2012-08-23

2012-08-22

2012-08-18

.ca ... tikai 2% netic Klimata Pārmaiņās

By Jennifer Graham, The Canadian Press, thecanadianpress.com, Updated: August-15-12 1:00 AM

Survey finds 2 per cent deny climate change

REGINA - Only two per cent of Canadians who responded to a new opinion poll believe climate change is not occurring.

The findings are in a survey conducted by Insightrix Research, Inc. for IPAC-CO2 Research Inc., a Regina-based centre that studies carbon capture and storage.

The online poll of 1,550 people was done between May 29 and June 11. The results were to be released on Wednesday.

"Our survey indicates that Canadians from coast to coast overwhelmingly believe climate change is real and is occurring, at least in part due to human activity," said centre CEO Carmen Dybwad.

Respondents were asked where they stood on the issue of climate change.

Almost one-third — 32 per cent — said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54 per cent said they believe it's because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. Nine per cent believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation.

Two per cent said they don't believe climate change is occurring at all.

The opinions about the cause of climate change and how to combat it are divided among the provinces and by region.

According to the survey, Prairie respondents are least likely to believe that climate change is occurring due to human activity, while residents of Quebec, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia are most likely to hold this belief.

The survey found 44 per cent of Quebec respondents, 34 per cent of Atlantic Canadian respondents and 32 per cent of those surveyed in British Columbia are likely to believe climate change is occurring due to human activity. Alberta and Saskatchewan came in at 21 per cent while Manitoba was at 24 per cent.

Unlike traditional telephone polling, in which respondents are randomly selected, the Insightrix survey was conducted online among 1,550 respondents, all of whom were chosen from a larger pool of people who agreed to participate in ongoing research. They were compensated for participating.

The survey set quotas by age, gender, region and education to match the general population.

The polling industry's professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

The survey also found that 51 per cent of Canadians respondents across the country believe fossil fuels will still be used after the year 2050 for electricity production in Canada.

That belief is highest in Alberta at 66 per cent and lowest in Quebec at 37 per cent.

The acceptance of climate change and the extent to which humans are responsible for it has been a politically sensitive issue, most recently in the Alberta election.

Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith's team started strong in the campaign, but faltered near the end when Smith said the science of global warming was not settled. Smith found herself booed roundly at a late-stage leaders debate over the issue.

Former Alberta premier Ed Stelmach said Smith's refusal to admit climate change exists cost her party a shot at victory. He said voters agreed Alberta would have a big problem selling oil and promoting environmental stewardship on the world stage with a premier who didn't believe in climate change.

Radons izsauca vairāk vēzi (nāvi) nekā agrāki domāts.

By CBC News, cbc.ca, Updated: August-17-12 10:44 PM

Radon linked to more lung cancer deaths than previously thought

New Health Canada research indicates there are hundreds more cases annually of lung cancer caused by indoor radon exposure than first determined in the late 1970s, prompting the agency to urge Canadians to check levels of the colourless and odourless gas in their homes.

Health Canada tests conducted in the late 1970s estimated that 10 per cent of lung cancers resulted from indoor exposure to the radioactive gas, which is produced naturally when uranium in the soil degrades. Radon is released from the ground into the outdoor air and can sometimes seep into homes.

However, the federal agency more accurately determined the levels of radon through tests of 14,000 homes across the country for two years starting in 2007. The testing, using long-term alpha track detectors, determined that more Canadians are exposed to radon concentrations above acceptable levels than previously recorded. As a result, the new estimate of lung cancers attributable to radon exposure is now 16 per cent.

Kelley Bush, head of radon education and awareness for Health Canada, told CBC News on Friday that roughly the same number of homes were tested in both undertakings. But the most recent testing is much more accurate than the 1970s "grab-sample testing," the only method available at the time.

Medicīnas sistēmā neveiksmīga pacientiem UN ārstiem.

Our health system fails both doctors and patients

BY MARC ENGFIELD, OTTAWA CITIZENAUGUST 14, 2012

As divisive and angry debate continues to rage between Ontario’s doctors and government over cuts to the health-care budget, it is worth asking whether our current health-care system is, in fact, “healthy.” A successful and sustainable system must care for the needs of health-care practitioners and patients equally. As a physician, I have spent years on the front lines of Canadian health-care, and have struggled as much as anyone to compensate for the inadequacies of our system, ultimately becoming ill myself as a consequence.

In medical school, I learned the causes of illness, and exhaustive lists of the medications indicated to treat them. No problem seemed out of reach for modern, pharmaceutical-centric medicine: it was just a question of finding the right medication for the right symptom. “Health,” on the other hand, was rather taken for granted, assumed to be simply the absence of disease. The idea that physicians could themselves become ill was not discussed, and certainly never crossed my mind. Given the relentless demands of my job at the hospital, I found myself rushing headlong from work, to play, and back to work again.

“Modern illnesses” such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer have come to dominate the contemporary health-care picture, and although it is increasingly obvious that they are rooted in the same lifestyle and environmental causes, modern medicine still tends to treat them as separate and distinct. For example, for a patient with the right genes, the combination of sedentary lifestyle and our overly processed diet is a recipe for diabetes. Modern medicine’s response is to prescribe drugs such as glyburide and insulin, both known to lead to obesity and heart disease: should the diabetic then develop heart trouble, additional medications will be called for, and the prescriptions begin to snowball.

In my experience, it’s rare for patients on multiple medications to feel “better.” In fact, the more pills they take, the worse they often seem to feel. As I gradually came to terms with this contradiction, my early enthusiasm and idealism started to erode. I realized I was more a health manager than healer, prescribing escalating numbers and doses of medications for diseases that would never be cured. My involvement seemed to be expected only once poor health was firmly and irreversibly established, and then only to prescribe medications aimed at dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying problem.

Gradually, I became not just disenchanted, but angry at the endless need, angry that the expectations of my patients so regularly exceeded my ability to help them. It was a feeling that ran counter to everything I believed about myself and about medicine. It didn’t occur to me that other physicians might have similar feelings; I just thought it was a personal failing. I worked harder to compensate, often to exhaustion. And my life went more and more to extremes: I isolated myself from family and friends, drank too much, rarely slept, and ate poorly.

I felt awful. I felt trapped. Finally, in April 2009 I had a “burnout,” and left the hospital. It was months before I could work again. I was physically and emotionally drained. More than this, I felt ashamed. To me, a doctor was someone who soldiered on in spite of everything, and to falter meant to fail both my patients and profession.

It took me a long time to recover. With help, I pieced my life back together bit by bit. I saw a therapist. I started meditating. I realized that far from representing a “failure,” my experience had been an invaluable lesson in what really constitutes health and well-being. I also realized that I was not alone: according to one study, 45 per cent of Canadian doctors have symptoms of advanced burnout.

Not every doctor reacts to the stress of hospital life as negatively as I did. However, it’s worth asking whether we can continue to expect physicians and other health-care workers to fill the gaps in our health-care system — gaps that are only widening as the government tries to rein in spending while the demands of the population continue to grow.

For my part, I feel healthy today — healthier than I ever did before my burnout. What seemed like “the end” turned out to be a beginning. Out of my efforts to rebuild my own health has emerged a new practice, one focused on lifestyle change and natural remedies, and one that respects my needs as much as those of my patients. And where my life once felt empty and unhealthy, it is now full and satisfying.

Such a transformation is also needed for modern health care. The media’s current focus on OHIP fees for doctors overlooks the fact that “success” in the doctor-patient relationship can’t be measured in dollars and cents. The health-care system must promote not just the well-being of the patient, but also of the practitioner: it’s hard to point the way to health if you are not healthy yourself.

Marc Engfield, MD, is an integrative medical doctor in Ottawa. Email: DrEngfield@yahoo.ca.

<http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/health+system+fails+both+doctors+patients/7090015/story.html>

Ķīnas auto austrālijā ar asbestu ...

23,000 Chinese cars recalled in Australia:
asbestos found in parts
Carcinogen initially found in spare parts,
sparking wider investigation

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS ON AUGUST 15, 2012 7:03AM

SYDNEY, Australia: An Australian importer recalled 23,000 Chinese-made cars after asbestos was found
inside engine and exhaust gaskets, the nation’s consumer watchdog said.

Ateco Automotive, which imports the cars made by Great Wall Motor Co. and Chery Automobile, ordered
dealers to stop selling the affected vehicles and recalled gaskets that were distributed as spare parts, the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said in a statement.

“The asbestos is bound into gaskets in the engine and exhaust system and does not present any risk to
consumers during use of the vehicle,” the watchdog agency said. “However, consumers should not perform
do-it-yourself maintenance that might disturb these gaskets.”

Australia has prohibited the importation of asbestos – a known carcinogen – since 2004.

The recall is a blow to Great Wall and Chery, which have been looking to expand their businesses beyond the domestic market.

Customs officers initially detected the asbestos in imported spare parts, which sparked a wider investigation,
the consumer commission said.

2012-08-14

Žēl, ka netieku

2012-08-13

stop/arret

.us zemnieki prasa agrāro likumdosanu

August 12, 2012

Enduring Drought, Farmers Draw the Line at Congress

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

THURMAN, Iowa — John Askew pulled at a soybean pod and revealed two anemic beans dappled with stem rot, the harvest of a too hot sun and too little rain. Representative Tom Latham peered in and shook his head.

“We need a farm bill — that’s the first thing,” said Mr. Askew, whose family has farmed here for six generations. Mr. Latham, a Republican, agrees.

But House leaders, including Speaker John A. Boehner, who popped into Iowa on Friday night to promote Mr. Latham’s re-election campaign, have been unable to muster the votes.

A summer drought that has destroyed crops, killed livestock and sent feed prices soaring is now extracting a political price from members of Congress, who failed to agree on a comprehensive agriculture bill or even limited emergency relief before leaving Washington for five weeks.

Farmers are complaining loudly to their representatives, editorial boards across the heartland are hammering Congress over its inaction, and incumbents from both parties are sparring with their challengers over agricultural policy.

In Minnesota, Senator Amy Klobuchar and her Republican Party-endorsed opponent, Kurt Bills, disagreed sharply in their first face-to-face debate over what a farm bill should contain. In Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill and her Republican challenger, Representative Todd Akin, defended their positions before the state farm bureau’s political unit.

Representative Leonard L. Boswell, Mr. Latham’s Democratic opponent in a newly drawn district, said, “Every time I get out there, people keep asking me: ‘What happened to the farm bill? Why don’t we have a farm bill?’ ”

In Arkansas, the Democratic Party paid for an automated call by a farmer imploring rural voters to pester Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican, about the unfinished farm business. Representative Kristi Noem, Republican of South Dakota, took heat back home for backing away from a petition sponsored by Democrats that would have forced the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill to the floor.

“We would have much preferred they pass the House bill,” said Michael Held, the chief executive of the South Dakota Farm Bureau. “I think the attitude here is this is typical Washington, D.C., not getting its work done.”

With a quarter of the country experiencing an exceptionally severe drought that is expected only to deepen, with the government projecting that much of the spring’s record corn planting will wither away, with significant damage to soybean and wheat crops and with prices for feed at record levels, farmers and ranchers are increasingly anxious about the gridlock in Washington.

“I am tired of our leaders doing nothing,” Mr. Askew said.

President Obama will begin a tour of this drought-hit state on Monday, an unusual amount of attention that underscores Iowa’s swing-state status. Mitt Romney visited Des Moines last week and addressed the drought.

While the most recently enacted farm bill will not expire until next month, disaster relief that would have helped some livestock producers cope with the high costs of feed and fodder lapsed last week. And with big disagreements in Congress over proposals to overhaul insurance and other provisions, farmers are finding it difficult to plan for any recovery in the next growing season.

Farm policy bills, which typically come up for renewal every five years, are usually built to attract bipartisan support by combining subsidies for farmers with allotments for food stamps and other nutrition programs that appeal to urban lawmakers.

But in a dynamic that has roiled the 112th Congress, this year’s farm bill was unlike any before it. While the House Agriculture Committee signed off on a measure, its substantial cuts to food programs alienated too many Democrats. And its cuts to those programs, as well as to some forms of farm aid, were not enough to appease the chamber’s most conservative members.

Republican leaders were unable to muster enough support for even a one-year extension of the law and instead passed a short-term drought-relief measure, the first time the House has failed to bring its own farm bill to the floor. The Senate, which had passed its own version by a healthy bipartisan margin, declined to take up the short-term House bill, and Congress left town in a stalemate.

The differences over food stamps are among the most profound facing this Congress, as the costs of nutritional programs have been growing rapidly and account for about $80 billion in annual spending. The Senate’s farm bill would cut $4.5 billion, and the House’s version $16.5 billion.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and newly anointed vice-presidential candidate, has recommended cutting $134 billion from food stamps over the next decade and turning the program into block grants to the states. Over the years, he has run up a complex record on farm programs, with votes for and against various bills, but has generally remained skeptical of subsidies and favorable toward fundamental changes.

Mr. Ryan is also scheduled to visit Iowa on Monday.

In the new Third Congressional District in central Iowa — a long stretch divided roughly equally among Republicans, Democrats and independents — the farm bill debacle leaves Mr. Boswell and Mr. Latham, both senior incumbents, in tricky spots as they fight for their political survival.

Many voters clearly want a bill that would provide ample crop insurance for farmers but scale back nutrition programs. On the other hand, plenty of voters in an area like Des Moines support a robust food stamp program. Some, like Mr. Askew, whose wife volunteers in a food bank, want both.

But having both is not what this Congress is about.

“I would like to see a farm bill on the floor, I really would,” Mr. Latham said. “I think you can find a sweet spot on food stamps and farm programs. Spending is an issue to people in this district, but there is also an understanding that people are in need.”

Mr. Boswell, who is a member of the Agriculture Committee, counters that Mr. Latham should press Mr. Boehner to push Republicans to take up the bill. “Mr. Latham is such a buddy with Mr. Boehner,” he said, “why doesn’t he tell him to bring the bill to the floor?”

In this and other breadbasket states, members of each party are quick to deflect blame to the other side for the impasse. “This bill is being held up by the same people who held up the debt ceiling last year,” said Bob Kerrey, who is seeking to regain a Senate seat he once held in Nebraska, where he joined Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Friday for a drought meeting and news conference. “They don’t want a farm bill.”

Republicans counter that Democrats should accept a short-term fix until the broader issues can be ironed out. “You know the president — he’s going to be here in a couple of days,” Mr. Boehner said at a fund-raiser for Mr. Latham. “Some of you might want to remind him when he comes that the House passed a bill last week to help those in the livestock industry.”

While some editorial boards have saved their wrath for Mr. Boehner or Democrats, many have simply denounced the entire process. Criticizing the Congressional recess, The Times Record News of Wichita Falls, Tex., wrote last week: “Emergency aid for ranchers and farmers was left on the table. Each side of the aisle blames the other, but the finger-pointing gives little relief to our own Texas ranchers and farmers.”

With little relief in sight on either the legislative or meteorological front, farmers are at the mercy of the whims of August. “We had five inches of rain the other day,” said Derryl McLaren, a corn and soybean farmer who met with Mr. Latham at a farm bureau not far from here on Friday. “And it’s all gone to hell anyway.”

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/politics/drought-driven-voters-vent-anger-over-farm-bill.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120813>