Howard Dean Sold Us Out?
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 06 May 2005 05:24 AM CDT
 Has Howard Dean Sold Us Out?
An Open Letter from Dennis Kucinich
As
stories of Chairman Dean's move to the center circulate amongst the
Dean-inspired grassroots networks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich puts eloquent
voice to what we've all been wondering.
Dear Gov. Dean--
Speaking
before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul
Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there [in Iraq],
we're there and we can't get out.... I hope [Bush] is incredibly
successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the
same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?
Perhaps
you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and
beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only
the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a
strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and [Bush] on the
war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in
2004.
Following
this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election
cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side
(the [incumbant's] party always loses seats in the midterm election),
the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with [Bush] to bring
the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden
ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the
first time since Franklin Roosevelt, [an incumbant] increased his
majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
[Bush]
went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war,
which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of
withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign
speeches and deleting it from the national convention.
Why
does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under
the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals
of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
[Bush]
led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats
and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His warand the
continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for
jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause celebre for stoking
resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the
abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of
September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private
interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and
abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11
attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. [Bush]'s war and
occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American
lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of
thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard
than the war.
There is
no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. [Bush] says we will stay
until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research
Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent
military bases in Iraq. [Bush] refuses to consider an exit strategy.
The Republican Congress gives [Bush] whatever he asks for.
We can
draw no clearer distinction with [Bush] than over this war. He cannot
right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation.
Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes
that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership
should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That's
what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of
the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made
possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their
hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating
its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time
the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you
say that you hope [Bush] succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the
leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself
in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for
a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
|
|
