• Bush Poised to Sign Bill Funding New Nuke Research
  
• Critics Decry Energy Bill Giveaways
  
• Congress Reaches Deal on Forest Thinning Bill
  
• Enviros to Sue Over Dioxin Pollution in Newark Bay
  
• Green Groups Want Critical Habitat for Endangered Marsh Plants
  
• Coalition Moves to Protect Hawaii's False Killer Whales
  
• Study Finds Air Pollution Increases SARS Death Rate
  
• Ecologists Warn of Climate Change Threat to Endangered Whales
  

Bush Poised to Sign Bill Funding New Nuke Research

The funds come on the heels of a decision by Congress earlier this month to lift a decade old ban on researching new low yield nuclear weapons - a five kiloton nuclear weapon is about half the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Congress has also approved a Bush administration request to shorten the time required to prepare for a full scale nuclear test from 24 months to 18 months.

The Bush administration says research into these new nuclear weapons will make the nation's nuclear arsenal into a more effective deterrent, because these kinds of weapons could reduce the potential for causing civilian casualties and could improve the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in destroying deeply buried and hardened targets.

Republicans stressed that the funding is only for research - the administration would have to ask Congress for authority to develop the new nukes.

But critics are concerned that the Bush administration's plan blurs the line between the use of nuclear and conventional weapons and could undermine the international effort to contain the world's development of nuclear weapons.

"Congress and the Bush administration have made a mistake by opening the door to a new wave of global nuclear weapons competition," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This sends a dangerous message that will hamper U.S. efforts to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons."

Opponents of the policy changes and new research efforts noted that Congress did scale back the administration's plans. The $7.5 million of bunker buster nuclear weapons is half the administration's request and $4 million of the $6 million approved for low yield nuclear weapons is contingent on the Energy Department submitting a report on U.S. nuclear stockpile requirements.

Critics say the administration's concept of modifying or developing nuclear weapons for use against deeply buried and hardened targets is not only misguided, but fundamentally flawed.

A nuclear weapon exploded just beneath the Earth's surface would create a massive crater and would throw more radioactive dirt and particles into the air than one detonated above the target, according to Sidney Drell, a nuclear physicist with Stanford University.

For fallout to be contained, even a 0.5 kiloton nuclear weapon would have to penetrate at least 150 feet into the Earth in order for fallout to be contained.

But there is no known material that could be used to encase a bomb that could penetrate more than 50 feet, Drell said, "even if we slam them in at supersonic speeds."

"Nuclear weapons should not be considered just another weapon in our arsenal," said Drell. "They are mass terror weapons whether used by the United States or another country."

Critics Decry Energy Bill Giveaways

"Many of us believe this whole energy bill is a travesty," said New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer. "This is a hodgepodge of little special interest things. It sidesteps the major problems … if you hired the right lobbyists and you have the right connections, you got something in this bill."

Much has been made of the billion dollar tax breaks in the bill for the oil, gas, coal and nuclear power industries, but Arizona Republican Senator John McCain also took aim at four proposals known as green bonds. The proposals earmark $227 million to finance some $2 billion in private bonds for "green projects," including $150 million for a riverfront area in Shreveport, Louisiana.

"One of the new tenants in this Louisiana riverwalk is a Hooters restaurant," McCain said. "Yes, my friends, [this is] an energy bill subsidizing Hooters and polluters, probably giving new meaning to the phrase 'budget busters.'"

Critics blasted language in the bill that affords safe harbor for manufacturers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).

The language has a retroactive date of September 5, 2003, thereby nullifying several lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers for groundwater contamination. Critics say the industry has long known of the harm posed by MTBE spills and should be liable.

"This is a get out of jail free card for the MTBE producers," said Senator Ron Wyden.

But New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican and cochair of the conference committee that wrote the bill, says the MTBE liability provision is a tradeoff with the House for language increasing ethanol production - something many Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are keen to support.

"Before you decide to kill the bill on MTBE, you ought to remember you do not kill this bill in pieces," Domenici said. "You adopt it all or none."

Missouri Republican Senator Trent Lott told colleagues that he will support the bill despite reservations about much of the legislation, and urged fellow senators to follow suit.

"Probably two thirds of it I would not have included," Lott said. "But this is the art of legislation."

Debate will continue today on the Senate floor, with a vote to end debate possible today or Friday.

Congress Reaches Deal on Forest Thinning Bill

The compromise will allow Senate and House conferees to move forward with a final bill, which could be tacked onto a massive omnibus appropriations bill many in Congress are keen to approve as early as this weekend.

"This bipartisan agreement puts the Healthy Forests legislation within reach of the White House," said Representative Richard Pombo, a California Republican and chair of the House Resources Committee. "We have light at the end of the tunnel."

The legislation seeks to expedite forest thinning projects on some 20 million acres of federal land considered most at risk from wildfire and runs in tandem with several administrative rules proposed by the Bush administration to streamline the removal of trees and underbrush from public lands.

The compromise includes $760 million for forest thinning projects, with half earmarked for the communities considered most at risk. It contains provisions to limit administrative appeals and environmental review that supporters say are needed to reduce the "analysis paralysis" that can delay forest thinning projects.

Critics say these provisions are potentially illegal and undermine the public's right to participate in forest management decisions.

Although half the money is targeted at communities and there is some language intended to protect old growth trees, environmentalists believe the bill allows logging of large, fire resistant trees far from communities under the guise of hazardous fuel reduction.

"The desire by the Bush administration and others in Congress to protect special timber interests is compromising America's ability to deliver real relief to communities in need," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "We have the knowledge to help reduce the wildfire risk to lives and homes, and the Forest Service should make protecting these communities its top priority. Looking at the substance of the bill, the Bush administration's promises to protect communities ring hollow."

Critics also fear the bill does not provide enough funds to adequately tackle the problem. Some 190 million acres of public land are believed to need treatment for drought, insect infestation and potential fire.

In 2002 some seven million acres went up in flames and the federal government spent some $1.6 billion to fight fires across 15 states. This year, some 3.8 million acres have burned and more than $1 billion has been spent.

Supporters argue the bill is a start and point to the recent California wildfires as reason enough to pass the legislation.

"I want the thinning and fuels reduction projects authorized in the Healthy Forests bill to start as soon as humanly possible," Pombo said. "The sooner those start, the more we can do to protect our communities, our environment, and our firefighters from the threat of catastrophic fires."

Enviros Sue Bush to Protect Endangered Invertebrates

Dioxins are a group of highly toxic persistent compounds which are a byproduct of some combustion and chemical manufacturing processes. They are known to cause cancer, diabetes, liver and skin damage, neurological and immune damage, and to disrupt the endocrine system.

The intent to sue was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper and Hackensack Riverkeeper. It gives Occidental the required 90 days of notice of their intent to go forward with litigation.

The groups will sue under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the federal statute that empowers citizens to ask the courts to stop imminent and substantial endangerments to human health and the environment.

"It is time to penalize the polluter, not punish the people who are simply trying to fish and otherwise use a public resource," said Jennifer Danis, NRDC staff attorney.

The organizations say the companies should pay for an independent environmental study and clean-up of Newark Bay because the resource, once home to abundant, healthy fish and crabs, is now contaminated from more than 40 years of runoff and dumping from Occidental's predecessor's production of Agent Orange.

They note that both state and federal environmental agencies have documented the dangers to human health from the dioxin pollution in the bay.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has calculated that cancer risk levels for people eating blue crabs from Newark Bay could be as much as a million times what government agencies typically consider an acceptable level for an environmental contaminant.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes that concentrations of dioxin recorded in Passaic River and Newark Bay blue crabs may be the highest ever discovered in aquatic animals. New Jersey has made it illegal to take these crabs from Newark Bay, but state official report that some crabbers do not understand or are not taking the health warnings posted on signs seriously, and are continuing to eat these contaminated animals for economic and cultural reasons.

"Unfortunately, these toxic crabs look fine," said Bill Sheehan, Hackensack Riverkeeper.

People are eating crabs and fish contaminated with this toxic chemical, added NY/NJ Baykeeper Andrew Willner.

"Despite the ban, you regularly find people fishing off bulkheads and harvesting crabs from Newark Bay," Willner said. "These fishermen take poisoned crabs home and feed them to their families."

Although government agencies have recently announced initiatives to study contamination on the Passaic River - where the dioxin was first discharged - neither of these efforts will address Newark Bay or other nearby contaminated waters, the organizations say.

"This lawsuit is being filed on behalf of local residents whose waterways have been poisoned by a large corporation that took decades worth of profits and then moved on," Willner said.

Green Groups Want Critical Habitat for Endangered Marsh Plants

Once a species is listed, the Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Agency to designate critical habitat, which refers to specific geographic areas considered essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species.

But the Bush administration does not believe designating critical habitat helps species recover, a position that has prompted conservation groups to resort to legal action to force critical habitat designations.

"The Bush administration continues to illegally deny critical habitat for imperiled species despite the fact that species with designated critical habitat are twice as likely to recover," said Jeff Miller, spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. "Critical habitat is not about shutting down large landscapes to all development, but rather improving land management planning and recovering species to the point where they no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act."

Both plant species occur in salt and brackish tidal marshes fringing San Pablo and Suisun Bays in the northern San Francisco Bay area.

Only approximately 15 percent of the historical tidal marshland habitat within the San Francisco Bay area remains.

The Suisun thistle was thought to be extinct in 1975, but more recent surveys detected it at two locations within Suisun Marsh in Solano County. Its remaining populations occupy less than one acre.

Nine occurrences of soft bird's-beak remain widely scattered throughout tidal marshes fringing San Pablo and Suisun Bays, in Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano Counties.

"Critical habitat is a fundamental tool for conserving and recovering imperiled species," said Dr. Emily Roberson, senior policy analyst for the California Native Plant Society, the other plaintiff in the suit. "Species cannot be conserved just by protecting individuals. Congress specifically included provisions to designate and protect critical habitat in the Endangered Species Act in order to conserve the unique ecosystems and processes upon which species depend."

Coalition Moves to Protect Hawaii's False Killer Whales

The federal agency has estimated this population of false killer whales at 83 individuals and conservationists say recent studies indicate that this population may be genetically distinct.

The miles of lines used by the Hawai'i-based longline fleet hook and entangle false killer whales, which can result in serious injury or death through drowning. Longline fishing gear is considered an indiscriminate form of industrial fishing noted for its entangling marine species not targeted by the fishing fleets.

Filed by the environmental law firm Earthjustice on behalf of Hawaii community group Hui Malama i Kohola, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network, the suit aims to force NMFS to increase protection for the whale.

"For years, NMFS has illegally ignored its own data, which show that the Hawaii based longline fleet is injuring and killing false killer whales at nearly twenty times the level the population can sustain," said David Henkin an attorney for Earthjustice.

The organizations argue the agency should reclassify the fishery from its current Category III status to Category I - this would mandate increased protection for the false killer whales and other marine species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

"Longline fishing for swordfish and tuna in Hawaii's biologically diverse waters is akin to hunting deer by placing land mines in the forest," said Brendan Cummings of the Center for Biological Diversity. "You may catch your deer, but you invariably kill many of the neighboring species as well."

Study Finds Air Pollution Increases SARS Death Rate

The finding by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) was published this week in the peer-reviewed journal "Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source."

"Long term and short term exposure to air pollution has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects including acute respiratory inflammation, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - and now SARS," said Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhang, a professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health and a leading scientist of the study.

"Our findings suggest that caregivers need to pay close attention to exposure to pollutants in the living and working environments of SARS patients," Zhang said. "These factors and others related to exposure to airborne toxins could leave some individuals at greater risk of death from the illness than others."

Since November of 2002, 5,327 cases of SARS have been diagnosed in mainland China, and so far 349 patients have died from the disease. SARS death rates vary between regions of the country, with higher rates in the north of China.

A team of researchers from the UCLA School of Public Health, the Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and Fudan University School of Public Health investigated whether these differences could be explained by differences in air pollution levels.

The researchers assessed the death rates of patients with SARS in five different regions of China and the air pollution levels in these different regions between April and May 2003, when the majority of SARS cases were diagnosed.

They found mortality rates of patients with SARS increased as pollution levels increased. In regions with low air pollution, the death rate was 4.08 percent, whereas in areas with moderate or high air pollution levels, the death rates were 7.49 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively.

The researchers caution that they were unable to examine the socioeconomic status or the smoking habits of the SARS patients, nor did they consider the treatment that the patients were given. All of these may have contributed to the patients' outcome.

But the researchers explain that the two regions with the highest case fatality rates were Beijing and Tianjin. The researchers suspect that patients would probably have received better clinical support in these areas. If this is the case, then air pollution may play an even greater role in increasing death rates than their data suggests.

The findings come as doctors in Taiwan today reported the winter's first suspected SARS case.

Ecologists Warn of Climate Change Threat to Endangered Whales

The scientists say that winter atmospheric conditions over the North Atlantic affect the abundance of zooplankton eaten by right whales, one of the most endangered species of marine mammal.

"Only about 300 North Atlantic right whales remain, and their reproductive health depends on finding enough food," said study coauthor Andrew J. Pershing, of the Cornell Ocean Resources and Ecosystems Program.

Pershing explains that starting in late winter, right whales make their way to the Gulf of Maine, where they feed on high density patches of copepods - free floating crustaceans roughly the size of rice grains.

"Just like New England weather, the physical conditions in the Gulf of Maine can be highly variable," Pershing said.

An earlier study by Pershing and colleague Charles Greene found that temperatures in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine are closely linked to changes in ocean currents driven by winter atmospheric conditions in the North Atlantic during the previous year.

With an additional time lag, the abundance of the common copepod species, tracks these ocean temperature fluctuations.

From these relationships, Pershing and Greene were able to develop a computer model to predict the number of right whale births from the observed number the copepod species, then relate these predictions to changes in North Atlantic climate.

The scientists explain that an important indicator of winter atmospheric conditions over the North Atlantic is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is related to the average position of the jet stream over the Atlantic.

"When the NAO is in its 'positive' state, conditions over the Labrador Sea in the northwest Atlantic are colder and stormier, while the northeast Atlantic and northern Europe experience warmer and milder weather," Pershing said. "When the NAO is in its 'negative' state, the conditions reverse. After a winter of positive NAO conditions, the deep waters in the Gulf of Maine typically become warmer and saltier - leading to higher abundances of zooplankton. After negative NAO conditions, the waters become colder and fresher - not as hospitable for the food that whales need to eat."

The details of the study will be reported in an article entitled "Impact of Climate Variability on the Recovery of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales" to appear in the December 2003 issue of "Oceanography."

A second article, "Climate and the Conservation Biology of North Atlantic Right Whales: Being a Right Whale at the Wrong Time?" will be published in the February 2004 issue of the journal, "Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment."