Alleghany Times

01/02/06

Whether you're at the mall, the automated teller machine, or driving down the highway, a surveillance camera may be stationed somewhere nearby, monitoring your every move. Cameras are stationed all over the place as property and business owners, along with police and schools, attempt to deter theft, crime and other mishaps by keeping a watchful eye through a hidden lens. Following the recent extension of the U.S. Patriot Act, debates over secret phone tapping, illegal spying and trampled civil liberties have begun to emerge. Although some may say it's nothing more than Big Brother paranoia, hidden cameras are in places you might least expect. Putting cell phone cameras and pocketsize cams into the mix stirs concern from some who see it as an escalating privacy issue. Wal-Mart has cameras pointed in and outside its store. PennDOT has cameras observing traffic on the highway systems. Even homeowners are installing cameras...

http://tinyurl.com/dwl8p


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The People's Email Network thanks you for your diligent participation over the last year, which has already started to result in policy victories, including saving the ANWR from desecration, affirming the ban against torture, and even derailing the Patriot Act.

YOU ASKED FOR IT, WE LISTENED TO YOU, AND NOW IT'S HERE!

With this email we announce the launch of a revolutionary NEW and more powerful way of doing online activism. You have reported to us repeated instances of large corporate ISPs blocking our email alerts, and as our numbers have grown we have wracked our brains for the ultimate solution to this problem. Because we are doing action pages for no charge for more and more other groups, you have asked us to find a way to prepopulate those forms for you so you don't have to enter your basic contact information every time. And most of all, because we may not always agree each of us on everything, we have had calls to go back to our original format of voting pages with Yes/No options for all questions. And here is what we have created for you.

http://www.usalone.com/index.php

From the page link just above you can download the new Desktop Action program. What it does is establish a direct communication link between you and the policy makers you want to talk to, right at your fingertips from your computer desktop, with no computer browser or conventional email alerts from us required. It automatically updates its own selection menus as new priority questions are at issue, and gently lets you know when there is a need for the people to rally to speak out. We have included many other special features like a function to save your personal comments, the ability to import address books, and other things you have been asking for.

http://www.usalone.com/index.php

On this same page you will also find links to the latest series of action pages, but if you download the Desktop Action program itself you can submit your personal comments on all of them so quickly and easily you will be astounded. The most pressing urgency is to get as many concerned citizens as possible to speak out now on what direction our Supreme Court should go. So please at least speak out on that one, and keep speaking out even if you already have, until the people prevail. With the abuses of presidential power growing more brazen and outrageous by the day, now is the time for the people to speak out together in the loudest voice possible to prevent the installation of a deciding vote for executive tyranny.

Please note, the ONLY way you can obtain a copy of the Desktop Action program is to download a copy directly from the site above. We will never under any circumstances distribute the program in any other way, and for this reason we ask you not to send a copy of the program yourself to anyone else you know, no matter how fantastic and wonderful you think it is. Instead, send all your friends a link to the site above, so they can actually visit the page and know you are getting the latest digitally signed security copy of the Desktop Action program.

RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF OR FIND US SOMEONE WHO IS

In the meantime, if you know anyone who is running for office, especially if there is an incumbent you think deserves to be challenged in their own PRIMARY, please contact us at once and we will set them up with the magic tools you will need to come from nowhere with no money and win. In particular, the best way to persuade those incumbents to vote the correct way now is to make them feel the heat from our side. Email us at once on this as time is of the essence.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

Houston Chronicle

01/02/06

A plea agreement between prominent lobbyist Jack Abramoff and federal prosecutors is expected this week, bringing a wide-ranging corruption probe to the doors of Congress, according to sources close to the investigation. Abramoff, who collected millions of dollars in controversial fees from Indian tribes with interests in the gambling industry, reached a tentative deal with prosecutors in a Washington-based investigation late last week, according to one of the sources...

http://tinyurl.com/bb5go


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html?referrer=email


Informant: Milo

The Man Behind The Vaccine Mystery

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2002

Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, says he's behind a provision in the homeland security bill that protects Eli Lilly and Co. (CBS/AP)

Quote:

"It's a matter of national security. We need their vaccines if the country is attacked with germ weapons." House Majority Leader Dick Armey


(CBS) It's been a mystery in Washington for weeks. Just before President Bush signed the homeland security bill into law an unknown member of Congress inserted a provision into the legislation that blocks lawsuits against the maker of a controversial vaccine preservative called "thimerosal," used in vaccines that are given to children.

Drug giant Eli Lilly and Company makes thimerosal. It's the mercury in the preservative that many parents say causes autism in thousands of children – like Mary Kate Kilpatrick.

Asked if she thinks her daughter is a victim of thimerosal, Mary Kate's mother, Kathy Kilpatrick, says, "I think autism is mercury poisoning."

But nobody in Congress would admit to adding the provision, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta – until now.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey tells CBS News he did it to keep vaccine-makers from going out of business under the weight of mounting lawsuits.

"I did it and I'm proud of it," says Armey, R-Texas.

"It's a matter of national security," Armey says. "We need their vaccines if the country is attacked with germ weapons."

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., isn't buying it. The grandfather of an autistic child, Burton says Armey slipped the provision in at the last minute, too late for debate.

"And I said, 'Who told you to put it in?'" He said, 'No, they asked me to do it at the White House.'"

Critics say the Bush family and the administration have too many ties to Eli Lilly. There's President Bush's father, who sat on the company's board in the 1970's; White House budget director Mitch Daniels, once an Eli Lilly executive; and Eli Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel, who serves on the president's homeland security advisory council.

Officials at the drug giant insist they did nothing wrong. "No one, not our CEO, not myself, not anyone who works with me asked the White House to insert this legislation," said Eli Lilly spokeswoman Debra Steelman.

But Kathy Kilpatrick and her husband Michael argue that the thimerosal provision is not designed to protect the nation, but rather to protect Eli Lilly.

Asked what he'd say to a congressman who came forward and admitted he was responsible for inserting the provision, Michael Kilpatrick says, "I would ask him if he knew he was protecting mercury being shot into our kids."

Kathy Kilpatrick asks, "Why would anyone want to save Eli Lilly on our children's backs?"

Because Armey is retiring at the end of the year, some say the outgoing majority leader is the perfect fall guy to take the heat and shield the White House from embarrassment.

It's a claim both the White house and Armey deny.

© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Informant: Milo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201730.html


Informant: binstock

"On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, is ridden with exceptions where chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the followin:"

Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.

Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.

Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable"

..... http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm


ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

NOTE: This alert is now closed. Public comment period to the EPA expired on December 12, 2005. Sign up on our email list here, and we will keep you posted on this issue. Thanks for your involvement.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

EXPIRED ALERT TEXT: Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, is ridden with exceptions where chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the following:

Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable. Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA's fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed § 26.221 or § 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

By mail: Send two copies of your comments to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC, 20460-0001

Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132


Q&A Section

1) Question: I read on Snopes that this alert is false. Is that true?

Answer: The Snopes/Urban Legends posting is actually in regards to an EPA proposed study called CHEERS and an alert we had sent out regarding that in late 2004
http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm . It is not directly related to this alert. The Snopes posting did a great disservice to that issue in their inaccuracy and lack of research into this issue. We spend massive amounts of staff time researching these issues, confer with outside experts on the topic, and cite dozens of references. The Snopes website, while valuable with most of its information, is not always accurate, and that is the case here. In fact, you'll find they reference only a couple of newspaper articles to backup their stance on this issue. Fortunately, enough concerned citizens, several nonprofits, dozens of mainstream newspapers, and many congress members, actually did their research on the EPA study and found that study was, in fact, very problematic. In fact, in early 2005, the EPA CHEERS study was permanently dropped, thanks to pressure from Congress. In August of 2005 Congress went a step further and mandated the EPA pass a rule that bans all testing of chemicals on children and pregnant women, without exception. That is what this alert pertains to. Snopes hasn't posted any information about this particular alert, and we hope they do their research this time. We ask our readers to do your research, as well. No single alert or single website will provide you with all of the information you need. We provided dozens of links on our alerts to external resources that allow you to further research and reference all of the information we provide. If you have questions, we're always happy to help out craig@organicconsumers.org

2) Question: I read the EPA website and part of the introduction of the rule, claims the rule is to prohibit all such testing and to establish sanctions. That sounds like a good thing. So what's the problem?

Answer: The EPA is proposing a rule that they would like to have approved. Anytime you are marketing a product, you sell its best points and hope that people won't look too deeply and find its flaws. The EPA website and the introductory description of the rule are very long winded and flowery, claiming this rule abides by the congressional mandate to ban all testing of women and children, without exception. In fact, if you read the rule, which is 30 pages of fine print, there are multiple exceptions. We have noted those in our template letter to the EPA and on our action alert page. This is a specific layout of the problematic text as taken directly from the actual EPA rule. In short, these are the loopholes in the document that need to be removed, as mandated by congress, which says the rule must have no exceptions.

3) Question: The rule says these waivers apply when the IRB sees a benefit of the test for the children involved, and also calls for supplementary protective measures when necessary. That sounds like a good thing. So what's the problem?

Answer: Actually, you are referencing a point made under subpart §26.405 of the rule. That subpart is designed to only address "research presenting the prospect of direct benefit to the individual subjects." In that subpart, it says that "more than minimal" risk to children subjects is acceptable if there is a chance it could benefit the child. Outside of that subpart, there are no stipulations requiring that the studies be beneficial to the test subjects. Anywhere else in the document where this type of situation is noted, it is under an "or" clause. In other words, the loopholes for this rule state that the rule can be disregarded if the study was done overseas, OR the test subject's guardian consents, OR if the study may be of benefit to society as a whole, OR if the study may be of benefit to the test subject, etc. The study also calls for supplementary protective measures when necessary but outlines no criteria for how this "necessity" is defined or determined. Without a clearly defined line of what is acceptable and what is not, it's at the whim of the IRB, EPA administrator or third party research organization to determine whether or not supplementary protective measures are necessary. In that sense, it could simply mean the IRB might determine, for example, a test subject should wear safety goggles when being doused with atrazine. In other words, without specific definition of what defines a situation that calls for further supplementary protective measures, this becomes a simple, flowery token statement with no meaning and no teeth.

6) Question: The EPA sent me a letter back that says "EPA's proposed rule would ban EPA from conducting or supporting any intentional dosing study of pregnant women or children with pesticides or any other environmental substances. All children are included in this ban. There are no exceptions." They seem to be saying this rule is for studies that don't involve intentional dosing. Is that correct?

Answer: That is incorrect and is misleading PR from the EPA that contradicts the text of their actual proposed rule. As you can see above, we have outlined the specfic text in the rule that we have problems with. Nowhere in the rule does the EPA say that all intentional dosing studies are banned, yet that is exactly what congress had asked them to do. In fact, the rule goes so far as to make make allowances for what it refers to as"ethically deficient human research." (70 FR 53857). In short, the EPA is making public relations claims that completely contradict what is clearly written in balck and white in the actual proposed rule.

5) Question: I can't get your email form to work. How can I send comments to the EPA directly?

Answer: By mail: Send two copies of your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC, 20460-0001 Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132

By email: send comments to opp-docket@epa.gov The subject line should read: "Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132 "

If you have questions, we're always happy to help out, but please read all of the information provided on this alert page and follow the links on the right hand side of this page to further information prior to contacting us with questions. craig@organicconsumers.org

Other Organizations Working on this alert (These organizations also have further information about this alert on their websites)

Center for Health and Environmental Justice
Natural Resources Defense Council
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Beyond Pesticides
Physicians for Social Responsibility
California Safe Schools
Pesticide Action Network of North America


Related News Articles:

12/16 - EPA regulation to put kids at risk
12/14 - EPA Chemical Testing Rules to Allow Human Toxicity Studies
(Source-The New Standard: NY)
12/9 - EPA's Own Scientists Speak Out Against Proposed Rule Allowing Chemical Testing on Children
12/8 - EPA comes under fire for testing pesticides on children (Source: News Target)
12/7 - EPA to Allow Pesticide Testing on the Handicapped
12/5 - EPA to Allow Chemical Testing (Source: WNY Media Network NY)
11/30 - Pesticide Action Network of North America launches campaign against EPA proposed human testing rule
11/29 -Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis Speaks Out Against EPA's Proposed Rule
11/29 - OCA's Rebuttal Letter Regarding EPA's Attempts to Discredit Those in Opposition to this Rule
11/29 - Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-CA) writes editorial to Environmental Law Institute condemning EPA's proposed human testing rule
11/28 - Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Launch a Campaign Against EPA's Human Testing Proposal
11/27 - Center for Health and Environmental Justice Posts Serious Concerns about EPA Proposed Human Testing
11/26 - Natural Resources Defense Council Posts Comments Opposing EPA Human Testing Proposal
10/15 - San Francisco Chronicle Covers EPA Testing Proposal
9/26 - Baltimore Sun Posts Letter to the Editor from Natural Resources Defense Council Condemning EPA's Misleading PR Scheme on Human Testing Rule
9/20 - Natural Resources Defense Council Gives Background Q&A Sheet Refuting EPA's Claims That The Rule has no Exceptions
9/15 - Exceptions in new EPA rules would allow testing pesticides on children (Baltimore Sun)
9/8 - Washington Post Covers EPA Chemical Testing Proposal
7/1 - Senate Votes to Stop EPA from Allowing Testing of Toxic Pesticides on Humans
6/28 - Congress Questions EPA about Human Toxin Testing
6/28 - LA Times: EPA Criticized for Pesticide Testing Rules
6/28 - Congressional Flash Report on EPA's proposed rule changes
6/27 - Washington Post: EPA Proposal Would Allow Human Tests Of Pesticides
6/16 - EPA reviewing 24 human pesticide tests
2/8 - EPA Avoids Regulation of Chemical Experiments on Humans Send a letter to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues


Related Online Resources: Read the full EPA proposed rule (PDF --- HTML) National Academy of Sciences report to EPA on human testing, advising the agency discontinue unethical practices Environmental Health Perspectives scientific journal analyzes human chemical testing and public policy:
http://www.nacua.org/documents/ProtectionsSubjectsHumanResearch.pdf

Related Quotes from Congress and NGOs:

"Such rule shall not permit the use of pregnant women, infants or children as subjects; shall be consistent with the principles proposed in the 2004 report of the National Academy of Sciences on intentional human dosing and the principles of the Nuremberg Code with respect to human experimentation; and shall establish an independent Human Subjects Review Board."

Congressional Mandate to EPA, requiring the agency create a rule banning testing of pregnant women and children. The law was passed on August 2, 2005 , as part of the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-54


"A proposed rule on human pesticide testing that fails to protect children and families should be shelved immediately. A protective rule must be issued in its place,"

Senator. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in an interview with the Washington Post on this issue


"For the first time in our nation's history, the EPA has proposed a program to allow for the systematic and everyday experimentation of pesticides on humans. Moreover, the proposed program is riddled with ethical loopholes."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) in an interview with the Baltimore Sun


"I am especially concered that the administration's proposed rule fails to meet its congressional mandate and to provide the safety that Americans desire and deserve. For example, the proposed rule, despite its claims, allows intentional testing on pregnant women and children in at least three circumstances."

Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-CA) article in Environmental Law Institute


"EPA's proposal is the pesticide industry's dream, and the public's nightmare."

Richard Wiles, senior vice president of Environmental Working Group


"The exemptions are obviously driven by the pesticide industry's goal of relaxing pesticide safety standards. The rule says it's acceptable to test children if there is a direct benefit. How can any child possibly benefit from exposure to pesticides? What was EPA thinking about?"

Aaron Colangelo, a senior staff lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Fund


Informant: Friends

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/Sham/
http://tinyurl.com/a226f

San Franciscos Flughafen testet Pässe mit Funkchips

03.01.2006 11:50 | von silicon.de

Das US-Ministerium für Heimatschutz wird ab Mitte Januar am Flughafen von San Francisco erstmals Reisepässe mit integriertem RFID-Chip (Radio Frequency Identification) testen. Australien, Neuseeland und Singapur haben bereits damit begonnen, entsprechend ausgestattete Reisepässe auszustellen. Da viele Personen aus diesen Ländern den Flughafen von San Francisco passierten, sei er der passende Ort, um die Funktechnologie zu testen, sagte eine Sprecherin des Ministeriums.

Im Oktober hatte das US-Außenministerium die endgültigen Vorschriften für Reisepässe erlassen, die nach Oktober 2006 ausgestellt werden. Demnach müssen die Dokumente mit einem RFID-Chip ausgerüstet sein, auf dem die persönlichen Daten des Besitzers und ein digitales Foto gespeichert sind. Vor San Francisco hat im vergangenen Herbst bereits der Flughafen in Los Angeles Test mit RFID-Pässen durchgeführt.

Darüber hinaus gibt es weitere Projekte. So wurden die Funkchips auch in die so genannten 'I-94-Formulare' integriert. Diese müssen Personen bei sich haben, die häufig die US-Grenze passieren. Erste Zwischenergebnisse der Tests an insgesamt fünf US-Grenzen werden im März präsentiert - danach soll über das weitere Vorgehen entschieden werden.

© 2003-2005 silicon.de. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

http://www.silicon.de/cpo/news-mobile/detail.php?nr=25803

Bring Back the 40-Hour Workweek

It was a great year for labor - if you worked at a call center in India, made your living as a CEO or sold real estate to big-box stores. But deep in Cubicle Nation, the average American worker had to contend with soaring workweeks, declining wages and benefits vanishing faster than you can say job security.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/010206LB.shtml