U.N. sponsor fracking

• ABOUT US
• WHY WE MUST ACT
• WHAT WE'RE DOING
• RESOURCES

• - HOME PAGE
• - CONTACT US
• - SITEMAP
• - PRIVACY POLICY
• 

Home

 » Appropriate Development of Shale Gas Resources

APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OF SHALE GAS RESOURCES

Submitted by Patrick on August 19th, 2011

In May 2011, the Shale Gas Production Subcommittee of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board began exploring safe and environmentally sound methods of extracting natural gas from shale rock formations using hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “fracking”) techniques.  The Subcommittee released its 90-day Interim Report on August 18, 2011.

The Interim Report recommends improvements in:

• Availability of public information on shale gas operations;
• Communication between state and federal regulators;
• Standards to reduce the impact of fracking on air, water, land, and wildlife;
• Public disclosure of fracking fluid chemicals;
• Reduction of diesel engine use in the production process;
• Information sharing among natural gas developers; and
• Research and development of more effective fracking technologies.

To read the full report, click here.

A final report is expected on November 18, 2011.  More details on the U.S. Department of Energy’s work on shale gas development are available online at www.shalegas.energy.gov.

For comments from former Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and the Energy Future Coalition, on the need for leadership on natural gas and clean fuels, click here.

Joe Frazier has liver cancer

Boxing ex-world champion Joe Frazier has liver cancer

Comments (22)

 Joe Frazier held the world title in 1970-73

Related Stories

• Frazier's view of Muhammad Ali

US former world heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier is in hospice care with liver cancer, his manager says.

He says Frazier - also known as Smokin' Joe - was diagnosed with cancer several weeks ago.
"I would be a liar if I did not tell you it is very serious," Leslie Wolf told Reuters news agency.
The 67-year-old held the world title between 1970 and 1973. He was the first man to beat Muhammad Ali in 1971. He lost the next two bouts with Ali.

Mr Wolf said that Frazier was diagnosed with liver cancer last month and was now in hospice care in Philadelphia.
"Joe is a fighter. Joe doesn't give up," the manager said, adding that doctors and Frazier's team were "doing everything we can".
Frazier won the heavyweight title in 1970 by defeating Jimmy Ellis in New York. He held it until 1973, when he was beaten by George Foreman.
But the boxer is perhaps most widely-known for three great fights with Ali, including the epic Thriller in Manila in 1975

laser treatment

Doctor trials laser treatment to change eye colour

After the brief laser procedure, the colour change is said to take a few weeks to take effect

Related Stories

• Nature's copycats flood the world
• Bad eyes 'linked to time indoors'
• New eye surgery for Preston woman

A US doctor is trying to pioneer a laser treatment that changes patients' eye colour.

Dr Gregg Homer claims 20 seconds of laser light can remove pigment in brown eyes so they gradually turn blue.
He is now seeking up to $750,000 (£468,000) of investment to continue clinical trials.
However, other eye experts urge caution because destroying eye pigment can cause sight problems if too much light is allowed to enter the pupil.
Stroma Medical, the company set up to commercialise the process, estimates it will take at least 18 months to finish the safety tests.
'Irreversible' The process involves a computerised scanning system that takes a picture of the iris and works out which areas to treat.
The laser is then fired, using a proprietary pattern, hitting one spot of the iris at a time.
When it has hit every spot it then starts again, repeating the process several times.

“Start Quote

The pigment is there for a reason. If it is lost you can get problems such as glare or double vision”

End Quote Larry Benjamin Stoke Mandeville Hospital, UK

However the treatment only takes 20 seconds.

"The laser agitates the pigment on the surface of the iris," Dr Homer - the firm's chairman and chief scientific officer - told the BBC.
"We use two frequencies that are absorbed by dark pigment, and it is fully absorbed so there is no danger of damage to the rest of the eye.
"It heats it up and changes the structure of the pigment cells. The body recognises they are damaged tissue and sends out a protein. This recruits another feature that is like little pac-men that digest the tissue at a molecular level."
After the first week of treatment, the eye colour turns darker as the tissue changes its characteristics.
Then the digestion process starts, and after a further one to three weeks the blueness appears.
Since the pigment - called melanin - does not regenerate the treatment is irreversible.
Lasers are already used to remove the substance in skin to help treat brown spots and freckles.

Dr Gregg Homer said he first had the eye laser idea in the mid-1990s

Safety concerns Other eye experts have expressed reservations.
"The pigment is there for a reason. If the pigment is lost you can get problems such as glare or double vision," said Larry Benjamin, a consultant eye surgeon at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, in the UK.
"Having no eye pigment would be like having a camera aperture with a transparent blade. You wouldn't be able to control the light getting in."
Dr Homer said that he only removes the pigment from the eye's surface.
"This is only around one third to one half as thick as the pigment at the back of the iris and has no medical significance," he said.
He also claimed patients would be less sensitive to light than those born with blue eyes. He reasoned that brown-eyed people have more pigment in the other areas of their eyeballs, and most of it will be left untouched.
"We run tests for 15 different safety examination procedures. We run the tests before and after the treatment, and the following day, and the following weeks, and the following months and the following three months.
"Thus far we have no evidence of any injury."
Testing in Mexico
Dr Homer originally worked as an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles, but gave up full-time practice in the mid-1990s to study biology at Stanford University in California.
He said he filed his first patent for the laser treatment in 2001. But it was not until 2004 that he began carrying out experiments on animals at a hospital facility.
To fund his research he used his own savings, attracted investments from venture capital funds and secured a government grant. Dr Homer said he has raised $2.5m to date.

Dr Homer said his treatment only removes pigment from the eyeball's surface

Tests on humans initially involved cadavers, and then moved on to live patients in Mexico in August 2010.
"From a regulatory perspective it is easier," Dr Homer said, "and I can speak Spanish fluently so I can closely monitor how everyone is doing."
Seventeen people have been treated so far. All are very short-sighted. They have been offered lens transplants in return for taking part.
Dr Homer said the work is checked by a board of ophthalmology experts to ensure it is up to standard.
The new funds will be used to complete safety trials with a further three people.
Stroma Medical then intends to raise a further $15m to manufacture hundreds of lasers and launch overseas - ideally within 18 months.
A US launch is planned in three years' time, because it takes longer to get regulatory approval there.
Stroma Medical believes the treatment will be popular; its survey of 2,500 people suggested 17% of Americans would want it if they knew it was completely safe. A further 35% would seriously consider it.
There is also evidence of a growing desire to alter eye colour overseas - a recent study in Singapore reported growing demand for cosmetic contact lenses.

(H1N1) virus

Putative amino acid determinants of the emergence of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus in the human population

1. Daphna Meroz^a,
2. Sun-Woo Yoon^b,
3. Mariette F. Ducatez^b,
4. Thomas P. Fabrizio^b,
5. Richard J. Webby^b,
6. Tomer Hertz^c,¹, and
7. Nir Ben-Tal^a,¹

+ Author Affiliations

1. ^aDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel 69978;
2. ^bDepartment of Infectious Diseases, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105; and
3. ^cVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109

1. Edited by Barry Honig, Columbia University Howard Hughes Medical Institute, New York, NY, and approved July 8, 2011 (received for review October 6, 2010)

Abstract

The emergence of the unique H1N1 influenza A virus in 2009 resulted in a pandemic that has spread to over 200 countries. The constellation of molecular factors leading to the emergence of this strain is still unclear. Using a computational approach, we identified molecular determinants that may discriminate the hemagglutinin protein of the 2009 human pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1) strain from that of other H1N1 strains. As expected, positions discriminating the pH1N1 from seasonal human strains were located in or near known H1N1 antigenic sites, thus camouflaging the pH1N1 strain from immune recognition. For example, the alteration S145K (an antigenic position) was found as a characteristic of the pH1N1 strain. We also detected positions in the hemagglutinin protein differentiating classical swine viruses from pH1N1. These positions were mostly located in and around the receptor-binding pocket, possibly influencing binding affinity to the human cell. Such alterations may be liable in part for the virus’s efficient infection and adaptation to humans. For instance, 133_A and 149 were identified as discriminative positions. Significantly, we showed that the substitutions R133_AK and R149K, predicted to be pH1N1 characteristics, each altered virus binding to erythrocytes and conferred virulence to A/swine/NC/18161/02 in mice, reinforcing the computational findings. Our findings provide a structural explanation for the deficient immunity of humans to the pH1N1 strain. Moreover, our analysis points to unique molecular factors that may have facilitated the emergence of this swine variant in humans, in contrast to other swine variants that failed.

'old-fashioned' green

Calling for an 'old-fashioned' green revolution

VIEWPOINT Tensie Whelan

Using "good old-fashioned" farming techniques will help deliver a sustainable green revolution in Africa, says Tensie Whelan. In this week's Green Room, she warns that failure to protect biodiversity, water supplies and forests could spell disaster for the continent.

I have seen many ways in which farmers in Africa have increased quality and yield... through the implementation of better farm management and farm husbandry

The new green revolution that is needed on the continent of Africa has been much discussed of late.
With pressing development needs in many parts of Africa, and with a growing population, that revolution is desperately overdue.
But when it comes, it must be sustainable; socially, economically and environmentally.
A green revolution created and developed at the expense of sustainable, clean water supplies, good forestry protection and good soil management will not only be a disaster for the people of Africa, it will be a disaster for its ecology as well.
Yet so far, much of the debate has been on the technology of agricultural inputs such as the role of fertilizers and genetically modified (GM) seeds.
Whether the stance taken in the debate around these often controversial issues is pro- or anti-, my overriding conclusion is that those advocating for or against are missing a fundamental issue.
Back to basics
The debate - dominated by the West - has become, like so many western debates on big environmental questions, fixed on the technological solutions that will magically create tomorrow's paradise.

Africa's soils are being depleted of nutrients 'Barren future' for Africa's soil

In doing so, it has largely ignored the role good farming and forestry practices can play in mitigating food scarcity, protecting scarce water supplies and soil productivity, addressing climate related issues and both preserving and enhancing biodiversity across the continent.
Our experience at the Rainforest Alliance shows that by using "good old fashioned" farming techniques, such as good land-use management and harvesting practices, or reintroducing native tree cover to provide shade for the crops, leads to an improvement in the productivity and quality of farmers' crops and reduces susceptibility to pests and natural disasters.
This approach delivers clear economic, environmental and social benefits.
The Ethiopian coffee regions are biodiversity hotspots. Here, more than anywhere else the work to combine sustainable coffee production, forest conservation and biodiversity is vital.
Such an approach directly benefits Ethiopian small coffee farmers. It is also in Ethiopia's best interest and in the collective interest of us all.
Sustainable farm management techniques also increase net farm income. In studies of Rainforest Alliance cocoa farms in Cote D'Ivoire and Ghana, researchers consistently find higher yields and higher net income for farmers who have embraced these practices—without expensive new technologies.
Under pressure
Elsewhere, local populations have relied on Morocco's cork forests for generations.

One scheme hopes planting trees will help halt desertification Africa push for 'great tree wall'

The forests provides vital resources and services including; timber, fuel wood, honey, mushrooms, berries and watershed protection.
But illegal logging, over grazing, forest fires and the over-collection of firewood are destroying these biodiversity rich forests.
By working with local people, providing the skills and incentives to maintain their forests, we are laying the ground work for people to gain a sustainable livelihood from the cork and argan oil found in these forests.
And sustainable forestry management and extraction is essential if we are to preserve some of the most charismatic of African species, the great apes.
In the Congo basin - home to the chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla - only 10-15% of the forests are protected as either national parks or nature reserves.
Most of the Congo's great apes live outside these areas, in forest covered by logging concessions.
Where these concessions are managed under Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification schemes, these populations remain healthy.
There is currently 4.5 million hectares of FSC logging concessions housing healthy populations of gorillas and chimpanzees.
While this sounds a big number, it is only a fraction of the total logging concessions available.
By giving more political and financial support and priority to FSC certification governments, communities and companies can help to meet their commitments under the UN biodiversity conventions while ensuring a sustainable economic use of this natural resource.
Returning to agriculture, I have seen many ways in which farmers in Africa have increased quality and yield, as well as lowered production costs and improved working conditions for themselves and their workers through the implementation of better farm management and farm husbandry.
All of this results in better long-term management and stewardship of soil, water, biodiversity and human resources.
It creates a balanced relationship whereby wildlife is both protected and enhanced and farmers are able to compete in the global market which so many of them supply.
Tensie Whelan is president of the Rainforest Alliance
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Tensie Whelan? Are "good old-fashioned" farming techniques being overlooked in favour of hi-tech solutions? Are global demands for resources plunging Africa into an ecological crisis? Is it possible to balance the growing demand for crops with a sustainable future for all in Africa?
Why do we always assume that Western technology is the answer to everything? Technologies developed for temperate climates may not be suitable for sub-Tropical and Tropical regions of Africa. Also the farmers cannot afford the seeds and associated fertilisers and pesticides. There was a program years ago about "front door farming" in southern Africa where starting with small plots, no bigger than a front door, on a soil that was basically sand and by working in small groups to save compostable material families were able to grow firstly fresh veg to support themselves and then eventually a small surplus to sell. Not a single GM seed or artificial fertiliser was used. The system was self sustaining based on good old-fashioned care, and in this case creation of, a fertile soil. Local food varieties have developed over millenia to cope with local conditions and with a bit of support the knowledge of local people can be used to improve the environment for themselves and the biodiversity. The arrogance of the West that we have the answer to everything is extremely worrying and often appears to be purely profit driven. We should be tapping into and supporting the local knowledge before it is lost.
Jane, Cardiff
The old fashioned farming is goood techniques,no model material.Becauce we use simple material like cutless,hoe etc.
mohammed, chad

The idea that the world needs to double its food production by 2050 in order to feed a growing population is wrong

Food figures need a pinch of salt

VIEWPOINT Isobel Tomlinson

The idea that the world needs to double its food production by 2050 in order to feed a growing population is wrong, says Isobel Tomlinson from the Soil Association. In this week's Green Room, she says the misuse of data could be used to allow even greater intensification of the global agricultural industry.

It is important that scientific research is now done to show how a better future is possible Food needs 'fundamental rethink'

In the last couple of years, scientists, politicians and agricultural industry representatives around the globe have been using two statistics: the need to increase global food production by 50% by 2030, and for food production to double by 2050 to meet future demand.
These figures have come to play a significant role in framing current international policy debates about the future direction of global agriculture.
These apparently scientific statistics have been dominating the policy and media discourse about food and farming, leading almost everyone to assume we need vast increases in agricultural production to feed a population of nine billion people by the middle of this century.
While ensuring an equitable and sufficient future food supply is of critical importance, many commentators are using this to justify the need for more intensive agricultural practices and, in particular, the need for further expansion of GM crops.
Cooking the books
When the Soil Association, in its report Telling Porkies, looked into the reported sources for these figures, none of the sources actually stated that global food production needs to increase by 50% by 2030, or to double by 2050.

The food web is complex and tough to break down into simple soundbites

What the reports on which the claims are based do say is that certain sectors, in certain parts of the world, may have to increase food production by significant amounts.
For example, for cereals, there is a projected increase of one billion tonnes annually beyond the two billion tonnes produced in 2005.
For meat, in developing countries only (except China), the reports say that some of the growth potential (for increased per capita meat consumption) will materialise as effective demand, and their per capita consumption could double by 2050.
So this is a projected doubling of meat consumption in some developing countries - not a doubling of global food production.
Indeed, recent calculations show that the key source for the "doubling" claim - a 2006 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - implies that global food production for 2006-2050 would need to increase by around 70%, not 100%; a difference that is equivalent to the entire food production of the continent of America.
But while a re-evaluation of the veracity of the claim that food production needs to double by 2050 is to be welcomed, simply switching to the figure of 70% does not solve the problem.
Food for thought
The statistic of a 70% increase is still predicted on the same "business as usual" model as the "doubling" figure and that is problematic for several reasons:

Some region will have to produce considerably more food Food push urged to avoid hunger

First of all, the projections reflect a continuing pattern of structural change in the diets of people in developing countries with a rapid increase in livestock products (meat, milk, eggs) as a source of food calories.
However, the continuation of dietary transition in developing countries, as assumed by the modelling work, is likely to cause worsening health problems as such diets are a leading cause of non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular disease, some cancers and Type 2 diabetes.
Secondly, the data used to measure food security focuses attention on the level of agricultural production without considering access to food, distribution, and affordability which are all important in ensuring that people do not go hungry.
Thirdly, the projections assume that the developing world continues to import growing quantities of staple food stuffs when, in fact, increasing local production of staple foods is vital in ensuring food security.
Finally, according to these scientists, meeting these projected food demand targets will not solve food insecurity anyway. Indeed it is predicted that there will still be 290 million under-nourished people worldwide in 2050.
The assumptions and projections in this modelling reflect the authors' vision of the "most likely future" but not necessarily the most desirable one.
At the Soil Association, we now want to have an honest debate about how we can feed the world in 2050 in a way that doesn't lead to the further increases in obesity and diet related diseases, ensures that the global environment is protected, and that puts an end to hunger and starvation.
The misuse of the doubling statistic, based as it supposedly is on just one particular forecast of future demand for food, has prevented alternative visions of food and farming in 2050, which do not rely on the further intensification of farming and use of GM technologies, from being taken seriously in food security policy circles.
It is important that scientific research is now done to show how a better future is possible.
One recent scientific study has examined how we can feed and fuel the world sustainably, fairly and humanely. It explored the feasibility of feeding nine billion people in 2050 under different diet scenarios and agricultural systems.
The study showed that for a Western high-meat-diet to be "probably feasible" would require a combination of massive land use change, intensive livestock production and intensive use of arable land.
This would have negative impacts for animal welfare and lead to further destruction of natural habitats like rainforests.
However, the study also provides evidence "that organic agriculture can probably feed the world population of 9.2 billion in 2050, if relatively modest diets are adopted, where a low level of inequality in food distribution is required to avoid malnutrition".
Isobel Tomlinson is the policy and campaigns officer for the Soil Association, the UK's leading organic organisation
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Isobel Tomlinson? Is it wrong to suggest that the world needs to double its food production by 2050? Will it lead to the intensification of the globe's agricultural industry? Or do we just have to accept that there is never going to be universal food security, and develop ways to help as many people has possible with the resources we have?
We have to plan infinite things to satisfy one unplanned thing i.e. Growth of human population. Either, there are 'without power' powerful leaders, who can not speak on the most basic issue or there are 'genuine' powerful leaders who are wasting their power in neutralizing the frivolous issues raised by their opposition and media. Most of the places, we are handling the results of the problem. Why do not we hit at the source? Why do not we raise the most basic issue? Why not this issue is getting importance in my own country? Not a single political leader is realizing the abnormal growth of human population.
Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India
If more were done to encourage people to have fewer babies, then, whatever the statistics, less food would be needed to feed the global population.
Venetia Caine, Poitiers, France
The FAO was very quick to adjust their projection to a 70 per cent increase after the initial quote got out and most commentators adjusted accordingly long ago, so it's a bit disingenuous to extend the critique of an estimate that has already been refined and will continue to be. To quibble about how big an increase will be required diminishes the matter at stake, but of course that's the objective of the article. To sum it up: FAO has made a credible forecast; we'll never know for certain until it's all over and we certainly can't wait till then to do something about it. It's our food supply after all. Whether we need to increase production by 50 or 70 or 100 percent is not the point. What's really important is that the population of Europe and the world will continue to increase and food supplies will have to be boosted in the face of critical challenges (climate change, availability of water, environmental protection, biodiversity, distribution, affordability etc). The big question is whether we are going to increase the agricultural land base (and cut down more forests to grow food) or become more productive in a sustainable way on existing farmland. Deforestation is agriculture's single biggest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the destruction of biodiversity. It's a fact that organic methods require more land to grow the same amount of food (up to three times) and the crops are by far more susceptible to the pests and disease that have plagued food production throughout human history when the whole of agriculture was "organic". Organic is fine in some circumstances and not in others, but it's not the answer to the food supply challenge, which is very likely the biggest we face. It would be very helpful if every stakeholder in the agricultural and food policy community accepted this cold, hard fact as soon as possible. It's not a matter of the right or wrong ideology of farming. It's about resisting the age-old human solution to hunger which is to expand farmland. It's about efficiency and productivity, quality and affordability, and the full and rational application of science and technology to sustaining the our food supply sustainably. Phil Newton, ECPA (European Crop Protection Association) 

patient literacy 'hampers healthcare'

Poor patient literacy 'hampers healthcare'

 Dr Barry Parker Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland

Scrubbing Up

• 'Shame on us nurses'

Patients aren't expected to understand medical jargon, but how do doctors ensure that those who lack basic reading skills get the right care? There has been a surge of written information in leaflets and online but, in this week's Scrubbing Up, Dr Barry Parker of the MDDUS, says doctors should not see those as substitutions for talking things through with patients.

One in six people in the UK have a literacy level below that expected of an 11-year old.
This is alarming enough in terms of the ability to manage day-to-day activities, but problems may be even more widespread if we consider health literacy, which is an individual's ability to read, understand and use healthcare information to make decisions and follow instructions for treatment.
Literacy difficulties may stem from a variety of factors including conditions such as dyslexia, health problems, disrupted schooling or stresses acting as barriers to learning in childhood.
Unfortunately, stigma still surrounds adults who struggle to read and they are often too embarrassed to disclose any literacy difficulties, even in the confidential setting of a doctor's consulting room.
Patients with reading difficulties may have developed effective strategies to conceal problems and minimise any impact on their lives, such as avoiding form filling and declining to read aloud when in company.
They may have excellent verbal communication skills, and it is therefore not always easy for anyone - doctors and other healthcare professionals included - to detect there is a problem that could have an adverse effect on the patient's health.
Potentially toxic Understanding medication instructions can be particularly hazardous.

“Start Quote

Over-reliance on the written word may be dangerous to those who struggle with reading”

End Quote Dr Barry Parker

For instance, a very commonly prescribed painkiller such as paracetamol can be bought over the counter in pharmacies and supermarkets.

Whilst safe in the recommended dose, it may quickly become toxic if the correct timing of the dose or number of tablets is exceeded, and those with literacy problems may be unaware of this if they assume it is only a mild painkiller and cannot easily read the instructions.
Some more powerful drugs such as methotrexate, used for rheumatoid conditions, have unusual dose instructions, such as "take once per week", which again may lead to confusion and potentially severe consequences if inadvertently taken daily.
Of course, doctors can only make allowances for literacy difficulties if they know they exist, but there are signs for them to look out for such as a patient having difficulty completing forms in surgery, having unexpected problems responding to recall letters or struggling to follow written advice.
There is currently a wealth of health information available to the public in the form of leaflets, posters and websites, and these are often recommended by health professionals either to encourage healthy lifestyle advice or to teach patients more about their medical conditions.
While this is welcomed in terms of making the public more 'health aware', over-reliance on the written word may be dangerous to those who struggle with reading, and the increasing use of email advice brings further risks.
Patients should request that information is provided in the way they feel most comfortable with and understand.
Doctors, in return, should work in partnership with patients, for example, by ensuring that information is given verbally as well as in writing.
For patients, if you have such difficulties, please report them to your doctor or other health professional so that they can give you information in a format that is easy to understand and you get the best possible care. They may be able to help you access information on support such as adult literacy courses, and you can also seek help from family or friends.
And for all those working to provide health care, it is important to remain vigilant at all times to detect problems, and perhaps ask specifically about such difficulties more often.
Information leaflets should be kept simple and as easy to read as possible, avoiding medical jargon and including diagrams where possible. They are best used as an addition and not an alternative to verbal communication.