Corporate Fed Plan Pushes Healthcare Costs to Workers

Published on Friday, May 13, 2011 by In These Times

Corporate Demands, Federal ‘Reform,’ Keep Shifting Healthcare Costs to Workers

by Roger Bybee

Despite its $14.2 billion in profits last year untouched by federal income taxes, General Electric is now demanding that its unionized workers accept a new high-deductible “Health Choice” health savings account plan.

GE’s demands are particularly obscene because it is sitting on $25 billion in savings and is threatening to close more U.S. plants, i.e. move more jobs to Mexico, China and elsewhere. And they're particularly dangerous because GE is modeling bad behavior for other corporations to emulate.

As UE-GE Conference Secretary Steve Tormey has said, “Nobody is more symbolic of the assault on workers than General Electric." The United Electrical workers union, one of a handful of unions now negotiating with GE, warned its members:

...numerous studies of these high-deductible plans...reveal that employees forced into plans like Health Choice are “significantly more likely to avoid, skip, or delay healthcare because of costs” than those with more comprehensive insurance. ...

What GE is really saying with Health Choice is that medical expenses are no longer primarily their responsibility, but that of GE employees.

But GE is only the latest entrant among employers trying to establish a new healthcare normal by thrusting heavy additional costs onto the backs of working families. And the much-trumpeted federal healthcare "reform" legislation may actually exacerbate this race to the bottom.

(Of course, public employers—like the state of Wisconsin, led by labor's arch enemy Gov. Scott Walker—have also been pushing to make public workers take up even more of the burden of healthcare costs. This despite the fact that, as David Cay Johnston has pointed out without managing to dent mainstream media coverage, public employees have always been paying 100 percent of their benefit costs. When they gained improvements in health and retirement benefits, they had to sacrifice on wage increases.)

How federal healthcare 'reform' helps drives the race to the bottom

The race to the bottom is, unfortunately, likely to be intensified as we get closer to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act in 2014. In fact, the ACA may well tend to establish a bare-bones, high-deductible policy as the new norm. The taxation of perversely mis-labeled “Cadillac” benefits has the very real potential of putting the squeeze on union-won healthcare benefits, especially in high-cost states.

Despite the efforts of AFL-CIO Richard Trumka and others to limit the damage created when the Obama administration suddenly adopted John McCain’s regressive idea of taxing better benefit plans to fund expanded healthcare coverage for the uninsured, it may not take long before fast-rising medical inflation pushes the dollar value of union-won health benefits up to the Cadillac level, as IUE-CWA Local 201 President Jeff Crosby has noted.

As Dr. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler wrote recently,

The insurance required under the federal ACA is no better than Massachusetts’ bare-bones plans. And as employers emulate this inadequate coverage, the race to the bottom leaves an increasing number of Americans UNDER-insured. Public workers are just the latest group to see their coverage downsized.

What used to be called “health insurance” is now labeled “Cadillac coverage” – and reserved for those who drive Mercedes.

Himmelstein and Woolhandler remind us that the Democrats’ ACA plan was based on the Massachusetts model passed in 2006 with Gov. Mitt Romeny's signature, and whose “achievements” are much less than splendid. Bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical costs, which account for over half of all bankruptcies, are still rising in Massachusetts, they state:

While only 4 percent of the state’s residents remain uninsured, much of the new coverage is so skimpy that serious illness leaves families with crushing medical bills.

For instance, the cheapest (and most commonly purchased) coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian through the state’s health insurance exchange costs $5,616. Yet, if you’re sick, the policy doesn’t start paying bills until you’ve paid a $2,000 deductible. And even after that you’re responsible for 20 percent of the next $15,000 in medical expenses.

Insurers try blackmail

By basing itself on the Massachusetts plan which keeps for-profit insurers as the parasitic middlemen at the core of the healthcare system, the ACA sacrificed the potential for comprehensive, high-quality benefits covered from the first dollar.

This potential has been underscored in the fight over retaining ACA’s requirement that 80 percent of premium revenue be used by insurers to provide healthcare and improve quality, freeing up 20 percent for profit, bureaucratic overhead, and sales and promotion.

No less than nine states are seeking waivers from the 80 percent requirement, falling prey to insurers’ blackmail demands. Insurers are threatening to stop selling individual coverage in a number of states unless they can spend, in several cases, just 65 percent on paying for healthcare and quality improvements.

Both the states and the Obama administration are petrified by this coercive technique. The Obama administration’s timid mentality was revealed in this statement by Robert Laszewski, a consultant to the health care industry and a former insurance executive. "The last thing the Obama administration wants is the Des Moines Register writing about 500 people who lost their health insurance in Iowa because of the Obama health plan," he chortled.

Singe-payer destiny?

The emerging situation is not pretty. Major corporations and right-wing state governments are fighting furiously to shift more costs onto workers and their families. Instead of setting a new, higher standard, ACA effectively serves to reinforce a new lower standard of “acceptable” coverage. Given this, the limitations of the ACA may become very obvious very quickly both to the public and Congress.

There may even be a possibility that that the essential need for maximum-strength single-payer or “Medicare for all” healthcare system—unburdened by for-profit insurers—will become evident much faster than most have imagined. (Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) introduced single-payer bills in Congress this week; Vermont has now passed its own single-payer system into law.)

Himmelstein and Woolhandler make the case concisely:

While the ACA can’t live up to its “affordable care” moniker, a single-payer reform could save $400 billion annually on administrative costs, enough to offer every American first-dollar, comprehensive coverage. While U.S. insurers fight tooth and nail against the 20 percent limit on overhead, Canada’s single-payer program runs for 1 percent.

© 2011 In These Times

A Chemical Can Damage Your Lungs, Liver and Kidneys and Still Be Labeled "Non-Toxic"?

AlterNet.org


ENVIRONMENT

AlterNet / By Monona Rossol

Say What? A Chemical Can Damage Your Lungs, Liver and Kidneys and Still Be Labeled "Non-Toxic"?

You will be shocked at all the loop-holes given by the government to industrial chemicals to avoid safety regulation and accurate labeling.

May 9, 2011 |

The skull and crossbones has long been a standard symbol for poison.

Bisphenol A, parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde, and on and on. Do they expect us all to be chemists? I’m a chemist and even I don’t want make every trip to the store a research project. Why not just provide a simple label like “nontoxic” that we can look for? Surely it is illegal to put a nontoxic label on products containing known toxic or carcinogenic substances—especially on children’s products. Not so. And we all should know how we got into this mess.

Until the 1980s, even asbestos was a common ingredient in many products including children’s art materials. For example, one product was a powdered papier-mâché product for children marketed by Milton Bradley. It contained about 50 percent asbestos powder. Called FibroClay, the asbestos-containing product had a nontoxic approved product (AP) seal on it from the organization known today as the Arts and Creative Materials Institute (ACMI).

Although the hazards of asbestos were known in the 1970s and the 1980s, the only required toxicity tests for consumer products at the time were acute animal tests. These tests involve a brief exposure to the test substance and observation of the animals two weeks later. Because asbestos didn’t immediately poison the test animals, no law was broken by labeling this product “nontoxic.”

The asbestos problem and other labeling issues were raised by a group of activists, including myself, when I worked with a nonprofit corporation later known as the Center for Safety in the Arts. The center presented the problem to the National Art Materials Trade Association (NAMTA) in 1979. NAMTA refused to work with us to amend the labeling laws to cover chronic or long-term hazards, however, so we took the issue to various states. We were joined by many groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Public Health Association, and Artists Equity—a huge coalition of trade associations, health professionals, and artists. Yet the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and its many state offices became the backbone of the lobbying efforts.

Seven state legislatures understood the insanity of labeling products “nontoxic” when they contain known carcinogens and passed laws that required the chronic hazard labeling of art materials.

These states were California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia, and others considered similar legislation. Each state had slightly different requirements, which made it almost impossible for manufacturers to design a label that met all of the different rules. At this point, even NAMTA decided that it would be better to have a federal law to address this issue with a single set of regulations. Within a few years, a bill was drafted and introduced.

On October 19, 1988, Congress passed the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act (LHAMA). Some of the provisions of LHAMA included requiring manufacturers to determine whether their products contained chronic hazards; requiring labeling on those products with chronic hazards, which included a statement that these products were inappropriate for children; prohibiting the purchase of such materials for use by children in grade six and below; and adopting the labeling procedures developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials for the labeling of chronic hazards in art materials, ASTM D 4236.

This sounds good so far, but there was a flaw in the ASTM D 4236 standard that none of us appreciated fully at the time. This standard requires a review of the list of ingredients by a toxicologist, who will then select the proper warning phrases and certify that this labeling will provide users with the information they need to use the product safely. If the toxicologist thinks there are no significant hazards, no warnings are required. His or her determination should be reached without any personal conflict of interest. But the flaw in this procedure is that the certifying toxicologist is paid for this work by the art material manufacturers—and handsomely.

The art material manufacturer is the toxicologist’s client, either directly or through a certifying organization such as the ACMI. The more clients a toxicologist or a certifying agency has, the greater the revenues, so pleasing the client is an important objective. A serious conflict of interest is built into the regulation. (We saw the same sort of problem with Enron’s accountants and the bond rating agencies during the banking crisis.) Some certifying agencies such as the ACMI developed seals of approval that included the word “nontoxic.” This word is not one of the label terms in ASTM D 4236, but it has been used so often by certifiers that schools to this day often require their art supplies to be labeled “nontoxic.” In my opinion, very toxic art materials were and are still labeled “nontoxic” as a result of this conflict of interest.

Just what does the “nontoxic” label really mean? To understand, we first need to learn the vocabulary of toxicology and discover the many different ways a substance can be toxic.

Defining Toxic

Asbestos is an extreme example, which I use here and in my book Pick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All to make a point, but many other “nontoxic” products could be full of toxic chemicals. I’m hoping this essay leaves you with a general distrust of the nontoxic label, both in the past and currently. When you see “nontoxic” on a product, keep the following facts in mind:

• “Nontoxic” can still legally mean that there are no immediate, acute hazards as determined by the LD50 and LC50 tests.

• “Nontoxic” may mean there are little or no chronic data available on the substance. If the substance is not acutely toxic, and one can’t prove it is toxic in the long term, many manufacturers feel that they have the right to call it nontoxic. Even if there are studies showing that the substance is toxic, manufacturers in the United States have traditionally waited for absolute, unequivocal proof, which in most cases is never available because we don’t study our chemicals.

• An art material is “nontoxic” if a toxicologist paid by the manufacturer decides it is safe. The dramatic failure in this labeling procedure was illustrated with the lead ceramic glazes and asbestos-containing materials such as talc. Asbestos-containing talcs are still found in some art and craft materials today.

• Some art materials that have never been evaluated by a toxicologist may be labeled “nontoxic” illegally due to weak enforcement of the art materials labeling law. For example, in 1995, a cameraman and a reporter from Channel 9 in New York went with me to a major art materials outlet. That night on the evening news, we showed viewers about a dozen imported products that did not conform to the law, some labeled “nontoxic,” which were being sold illegally. This is still true today, and a little research will lead you to many sources of noncompliant “nontoxic” products.

• Labeling of ordinary consumer products is pretty much up to the manufacturer and its paid advisers. Because there is no enforcement mechanism in the regulations for the chronic hazard labeling of ordinary consumer products, there is not much incentive to provide warnings.

• There is no regulatory requirement to warn consumers about damage to most of the body’s organs, such as the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys. Only four types of chronic hazards are covered by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act regulations. These are cancer, and developmental, reproductive, and neurological damage.

Lawsuits are just about the only recourse for the public. Manufacturers often say that they fear lawsuits and that’s why they do a good job of labeling. But in the case of chronic health effects that don’t appear for ten to forty years, a company’s CEO who makes false statements on a product label is not at risk from lawsuits. He will have his retirement income and his bonuses and be living in the Bahamas before the first case is filed.

Toxic Intake

Chemical toxicity is dependent on the dose, the amount of the chemical that enters the body. Each chemical produces harm at a different dose. Highly toxic chemicals cause serious damage with only tiny doses. Moderately and slightly toxic substances are toxic at relatively higher doses.

Even substances considered nontoxic can be harmful if the exposure is great enough. This is how people die even from drinking too much water. Overdosing on water can be called hydroneutremia, hypoxic encephalopathy, or water intoxication. It can happen when athletes replace water they lose from sweating without replacing electrolytes, when psychiatric patients abuse water, or when the drug Ecstasy impairs people’s judgment about the amount of water they’ve had. Water can also be used to murder someone. On March 26, 2003, eleven members of the Psi Epsilon Chi fraternity at the State University of New York College at Plattsburgh were collectively charged with 150 crimes, including criminally negligent homicide. A police investigation found that the members hazed a student, Walter Dean Jennings, by forcing him to drink gallons of water poured through a funnel.

Compare the toxic dose of water that is needed to kill a person with the tiny doses of extraordinarily toxic substances that can kill. A fatal dose of ricin, a chemical extracted from castor bean plants, can fit on the head of a pin.

Chemical toxicity is also dependent on the length of time over which exposure occurs. The effects of short and long periods of exposure differ dramatically. Often the same chemical can produce what appear to be very different diseases, depending on the length of time over which the dose or doses were delivered. Most of these two types of diseases can be divided into acute or chronic illnesses.

Acute illnesses are caused by large doses of toxic substances delivered in a short period of time. The symptoms from short-term exposures usually occur during or right after the exposure and last only a brief time. Depending on the dose, the outcome can vary from complete recovery, to recovery with some level of disability, to—at worst—death.

Acute illnesses are the easiest to diagnose because their cause and effect are easily linked. For example, a glue sniffer who huffs solvents such as paint thinner or gasoline is immediately affected. Depending on the dose, symptoms begin with lightheadedness and a “high” feeling. If exposure continues, it may lead to more severe effects, such as headache, nausea, and loss of coordination. At even higher doses, unconsciousness and death could result. Repeated low-dose exposures over many months or years can cause chronic effects. They are the most difficult to diagnose. Usually, the symptoms are hardly noticeable until severe permanent damage has occurred. Symptoms appear very slowly, may vary from person to person, and may mimic other illnesses.

If the same solvents that made the glue sniffer high are put in an industrial paint and if many workers use this paint for decades, significant numbers of these workers will develop chronic illnesses. The illnesses will not be the same for all workers. For instance, chronic exposure to solvents during a lifetime of painting may produce dermatitis in some individuals, chronic liver or kidney effects in others, and nervous system damage in still others.

The most common disease among industrial painters, however, is a type of brain and nervous system damage that causes coordination problems, short-term memory loss, and clinical depression. This is a combination of symptoms recognized by workers’ compensation boards as a consequence of exposure to organic chemical solvents. Yet these are the same symptoms seen in alcoholics. When you dry out an alcoholic, you don’t suddenly find him transformed into a happy camper. He usually has subtle coordination deficits, short-term memory loss, and clinical depression. He may go right from taking antiabuse drugs to antidepressants. It is now clear that all solvents, including grain alcohol in excess, can cause narcosis and will damage the brain and the nervous system permanently over time.

Other effects in varying degrees of severity can also occur. They fall in a range that is partway between acute and chronic, such as “subacute” effects produced over weeks or months at lower doses than those that cause acute effects. Such in-between effects are also difficult to diagnose.

Lead is a good example of a substance that produces these in-between effects. Acute lead poisoning will bring about severe diarrhea, vomiting, and central nervous system depression in extremely high doses, even killing you. Low-level chronic exposure causes IQ deficits that may not even be noticed by the victim. Yet the lead exposure levels in between acute and low-level chronic doses can produce a baffling array of symptoms, from alternating diarrhea and constipation to high blood pressure and kidney problems, nerve conductivity decreases, and a wide range of mental states, from irritability to outright craziness. Several cases of lead poisoning of which I am personally aware were first suspected by smart professionals in the mental health field. Blood tests later confirmed their suspicions that their patients’ mental faculties were actually being affected by lead.

Every chemical is eliminated from the body at a different rate. Cumulative toxins, such as lead, are eliminated slowly. Repeated exposure will cause them to accumulate in the body. The rate at which each chemical is eliminated from the body is called its “toxic substance half-life.” Alcohol, for example, has a very short half-life. If you don’t test a suspected drunk driver’s blood within hours, the amount of alcohol in the blood will drop greatly. Other chemicals, such as lead, have a much longer half-life. Once the lead leaves your bloodstream and deposits in your bones, the lead has a twenty-five-year half-life in your body. This means that only half of the dose of lead you absorbed today from your food, air, and water will be excreted over the next twenty-five years. Lead is considered a cumulative toxic substance because the lead deposited in your body leaves so slowly that each successive dose adds to the amount that is retained.

Every single chemical has its own unique half-life in the body. There is a complete range of half-lives, from extremely short to almost a lifetime and everything in between. Chemicals with short half-lives cannot be found on medical tests unless you are tested shortly after exposure. Yet although the toxic chemical is not accumulating, the damage it does to your body may be increasing. For example, a retired industrial painter will not have any solvents in his or her body, but the damage to the liver, the kidneys, and the central nervous system caused by the solvents may persist and be permanent. There is no way to physically prove that the damage was from the solvent exposure, however, other than through the work records of the individual.

The total body burden is the total amount of a chemical that is present in the body from all sources. For example, we all have body burdens of lead from air, water, and food contamination. If we also work with lead-containing materials on the job, this exposure can add to the body’s burden. To determine the body burden of any single substance, we must know all of the exposures to that substance. Today, we are carrying body burdens of many chemicals and are often exposed to more than one chemical at a time. These chemicals may interact in the body in two primary ways: additively and synergistically. Exposure to two chemicals is considered additive when one chemical contributes to or adds to the toxic effects of the other. This can occur when both chemicals affect the body in similar ways. Working with paint thinner and drinking alcohol is an example because both the paint thinner and the alcohol affect the body in similar ways. Synergistic effects occur when two chemicals produce an effect that is greater than the total effects of each alone. For example, many deaths were caused when people consumed what was considered a socially acceptable amount of alcoholic beverages and then took a prescribed dose of barbiturate sleeping pills. Now that the synergistic effect of these two substances is understood, there are warnings about drinking alcohol while taking medications such as barbiturates.

Many chemicals are similar. Old-timers like me remember a solvent called carbon tetrachloride. It was available in gallon cans in every hardware store and was used to remove and thin paint, to clean fabrics, to remove tar, and for a host of other tasks. Most fire extinguishers also contained this chemical. It is not available now because it was found to be synergistic with alcohol. People who drank a few beers while using carbon tetrachloride could end up dead. This is why it is one of the very few chemicals banned by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act for use in consumer products.

The problem is that synergistic chemicals are usually identified only after there is evidence in the form of human exposures. When there is a high-enough pile of dead people, experts can be motivated to study the effects of the two chemicals and their interactions in the body. Only a tiny fraction of the chemicals in commerce have been studied for long-term effects—even one at a time. Clearly, there is no plan to start studying all of these chemicals two at a time, to discover their synergistic effects. So, once again, we are the guinea pigs.

I am personally very concerned about the synergistic effects of chemicals that were inhaled by people, including myself, who lived in Lower Manhattan around September 11, 2001. We now know that the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contained hundreds of toxic chemicals from the fallen buildings. Five buildings, two of them skyscrapers, were essentially ground to a powder. The hundreds of chemicals came from all of the cement, asbestos insulation, fiberglass insulation, computers and their monitors, windows, fluorescent lights, plastics, plywood and paneling, and much more. Then the pile burned for more than two months. The fire was so hot deep underground that even metal beams melted. Many of the first responders and the workers who labored there in the months after 9/11 are now sick, and some have died. In January, 2011, President Obama signed the 4.2 billion dollar James Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act to address the health problems in these workers. The synergistic effects of that soup of chemicals to which they were exposed are clearly part of the problem.

Unlike ordinary toxic substances, the effects of carcinogens are not strictly dependent on the dose. No level of exposure is considered safe. Yet, the lower the dose, the lower the risk of developing cancer.

For this reason, exposure to carcinogens should be avoided altogether or kept as low as possible.

No dose of a carcinogen is considered safe because, theoretically, it takes only a single molecule of a carcinogen in the right person, in the right place in a cell, to change the cell’s genetic blueprint (DNA) and reprogram it as a cancer cell. Obviously, we can’t be fanatical about single molecule exposures, but it does explain why, no matter how low the dose, if a large-enough population is exposed, someone will get cancer.

There are several mechanisms by which cancer is caused, other than by a toxin directly affecting a cell’s DNA. For example, some substances irritate or damage organ tissues so they must repeatedly repair and regrow themselves. When cells in the body have to divide rapidly during regrowth, there is a greater risk that one of the cells will not divide properly and will create a cancer cell instead.

Occupational cancers typically occur five to forty years after someone has been exposed to a toxic substance. This period of time, during which there are no symptoms, is referred to as a latency period. Latency usually makes the diagnosis of occupational cancers very difficult. For example, the latency period for getting lung cancer after exposure to asbestos is ten to twenty years, while the latency period for developing mesothelioma from asbestos exposure is twenty to forty years.

Chemicals that affect fetal organ development—that is, chemicals that cause birth defects—are called teratogens. They are hazardous primarily during the first trimester. Two proven human teratogens

include the drug thalidomide and grain alcohol. Chemicals that are known to cause birth defects in animals are considered “suspect teratogens.” Among these are many solvents, lead, and other metals.

Often the teratogen is capable of causing damage only at a particular stage in the pregnancy. For example, thalidomide can cause limbs to fail to form only when the mother is exposed between the twentieth and the thirty-sixth day of pregnancy, while the fetus’s arms and leg buds are forming. Before or after these dates, thalidomide is harmless to the fetus.

The selectivity of teratogens will complicate any studies that attempt to determine reasons for the increase in autism, hyperactivity, and learning difficulties in children. The important factor is not only what the mother was exposed to; it is also likely to depend on exactly when she was exposed and what systems in the brain were being formed at that time. If these afflictions are due to the child being exposed after birth, it will have to be a significant exposure at exactly the time when certain brain development phases are occurring. Toxic chemicals can affect the growth and the development of the fetus at any stage of development. Lead, for example, not only damages the fetus, it damages children and adults at any stage of life. Toxic effects to the fetus can result from very small exposures to the mother at any time during pregnancy.

Now that we’ve seen how very complex toxicity is, we can look at how inadequate product label regulations are in providing warnings. The consumer label regulations are found in the United States Federal Hazardous Substances Act. These rules primarily require toxic warnings on products that are capable of causing acute (sudden onset) hazards.

Hazardous products are identified in the regulations by tests that expose animals to a single dose or period of exposure by skin or eye contact, inhalation, and ingestion. These tests are called the lethal dose (LD) tests by ingestion, skin, or eye contact or the lethal concentration (LC) tests by inhalation. The LD50 test by ingestion, for example, would be the test at a single dose that kills 50 percent of the test animals within two weeks of administration. To be “nontoxic,” the dose that kills 50 percent of the rats must be equal to or greater than 5 grams per kilogram of body weight. In other words, if 50 percent of the rats manage to survive for two weeks after receiving a large dose of 5 grams per kilogram of body weight, the toxicologist can call it “nontoxic.”

Remember that this testing will only find the dose that kills half of the test group, not the dose that kills one animal. And it’s only testing for acute reactions. For example, the powdered asbestos discussed at the beginning of this chapter was labeled “nontoxic,” based on all of the LD50 and LC50 tests, because all of the animals would appear healthy after exposure. Cancer takes much longer to develop.

A for chronic hazards, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act was amended in the 1990s to include four types of chronic hazard: cancer, and developmental, reproductive, and neurological damage. If the chemicals damage our livers or any other organs not covered by the law, tough luck. Add to this the fact that the Chemical Abstract Service (www.cas.org) has registered over 59,000,000 chemicals while only about 1000 chemicals have evaluated for cancer effects worldwide. This means the vast majority of the chemicals we use have never been tested for cancer or any other chronic effects!

Even the trade secret organic pigments and dyes in children’s paints and crayons are untested. These products are not made with food grade dyes—and some mothers would need to know if they were because of their child’s particular sensitivities. Instead, these toxicologist-certified art products containing untested colorants are labeled “nontoxic.” We should ask the toxicologists to show us how they mathematically calculate the risk assessment required by law for pigments on which there is no toxicity data! It’s impossible.

Many highly toxic substances have been and still are used in art materials. This will always be the case, because colors that will remain unfaded on paintings for hundreds of years require the use of substances such as lead, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and a host of other toxic metals and some very complex organic chemical pigments. There is no way to make traditional art materials “green.” Yet if toxic substances must be used, the labels should provide the information and the warnings that consumers need to use them safely. When it comes to children’s art materials, toxic pigments should not be used at all. After all, how long does your child’s grade school artwork have to remain unfaded on the refrigerator door?

Monona Rossol is the author of Pick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All (Wiley, 2011).

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

By Reuters
Thursday, April 28th, 2011 -- 9:19 am

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

The plaintiffs, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, filed their class-action lawsuit in 2006, claiming they were improperly charged about $30 in sales taxes on cellphones that the AT&T Mobility wireless unit had advertised as free.

AT&T, the No. 2 U.S. mobile service, was backed in the case by a number of other companies and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, while consumer and civil rights groups supported the California couple.

Companies generally prefer arbitration as a less expensive way of settling consumer disputes, as opposed to costly class actions, which allow customers to band together and can result in large monetary awards.

Customer arbitration agreements are widely used by cellphone carriers, cable providers, credit card companies, stock brokerage firms and other businesses.

Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick said it may be the most important class action case ever decided by the Supreme Court.

"Because companies can ask all of their consumers, employees, and perhaps even shareholders to sign arbitration agreements, this decision has the potential to permit companies to escape class action liability in almost all of their activities," he said.

Shares of AT&T closed up 1.55 percent at $31.42 on the New York Stock Exchange.

AT&T DEFENDS ARBITRATION AS FAIR

AT&T praised the ruling, saying the Supreme Court recognized that arbitration often benefits consumers. "We value our customers, and AT&T's arbitration program is free, fair, fast, easy to use, and consumer-friendly," the company said.

AT&T said its arbitration agreements required it to pay at least $7,500 if the arbitrator awarded more than the company's final settlement offer and to pay all arbitration costs for nonfrivolous claims.

Deepak Gupta, an attorney at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen who represented the couple, denounced the decision and said class actions had been an essential tool to achieve justice in U.S. society.

"The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts," he said.

AT&T had argued that a federal law that encourages the use of arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act, trumped a California consumer protection law at issue in the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed.

"The California law in question stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and the objectives of the FAA. It is accordingly preempted," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority in reading his opinion from the bench.

Scalia cited a federal judge's conclusion in the case that the couple was better off under the AT&T arbitration agreement than under a class action, which could take months or years and could result in their winning just a small amount of money.

The ruling, which reversed a decision by a U.S. appeals court in California, was the latest in a series by the Supreme Court in recent years that generally favored arbitration.

The court's four liberal justices dissented. "The Court is wrong to hold that the federal act preempts the rule of state law," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.

The Supreme Court case is AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, No. 09-893.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Gary Hill)

Supreme Court rules for AT&T in arbitration case

James Vicini
Reuters US Online Report Technology News

Apr 27, 2011 16:30 EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

<br/>

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

The plaintiffs, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, filed their class-action lawsuit in 2006, claiming they were improperly charged about $30 in sales taxes on cellphones that the AT&T Mobility wireless unit had advertised as free.

AT&T, the No. 2 U.S. mobile service, was backed in the case by a number of other companies and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, while consumer and civil rights groups supported the California couple.

Companies generally prefer arbitration as a less expensive way of settling consumer disputes, as opposed to costly class actions, which allow customers to band together and can result in large monetary awards.

Customer arbitration agreements are widely used by cellphone carriers, cable providers, credit card companies, stock brokerage firms and other businesses.

Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick said it may be the most important class action case ever decided by the Supreme Court.

"Because companies can ask all of their consumers, employees, and perhaps even shareholders to sign arbitration agreements, this decision has the potential to permit companies to escape class action liability in almost all of their activities," he said.

Shares of AT&T closed up 1.55 percent at $31.42 on the New York Stock Exchange.

AT&T DEFENDS ARBITRATION AS FAIR

AT&T praised the ruling, saying the Supreme Court recognized that arbitration often benefits consumers. "We value our customers, and AT&T's arbitration program is free, fair, fast, easy to use, and consumer-friendly," the company said.

AT&T said its arbitration agreements required it to pay at least $7,500 if the arbitrator awarded more than the company's final settlement offer and to pay all arbitration costs for nonfrivolous claims.

Deepak Gupta, an attorney at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen who represented the couple, denounced the decision and said class actions had been an essential tool to achieve justice in U.S. society.

"The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts," he said.

AT&T had argued that a federal law that encourages the use of arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act, trumped a California consumer protection law at issue in the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative majority agreed.

"The California law in question stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and the objectives of the FAA. It is accordingly preempted," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority in reading his opinion from the bench.

Scalia cited a federal judge's conclusion in the case that the couple was better off under the AT&T arbitration agreement than under a class action, which could take months or years and could result in their winning just a small amount of money.

The ruling, which reversed a decision by a U.S. appeals court in California, was the latest in a series by the Supreme Court in recent years that generally favored arbitration.

The court's four liberal justices dissented. "The Court is wrong to hold that the federal act preempts the rule of state law," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.

The Supreme Court case is AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, No. 09-893.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Gary Hill)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Technology News

While Justice Department Opposes Digital Privacy for Americans, Pentagon Stonewalls Corporate Spy Probe

Antifascist Calling...

Exploring the shadowlands of the corporate police state

Sunday, April 10, 2011

While Justice Department Opposes Digital Privacy for Americans, Pentagon Stonewalls Corporate Spy Probe

When Politico reported late last month that President Obama quietly received a "transparency" award "in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House," I first thought it was an April Fool's gag.

But as with all things Obama, the joke is on us.

Reporter Abby Phillip revealed that during a "secret presentation" which had been "inexplicably postponed" two weeks earlier, His Changeness received high marks from "Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org."

Let it be said, these organizations do yeoman's work uncovering official waste, fraud and abuse and have done much to expose state crimes (past and present) committed by the U.S. government.

Nevertheless, in callous disregard for his supporters (which should be an object lesson for those who believe the secret state can be "reformed" from the inside), the White House failed to post the meeting on the president's public schedule and barred photographers and print journalists from recording the august event.

OMB Watch's Gary Bass found it "baffling" that the president wouldn't want to trumpet his award; after all, hadn't Obama promised his would be the most "open" administration in history?

For her part, OpenTheGovernment.org's Patrice McDermott expressed "disappointment" that the meeting was held in camera and "surprise" when they learned the event was "not on the President's daily calendar."

Caught off-guard by the White House McDermott averred, "Why they decided to close the meeting to the press is not something we understand."

Scarcely a week later, we learned that the administration will soon seek legislation from Congress that would "punish leaks of classified information" and authorize "intelligence agencies to seize the pension benefits of current or former employees who are believed to have committed an unauthorized disclosure of classified information," Secrecy News revealed.

Given the embarrassing fact that the award was bestowed "in honor of President Obama's commitment to transparency," even as his administration hounds and prosecutes whistleblowers with a ferocity not seen since the darkest days of Watergate, the question is: why is there still such a profound disconnect between the harsh realities of White House policy and its perception management amongst those who should know better?

Digital Privacy? Forgetaboutit!

What other ironies are hiding in plain sight in well-appointed Washington hearing rooms and dark corridors?

CNET News reported that the Justice Department "offered what amounts to a frontal attack on proposals to amend federal law to better protect Americans' privacy."

During hearings last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is rewriting portions of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Associate Attorney General James A. Baker warned the panel that granting "cloud computing users more privacy protections and to require court approval before tracking Americans' cell phones would hinder police investigations."

Baker told the committee "that requiring a search warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an 'adverse impact' on criminal investigations," CNET reported. And making location information only available with a search warrant, he said, would hinder "the government's ability to obtain important information in investigations of serious crimes."

"As we engage in that discussion," Baker averred, "what we must not do--either intentionally or unintentionally--is unnecessarily hinder the government's ability to effectively and efficiently enforce the criminal law and protect national security."

How obtaining a search warrant to legally investigate crime while protecting the rights of suspects would hinder "the government's ability to access, review, analyze, and act promptly upon the communications of criminals that we acquire lawfully," was side-stepped by the Justice Department.

Coming on the heels of new administration rules that "allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning," as The Wall Street Journal reported, while "significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades," weakening already anemic digital privacy rights would grant even more power to those building a National Surveillance State.

Indeed, short of obtaining a search warrant as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment, any and all electronic communications trolled by the secret state, whether or not they are part of an ongoing criminal or national security investigation have not been acquired "lawfully."

On this point, the law is clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But as Antifascist Calling reported in February, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released an explosive report that documented the lawless, constitution-free zone that already exists in "new normal" America.

According to EFF, their review of nearly 2,500 pages of previously classified documents pried from the FBI through Freedom of Information Act litigation, revealed that Bureau "intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed."

In fact, "almost one-fifth involved an FBI violation of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or other laws governing criminal investigations or intelligence gathering activities."

"From 2001 to 2008," the civil liberties' watchdogs uncovered evidence that "the FBI engaged in a number of flagrant legal violations." Amongst the more egregious abuses of democratic norms, EFF revealed that FBI investigators could be criminally charged with "submitting false or inaccurate declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas" and "accessing password protected documents without a warrant."

Keep in mind these transgressions occurred in but one of 16 agencies which comprise the so-called "Intelligence Community." It's anyone's guess what dirty work is being hatched in darkness by opaque Pentagon satrapies such as the National Security Agency or U.S. Cyber Command, let alone that institutional black hole of crime and corruption, the CIA.

Never one to miss a beat, or offer ever more insidious snooping privileges to the Executive Branch, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) said "it's crucial to ensure we don't limit (law enforcement's) ability to obtain information necessary to catch criminals and terrorists who use electronic communication."

Grassley also suggested that requiring warrants, a thoroughly novel and radical approach to policing in a society that presumably champions the rule of law and the rights of the accused, would lead to "increased burdens on the court system."

We wouldn't want that would we? Heavens no! Considering how tiresome it must already be for our "overburdened" federal court system and Justice Department busily and conscientiously investigating and prosecuting Bush, now Obama, administration officials for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Launch a preemptive war against a nation that hasn't attacked us, say Libya, without consulting Congress whom the Constitution alone has granted the power to declare war? Well, there's an app for that too!, the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which recently declared "that the President had the constitutional authority to direct the use of force in Libya because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest."

Memo to Congress: sit down, shut up and continue doing what you do best--taking blood money from the corporate merchants of death who profit from the enterprise.

Pentagon Stonewalls Corporate Spy Probe

Violating the digital privacy and political rights of Americans isn't the exclusive purview of the secret state.

As fallout from the HBGary/Palantir/Berico/Team Themis hack by Anonymous continues to spread like a radioactive cloud, The Tech Herald, which first broke the story of Bank of America's sleazy project to bring down WikiLeaks by targeting journalists and supporters, reported that the Defense Department is stonewalling Rep. Hank Johnson's (D-GA) request "to review contracts signed with Team Themis."

"Last week," investigative journalist Steve Ragan disclosed, "Rep. Johnson sent a letter to the DOD, as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), asking that any information regarding contracts signed with Team Themis be returned to his office within 10 business days."

Ragan writes that "Johnson is seeking 'in their entirety,' all past and present contracts held by Team Themis, in addition to a written explanation of what safeguards are in place to restrain federal contractors from using technologies for official use against American citizens. Moreover, he asked for a written explanation of who owns and controls the tools developed by contractors for the government."

"This last request," The Tech Herald avers, "is important when you consider that the persona management software developed for the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), also known as MetalGear, isn't owned by the government, it's owned by developer Ntrepid."

Such contracts are worth millions and niche security outfits like Team Themis are viewed by the Pentagon as key players in the development of surveillance tools in Washington's endless "War on Terror."

Last week, the secrecy-shredding web site Public Intelligence published two additional HBGary documents that provided new details on the close, and profitable, conjunction amongst opaque corporate entities and the Pentagon.

The first is the HBGary SRA International 'Memory Grabber' Forensics Tool White Paper, which describes a system for obtaining "memory access to a running and password protected laptop through the use of a small PC Card inserted into the PCMCIA slot of the laptop."

We're told that "law enforcement agents and Special Operations personnel need a tool that provides memory access to a running laptop in the field enabling the timely capture of volatile information."

Such a device would be of particular interest to Border Patrol agents who might seize the laptop of a dissident returning from an overseas peace conference, or a journalist who may have had the temerity to probe too deeply into state-sanctioned crimes.

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that "authorities may seize laptops, cameras and other digital devices at the U.S. border without a warrant, and scour through them for days hundreds of miles away," Wired reported.

Unsurprisingly, "under the Obama administration, law enforcement agents have aggressively used this power to search travelers' laptops, sometimes copying the hard drive before returning the computer to its owner."

The second document, HBGary DARPA Cyber Insider Threat (CINDER) Proposal, details a bid by the dodgy firm to secure a piece of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's "Insider Threat" pie.

"Like a lie detector detects physical changes in the body based on sensitivities to specific questions," HBGary avers, "we believe there are physical changes in the body that are represented in observable behavioral changes when committing actions someone knows is wrong."

"Our solution," disgraced former HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr wrote, "is to develop a paranoia-meter to measure these observables."

Before being run to ground by Anonymous, Barr and HBGary CEO Greg Hoglund claimed they had developed a system, a "full functional rootkit on every host or on targeted hosts that can have complete control over the operating environment."

We're told that "the rootkit loads as a stealth kernel-mode base implant," and "will collect select file access, process execution with parameters, email communications, keyboard activity with a time/date stamp, network/TDI activity (and the actual network data if appropriate), and IM traffic. If detailed surveillance is required, it can be enabled to capture screenshots and construct a video stream. All traces of the rootkit installation will be removed after the initial deployment (event log, etc)."

But as we have seen, projects such as this can just as easily migrate into the private sector and be deployed by corporations to spy on employees who might have an unfavorable view of shady practices, such as robo-signing tens of thousands of fraudulent foreclosure notices to cash-strapped homeowners, and then do something about it.

Johnson, in his letter to ODNI Director James Clapper is determined to discover whether Team Themis "violated the law and/or their federal contracts by conspiring to use technologies developed for U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism purposes against American citizens and organizations on behalf of private actors."

In the best traditions of DOD stonewalling and cover-up, the Department's CIO Teri Takai and deputy CMO Elizabeth McGrath both said they were not familiar with "that company" [HBGary] but, as Ragan reported, Takai said "she would have her office look into things and make sure that 'we get back to you...'"

When hell freezes over!

How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation

Published on Monday, April 11, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation

by Helen Caldicott

Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit:

1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

Let me educate him.

The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.

Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."

4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).

[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

April 10, 2011 at 07:20:06

Person Corporatehood

By Bruce Morris (about the author)

"There is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits."

Milton Friedman.

You could be forgiven for believing that I misstate the concept of corporate personhood, the result of a bourgeoisie beholden Supreme Court imbuing corporations with the rights of human beings and freeing them from human restraint. While our Supreme Court has indeed converted the legal fictions we call corporations into legal "persons" with all the rights of actual persons, we have taken a turn even worse for ourselves.

By making corporations persons, the Supreme Court unleashed from human control entities with no moral or social duties beyond taking as much as they possibly can for themselves with no regard for the impact of humans beyond investors (and even for investors, the duty extends no further than to make them money). Friedman ridiculed those who believed corporations had "responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers." See excellent discussion here.

Literally, if a corporation can make more money knowingly letting people die when preventing death would be more costly, the directors of the corporation not only lack any moral the duty to prevent death, but actually have a legal duty to allow the deaths if that course makes more money, (assuming they are not breaking any laws). Sure, the corporation can be sued or fined, but corporate servants in government have been working furiously for decades to make it harder for humans to sue and any fines imposed are almost always a tiny fraction of the profits turned.

This is harmful enough for American society as wholly self-seeking, gigantic multinational firms with resources unfathomable to ordinary people can influence government and politics and we, whom these corporations are in theory licensed to serve, can do more to restrict their actions than our own. But we are increasingly seeing another development perhaps even more frightening.

The best current example might be the budget proposal by the narcissistic head cheerleader of the greedy plutocrat team, Republican Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As you probably know Ryan's proposed budget would eliminate Medicare and instead offer senior citizens vouchers they can use to direct government money to private insurance companies for health coverage. The vouchers would add up to far less than is currently spent on Medicare, and we know this because Ryan claims it will save the government money. So, basically, Ryan proposes drastically cutting spending for the health care of senior citizens. It is surely obvious to Ryan and other supporters that senior citizens will be unable to buy insurance on the private market for the price of their vouchers and will have to either suffer and die without health care after creating this cushy society for the likes of Ryan, or pay such huge chunks of their income for health care costs that they will be able to afford little else, including decent housing and food.

Oh, yes, Ryan's proposal also dramatically cuts taxes on the wealthiest Americans and all corporations in amounts similar to the cuts in funding for health care for senior citizens. They are quite straightforwardly proposing cuts in services for the needy to make room for cuts in taxes for the wealthy.

But to me, the most astonishing feature of this proposal is not its ghastly implications, nor its blatant transfer of money from the poor and elderly to the wealthy, corporations and insurers; it is the calm, unapologetic, smug way it is being presented. Ryan's and his supporter's behavior shows they do not care that people will suffer and die under their plan, as long as their actions direct more money into the hands of their social class mates. They literally believe they have no moral or social duty to provide for the care of their less fortunate and elder fellow Americans.

The same phenomena can be found in the Republican attack on health care for lower income and rural women by defunding Planned Parenthood and their excellent preventative health care programs; in the cavalier attitude toward shutting down the government when that will cause so much suffering; in their refusal to extend unemployment benefits to those harmed through no fault of their own by the recent wealth-vacuuming housing swindle and government revenue transfer that caused this recession. And, of course, this goes back to at least the Reagan Administration and certainly includes Bill Clinton's elimination of welfare.

For decades now the American people have been pounded with messages that in a capitalist society, the best course for any person is to seek the highest possible personal gain. The invisible hand -- as clear an allusion to capitalism as religion as we will find -- will take care of everything else. Altruistic and caring behaviors are inefficient and will only impede overall economic progress. Now, millions and millions of Americans, especially the most wealthy, have come to believe that they have no duty at all to contribute to the care of the less fortunate. The suffering of the poor, the elderly, the disabled; the collapse of the middle class; the manufactured foreclosure crisis throwing families with children in the street; cutting wages and benefits to unlivable levels; the tent cities; the preventable cervical cancers and treatable ones diagnosed too late. None of these should be the concern of the wealthy, or of anyone else but the individuals involved.

People owe duties only to themselves and are free to take and hoard whatever they can without any regard for the impacts on others. Sound familiar.

No wonder we have given corporations the rights of humans. We humans have adopted the moral code of the corporation.

As Milton Friedman might say it today:

"There is one and only one social responsibility of people--to use their resources and engage in activities designed to increase their profits."

Bruce is 46 year-old father of one, stepfather of three and grandfather of two, who left a lucrative law practice at a large national law firm to work, advocate and write for social justice and equality and find a way to incorporate a spiritual life (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

BP Plans to Restart Deepwater Drilling in Gulf of Mexico a Year After Worst Oil Spill in History

Published on Sunday, April 3, 2011 by the Daily Mail/UK

BP Plans to Restart Deepwater Drilling in Gulf of Mexico a Year After Worst Oil Spill in History

Oil giant BP plans to restart deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico this summer, just a year after an explosion on one of its rigs sparked the worst spill in history.

Oil is seen on the surface of the water from the massive oil spill on May 9, 2010 in Gulf of Mexico. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Joe Raedle) The group hopes to start work on 10 wells in the Gulf after being granted permission by U.S. regulators to continue work stopped after the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The move is likely to fuel public anger a year after the disaster, which occurred when the BP well exploded, killing 11 workers and causing an environmental crisis.

BP is spending around $41billion on cleaning up the spill and to cover damages, but investigations into the disaster are far from over.

U.S. prosecutors were last week reportedly considering pursuing manslaughter charges against managers and are examining statements made by bosses, including former chief executive Tony Hayward, during congressional hearings last year.

It has also agreed to allow 24-hour access to the U.S. government as part of the deal.

A source close to the company said: 'BP is hoping to resume drilling in the summer once it shows it can satisfy applicable regulatory conditions, as set out by the U.S. offshore regulator.'

But the permission has only been granted to allow BP to maintain or increase production on existing wells and does not cover exploration.

BP could seek approval to start exploratory drilling later in the year, according to The Sunday Times.

News of the Gulf of Mexico drilling is expected to outrage environmentalists, but comes as a welcome development for the embattled oil firm.

The company is still reeling after a Swedish tribunal last month ruled a £10billion deal between BP and Russia's Rosneft should be put on hold because of a dispute with shareholders at Russian partner TNK-BP.

It has put the group's shares under pressure and led to doubts over chief executive Bob Dudley, who replaced Mr Hayward following the Gulf spill.