Eclipsing by a factor of 185 the Ixtoc-1 spill of 1979, an early deepwater venture by the Mexican government which leaked 1 Million gallons into the Gulf of Mexico, the BP Deepwater Horizon Macondo drilling disaster is by far the greatest environmental disaster in American waters. Oil and tar are showing up on many beaches around the gulf and many areas are now closed to fishing. Oil and toxic chemicals are reaching into delicate wetlands. Marine scientists recently found a 100-foot-thick layer of oil located 1,300 feet below the surface and 45 miles from the well site. It appears now that early sources correctly reported that the ocean floor surrounding the well may be fissured, either due to the blowout or the fragile nature of the local strata, which may render the new cap only another futile effort in a belated and feeble response.

This was a dangerous and complicated venture, as reports filed by BP demonstrate. As early as February, BP reported fissures forming in the rock surrounding the drill hole. These fissures can allow explosive natural gas to escape and endanger the operation. In early March, further BP reports to the Minerals Management Service tell of problems maintaining control of natural gas surges. Then, on March 10, BP executive Scherie Douglas e-mailed Frank Patton, the mineral service’s drilling engineer for the New Orleans district, telling him: “We’re in the midst of a well control situation.”

Florida beaches near the Alabama state line are now posting "no fishing" and "no swimming" signs. Since April 20, 2010, the cleanup effort has been comprised of a series of apparantly futile, ineffective, and ecologically injurious measures all under management of the original perpetrator, BP! Assuming a surreal "hands off" approach to managing the spill, the US Environmental Protection Agency allowed BP to wreak even further aquatic devastation through the use of millions of US gallons of known ecologically destructive oil dispersant chemicals containing propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol. It seems utterly transparent that BP's choices of emergency measures have been determined soley for profit: "relief wells" to provide more opportunities for oil profit (and spills); "top caps" to offer another opportunity to siphon off oil without regard to the downside of continued seepage into the surrounding water.
Obviously, the real problem is much worse and much more out of control than BP has allowed us to know.
It is past time to pull the plug on BPs oversight of the disaster and shut the well down hard and for good. One method would be to create a large mesh of heavy steel cable sheathed in an oil adsorbent material, then stake the mesh to the ocrean floor and cover it with rubble. This could create a large bandage for the ocean floor.

Michael Taylor is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving through the revolving door between the employ of GMO-seed giant Monsanto and the FDA and USDA. Taylor is widely credited with ushering Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply — unlabeled. A Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigated whether Taylor had a conflict of interest and or had engaged in ethical misconduct in the approval of rBGH. The report’s conclusion that there was no wrongdoing conflicted with the 30 pages of evidence that Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) described as proof that “the FDA allowed corporate influence to run rampant in its approval” of the drug.

Taylor is also responsible for the FDA’s decision to treat genetically modified organisms as “substantially equivalent” to natural foods and therefore not require any safety studies. The “substantially equivalent” rule allowed the FDA to ignore evidence that genetically engineered foods, including soy, are in fact very different from natural foods and pose specific health risks.

The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance. Here’s how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they’re the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank’s environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson’s report argued that “voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem.” A few years later, the bank’s carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won’t be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that ‘Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, “We’re not making those investments to lose money.”

The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There’s also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy-futures market? “Oh, it’ll dwarf it,” says a former staffer on the House energy committee. Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe – but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.

“If it’s going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it,” says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil-futures speculation. “But we’re saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That’s the last thing in the world I want. It’s just asinine.”

Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn’t, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees – while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban

Monsanto has filed a lawsuit against the German government after the EU member state banned planting of its genetically modified MON810 maize last week.
MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.
However German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had “legitimate reasons” to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer's harvest.
Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany.
The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is “arbitrary”. A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.
If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto’s favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m.
Aigner, a member of the Christian Social Union, has denied that the decision to ban the MON810 plantings is politically motivated. She said the ban is an individual case, and should not be taken as an indication of future policy on genetically modified crops.
Germany is not the only country to have banned MON810. France also invoked the clause on new scientific evidence that cast doubt over its safety last year.
However a review conducted by the European Food Safety Authority, requested by the European Commission, concluded that “in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, the provided information package does not present new scientific evidence that would invalidate the previous risk assessments of maize MON810”.
Other countries to implement bans are Hungary and Austria. Last month European ministers voted – for the fourth time – against forcing these countries to lift their bans, despite EFSA’s view.

CONTROL THE FOOD, YOU CONTROL THE PEOPLE

Say Goodbye to Farmers Markets, Wholesome Organic Produce, And Home Farms. The Congress Has Sold Us Out, The Fix Is In, And The Corporate Agra Giants Are Taking Control of The Food

 
HERE ARE 3 DANGEROUS PIECES OF FOOD CONTROL LEGISLATION. WE DON'T NEED EXTRAORDINARY GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER OUR FOOD.
HR 875, HR 759, S. 425

We can all thank Representative Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg has business ties to Monsanto for introducing the bill HR 875 which is currently stalled in comittee but could come back to life at any time. Another and possibly more threatening bill, HR 759, the "Food and Drug Globalization Act of 2009." is also stalled in comittee. HR 759 (introduced by Congressman John Dingle of Michigan) appears to attempt to allow the FDA to impose "science-based standards" on everyone right down to the backyard gardener and force many to pay "compliance fees," submit to "hazard evaluations" and "preventative controls." And turdly in the Senate we have S.425 entitled the "Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act," sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Brown's bill is backed by lobbyists for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson.

Here are some excerpts from the legislation to give an idea of how all--encompassing the language is, and the potentialities for dangerous interpretation and abuse.

Section 3 of the definitions.
(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY-

The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
Right, that means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard.

SEC. 102. CONSOLIDATION OF FOOD SAFETY FUNCTIONS.

    (a) Transfer of Functions and Resources- For each component of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Commerce specified in subsection (b), there are transferred to the Administration all functions, personnel, and assets (including facilities and financial resources) of those components as of the day before the date of the enactment of this Act (including all related functions of any officer or employee of the component) that relate to administration or enforcement of the food safety law, as determined by the President.
TITLE II–ADMINISTRATION OF FOOD SAFETY PROGRAM

SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM.

    (2) ensure that persons who produce, process, or distribute food meet their responsibility to prevent or minimize food safety hazards related to their products.
(3) the potential for persistence, multiplication, or concentration of naturally occurring or added contaminants in food;
(4) the potential for hazardous contamination to have cumulative toxic effects, multigenerational effects, or effects on specific categories of consumers;
In SEC.203:

    (c) Specific Hazard Controls- The Administrator may require any person with responsibility for or control over food or food ingredients to adopt specific hazard controls, if such controls are needed to ensure the protection of the public health.
Amazing, maybe you'll have to use a special pesticide made by Monsanto. Can't just grow your food in the healthy soil anymore.

SEC. 204. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD.

    (a) In General- To protect the public health, the Administrator shall establish by guidance document, action level, or regulation and enforce performance standards that define, with respect to specific foods and contaminants in food, the level of food safety performance that a person responsible for producing, processing, or selling food shall meet.
(A) IN GENERAL-
The term ‘food establishment’ means a slaughterhouse (except those regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act), factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients.
That means anybody who holds, stores, or transports food. That's real control of the food.

SEC. 202. REGISTRATION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AND FOREIGN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS.

    (a) In General- Any food establishment or foreign food establishment engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States shall register annually with the Administrator.
That means more paperwork, and more revenue for the Government.

(2) INSPECTIONS- If the Administrator determines that a food establishment fails to meet a standard promulgated under this section, the Administrator shall, as appropriate–

    (A) detain, seize, or condemn food from the food establishment under section 402;
        (d) Alternative Inspection Frequencies- With respect to a subcategory of food establishment under category 2, 3, 4, or 5, the Administrator may establish alternative increasing or decreasing inspection frequencies for subcategories of food establishments or individual establishments, to foster risk-based allocation of resources. Before establishing an alternative inspection frequency for a subcategory of food establishments or individual establishments, the Administrator shall take into consideration the evidence described in paragraph (2)(D) and the overall record of compliance described in paragraph (2)(E) for such subcategory. In establishing alternative inspection frequencies under this subsection, the Administrator shall comply with the following criteria and procedures:
(2) In defining subcategories of food establishments and their alternative inspection frequencies under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator shall consider–
    (A) the nature of the food products being processed, stored, or transported;
    (B) the manner in which food products are processed, stored, or transported;
    (C) the inherent likelihood that the products will contribute to the risk of food-borne illness;
    (D) the best available evidence concerning reported illnesses associated with the foods processed, stored, held, or transported in the proposed subcategory of establishments; and
    (E) the overall record of compliance with food safety law among establishments in the proposed subcategory, including compliance with applicable performance standards and the frequency of recalls.
 

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
    (4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and
    (5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.
        (c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–
        (1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;
        (2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
        (3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
        (4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;
        (5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;
        (6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and
            (f) Enforcement- The Administrator may coordinate with the agency or department designated by the Governor of each State to perform activities to ensure compliance with this section.
 

SEC. 207. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.
    (8) increasing participation in national networks of public health and food regulatory agencies and laboratories to–

        (A) allow public health officials at the Federal, State, and local levels to share and accept laboratory analytic findings; and

    (9) establishing a flexible mechanism for rapidly supporting scientific research by academic centers of excellence, which may include staff representing academic clinical researchers, food microbiologists, animal and plant disease specialists, ecologists, and other allied disciplines.


(c) Improving State Surveillance Capacity- The Administrator, in collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall improve capacity for surveillance in the States by–



SEC. 210. TRACEBACK REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General- The Administrator, in order to protect the public health, shall establish a national traceability system that enables the Administrator to retrieve the history, use, and location of an article of food through all stages of its production, processing, and distribution.
    (b) Applicability- Traceability requirements under this section shall apply to food from food production facilities, food establishments, and foreign food establishments.


TITLE III–RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

SEC. 301. PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.

    (3) provide appropriate support and input on the design and implementation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the States of an active surveillance system that provides information on the incidence and causes of food-borne illness which is timely, detailed, and representative of the population of the United States;


    (4) based on data and information obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the States, and other sources, assess the incidence, distribution, public health impact, and causes of human illness in the United States associated with the consumption of food, and conduct research and analysis to devise effective and feasible interventions to reduce food-borne illness;

SEC. 303. RESEARCH.

    (10) develop methods to reduce or destroy harmful pathogens before, during, and after processing;

    (11) analyze the incidence of antibiotic resistence as it pertains to the food supply and develop new methods to reduce the transfer of antibiotic resistance to humans; and

    (12) conduct other research that supports the purposes of this Act.

Section 304 of the Food Safety Modernization Act establishes a group of "experts and stakeholders from Federal, State, and local food safety and health agencies, the food industry, consumer organizations, and academia" to make recommendations for improving food-borne illness surveillance.
According to the act, "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law … may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act."

SEC. 305. CAREER-SPANNING TRAINING FOR FOOD INSPECTORS.

        (a) In General- The Administrator shall make a grant to an entity described in subsection (c) to provide training to Federal, State, and local food inspectors.

        (b) Use of Funds- The Administrator may make a grant under this section to an applicant only if the applicant agrees to use the grant to provide regular, standardized, graduated, career-spanning training, based on a curriculum developed by the Association of Food and Drug Officials, to Federal, State, and local food inspectors.

        (c) Eligible Entity- An entity described in this subsection is an entity that–


SEC. 405. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
(2) LIMITATION ON REVIEW- In a civil action under paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review.
That's a biggie, Not Subject to Judicial Review!
 

SEC. 406. PRESUMPTION.
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.


Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2927

House Committee on Agriculture
1301 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Phone: 202-225-2171
Fax: 202-225-8510

Email: agriculture@mail.house.gov

OR Contact these individuals personally:

* Tim Holden, PA, Vice Chairman
* Mike McIntyre, NC
* Leonard L. Boswell, IA
* Joe Baca, CA
* Dennis A. Cardoza, CA
* David Scott, GA
* Jim Marshall, GA
* Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD
* Henry Cuellar, TX
* Jim Costa, CA
* Brad Ellsworth, IN
* Timothy J. Walz, MN
* Steve Kagen, WI
* Kurt Schrader, OR
* Deborah L. Halvorson, IL
* Kathleen A. Dahlkemper, PA
* Eric J.J. Massa, NY
* Bobby Bright, AL
* Betsy Markey, CO
* Frank Kratovil, MD
* Mark H. Schauer, MI
* Larry Kissell, NC
* John Boccieri, OH
* Earl Pomeroy, ND
* Travis W. Childers, MS
* Walt Minnick, ID
* Bob Goodlatte, VA
* Jerry Moran, KS
* Timothy V. Johnson, IL
* Sam Graves, MO
* Mike Rogers, AL
* Steve King, IA
* Randy Neugebauer, TX
* K. Michael Conaway, TX
* Jeff Fortenberry, NE
* Jean Schmidt, OH
* Adrian Smith, NE
* Robert E. Latta, OH
* David P. Roe, TN
* Blaine Luetkemeyer, MO
* Glenn W. Thompson, PA
* Bill Cassidy, LA
* Cynthia Lummis, WY*

Brightsource is contracting with Southern California Edison to provide up to 1300 Megawatts from the combined output of seven different planned solar power towers. Delivery from the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility of the first 100MW is hoped to begin in 2013.

The Independant- Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 per cent of them. Many have been identified as “endocrine disrupters” – or gender-benders – because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides. The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles. It concludes: “Males of species from each of the main classes of vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment. “Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans.”

It seems a striking/alarming coincidence that several major GMO seed manufacturers have joined hands with the Gates foundation to create a doomsday seed vault while other GMO giants are promoting monstrosities like "Roundup Ready" crop seeds. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault located in a mountain near Longyearbyen on the island of Spitsbergen in the remote Svalbard island group of Norway is constructed with meter thick steel reinforced concrete walls and double blast-proof doors, and will contain up to three million varieties of seeds from around the world, "so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future," according to the Norwegian government. While gene giants like Du Pont/Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta join the Norwegian government and major sponsors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR in funding the vault, Monsanto is busy promoting what is being called "Roundup Ready" seedstock touted to farmers as using Roundup as “the only weed control you’ll ever need.” According to University of California Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology J. B. Neilands, “the quantities of Roundup Monsanto is planning to apply to their proprietary Roundup Ready cultivars humbles the imagination.” The levels of Roundup used on Roundup Ready crops was noted to create Roundup residues in crops so greatly exceeding the allowable limits that the FDA tripled the allowable limits. Glossy brochures urging farmers to use Roundup Ready seedstock boast of "clean fields" - clean of anything but the chosen crop, and practically devoid of any other lifeforms - read dead soil.

In search of an answer to the enormous potential threat of losing the American domestic honeybee population in the near future, scientists have discovered that many of the bees studied were suffering an assortment of disorders, pointing towards a general weakening of the bees ability to fight-off disease. No definitive source has been named as the main cause for the bees weakened condition.

According to the current popular scientific theory, winds create currents which cause an upwelling of nutrient-rich oxygen-poor water from a huge reservoir deep in the ocean. The increase in nutrients creates a rapid increase in plankton organisms whose dead then fall to the near ocean floor to be consumed by bacteria which further deplete the oxygen level during their metabolic processes. The dead zone process can be fueled by industrial agriculture pollutants such as animal wastes and fertilizers. The dead zone in Oregon is located between the towns of Newport and Florence, and is now 4 times the size it was when first detected in 2002 and involves an area of approximately 1,235 square miles. Another dead zone appears to exist between Kalaloch and Westport, Washington, with tribal fisheries noting massive fish die-offs on the beaches. Dead crabs are being reported on the beaches stretching between both zones. Oxygen levels in the Oregon dead zone have been measured by Oregon State University researchers. Their results showed oxygen levels as low as 0.55 milliliters per liter at 180 feet and 1 milliliter per liter at 45 feet deep. Levels below 1.4 milliliters per liter are considered hypoxic and deadly to many fish, crabs, and other marine organisms. According to a recent 4 year study of the world's oceans published in the journal Science, by 2050 there may be no fish, prawns, crabs, or other wild sea creatures left to eat. Other major dead zones include Chesapeake Bay which has a dead zone affecting approximately 40 percent of its mainstream, and the Gulf of Mexico which has a dead zone the size of the state of New Jersey.

At the 2007, 23rd Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (EVS-23) in Anaheim, Calif., Exxon Mobil will unveiled a super-thin plastic sheeting the company says can improve the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries for use in automobiles.