You are here: Home / 2009 / Archives for October 2009

Puerto Rico Gas Plant Explosion Suspicious?

October 23, 2009 By

“Boom, fire, RIP, Gulf.” Police and FBI agents are investigating this graffiti discovered in a highway tunnel following an early morning fuel storage explosion in Puerto Rico. The facility supplies Gulf gas stations island wide.

“Everything is very preliminary at this point but obviously we’re looking into the graffiti and it’s a concern,” said Figueroa Sancho in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.

Friday’s 12:30 AM blast rocked the Catano plant that includes a gasoline warehouse and distribution center located across the bay from Puerto Rico’s capitol, San Juan.

No deaths were reported but several drivers were injured when the boom shattered glass in their vehicles. Fortunately, all workers at the Caribbean Petroleum Corp. facility were unharmed. Caribbean Petroleum Corp owns the Gulf brand in Puerto Rico.

Gov. Luis Fortuno stated one person needed treatment for smoke inhalation and two others from the U.S. Army’s Fort Buchanan base near the plant had minor injuries. The governor also reported that 11 of the 40 fuel tanks at the plant were on fire, according to the Associated Press.

Eighty-five firefighters with 20 fire trucks were trying to contain the fire said Fortuno. Chilling the remaining tanks was necessary to prevent them from exploding while dozens of fuel trucks in the area were moved as a precaution.

The plant fire intensified after the initial eruption and will take several days to extinguish. Flames could be seen miles away and billows of black smoke hovered over the island causing the Federal Aviation Administration to reroute plane traffic.

Evacuation was ordered for communities downwind of the inky smoke and nearby residents were advised to keep their windows closed. Approximately 80 people residing in a secure facility for Justice Department witnesses were also relocated, said attorney general Antonio Sagardia. Area schools are closed today.

The early morning explosion blew out windows, shook the ground and was equivalent to a 2.8 magnitude earthquake, according to the Puerto Rico Seismic Network.

Filed Under: Accidents

FDA Slow in Banning Fraudulent Research

October 22, 2009 By

The Food and Drug Administration is under attack once again.  The New York Times cites a report to be released today criticizing the agency’s lack of action in yet another critical area…research fraud.

Congressional investigators claim the FDA ‘pays so little attention to its responsibilities to ban investigators convicted of fraud and is so disorganized about carrying them out that its actions take an average of four years to complete.’

Delfina Hernandez, a drug testing study coordinator at Southern California Research Institute, pleaded guilty to fraud and was supposed to be banned from further drug research, according to federal law. Although the FDA had five years after her conviction to notify her, they waited for over four years and then sent the required notice to an incorrect address.  When the agency discovered their mistake, it was too late for the ban to be effective.  Legally, she can continue in her profession.

It is perplexing why the FDA needs five years to send a straightforward notice to someone who has been convicted of research fraud.  In the Hernandez case, federal agents raided the California drug testing facility in 1997 after repeated violations.  The institute, led by Dr. Robert Fiddes, conducted over 170 studies for almost every major drug maker in the world and routinely falsified patient records and data.

According to the Times article, after reviewing 18 proceedings, Government Accountability Office investigators revealed that the FDA process to disallow researchers took from 1 to 11 years to complete.  Thus, many who were convicted of fraud remained free to continue their work.  The FDA defended itself by saying ‘it had improved the process with increased staffing and centralized coordination.’

“The FDA views any deviation from its high standards for developing or marketing drugs and devices as a potential threat to patient safety and public health,” said Norris Alderson, the agency’s associate commissioner for science.  “We will take strong action against anyone who chooses to ignore or flout the legal requirements for the products we regulate.”

However, Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, did not seem to share the agency’s optimism.  He alluded to an Alabama doctor, Anne Kirkman-Campbell, who participated in antibiotic trials for Ketek, a drug linked to liver failure.  She and several other investigators apparently skewed their data.  Dr. Kirkman-Campbell was prosecuted for mail fraud and pleaded guilty in 2003, but the FDA again did nothing until Sept. 2, 2008 when they prohibited her from continuing drug tests.

Mr. Barton plans to propose legislation giving the FDA more power to ban convicted fraud researchers from further participation in any kind of human research.  He said, “The problems at FDA are daunting, but I think that a little common sense and some modest legislating can ensure that American families will be safe.”

Is additional legislation the impetus for the bungling government agency to finally do their job?  Doubtful.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Chinese Drywall Events Disastrous

October 16, 2009 By

Chinese drywall repercussions continue to escalate. Obviously, affected homeowners are suffering the most. A few ethical builders are attempting to replace toxic wallboard but most are balking…waiting for the courts to assess liability.

Who or what is the next casualty in this mess? According to a recent NPR (National Public Radio) report, noxious homes are threatening the mortgage industry too.

A displaced Florida family’s attorney said that homes with Chinese drywall are literally toxic assets for the banks that hold the mortgages.

“We’re going to have hundreds if not thousands of foreclosed homes that have this defective condition,” said David Durkee. “The banks don’t want that, the government doesn’t want that, and these victims don’t want that. So, we need to make sure that this safety net is fixed.”

National Underwriter, an insurance industry publication, reports that replacing Chinese drywall in the United States could cost $15 billion to $25 billion. Consultants Ronald Kozlowski and Rachel Boles, who considered legal fees, health care and other costs in addition to supplying new drywall, calculated that staggering amount.

NPR states that along the Gulf Coast and across the country, the Chinese drywall situation is being called a “silent hurricane.”
David Durkee lamented, “I make the analogy that it’s like a small wave on the horizon. And this small wave, if not corrected, is going to continue to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it hits the shores of Florida like [a] tsunami.”

Although more than 100,000 homes in over 20 states were built with defective Chinese drywall, Florida and Louisiana homeowners have sustained the most devastation.

Louisiana plans to use $5 million in federal housing money for necessary drywall replacement…a glimmer of hope for those anguishing. Florida’s senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) sent correspondence to state legislators requesting a similar program for his state.

Who could have speculated that so many unfortunate residents of their dream homes would endure such pain and frustration within a relatively short time? The complaints began about a year ago.

Tests revealed that Chinese drywall imported during the building boom and after numerous hurricanes—between 2004 and 2007—emitted sulfide gases…gases that corrode plumbing, electrical systems, household appliances, and even jewelry.
Residents of rotten egg smelling homes have complained of sinus, respiratory, eye, and other health related problems. Pets have died. Many have been forced to vacate their barely lived in dwellings.

State health and federal officials have yet to determine what long-term health effects might be for homeowners surrounded by toxic drywall.

The courts will hopefully, eventually sort out liability in this atrocious plight. For many, it will be too little, too late.

Filed Under: Chinese Drywall

BPA Study Wasting Millions Of Dollars

October 13, 2009 By

Over nine hundred studies examining the effects of BPA are enough, conclude 33 bisphenol A scientific experts.

The scientists, mainly from universities, accuse the government of wasting millions of dollars for further research. Angered, the group has penned a letter to Margaret Hamburg, Food and Drug Administration commissioner, that says her agency is ‘stalling at the risk of public health.’

“FDA’s plans to spend significant time and money on a very well researched chemical are disturbing,” notes the missive, sent by R. Thomas Zoeller, professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts. 32 others, who have all studied the chemical’s effects, signed it. Many had served on relevant government panels.

BPA is often used to make hard, clear plastic baby and sports bottles but recently, the chemical’s existence in paper store receipts and food can linings are of particular concern.

Studies have linked the common household chemical to asthma, diabetes, neurological disorders, heart disease, and cell changes leading to prostate and breast cancer. It also has been shown to interfere with breast cancer chemotherapy.

Disturbingly blasé over the scientific body’s concern regarding BPA, the FDA deemed the chemical safe for all uses last year. Their conclusion was based on only two studies, both financed by BPA-makers, admitted the agency’s advisory committee. They eschewed other independent research.

A 2007 review by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discovered that 80% of independent studies found BPA caused neurological or cell damage. As to be expected, none of the data paid for by industry attributed the chemical to causing harm.

According to the Journal Sentinel, the scientists are questioning the FDA’s $7 million earmarked for additional meaningless studies. Worthless, because the agency’s protocol says BPA will be tested on a particular strain of rat that has proven to be insensitive to low levels of BPA.

“The potential for fiscal waste, we believe, is magnified by our serious concerns that there are significant study design flaws in the (government’s) research plans,” said the letter.

Is the FDA stone-walling? They plan to issue an updated BPA safety opinion by November 30.

“We are deeply troubled that the agency would announce these research plans in light of its decision to release a reassessment of BPA by Nov. 30” states the letter. “This disconnect between research and reassessment raises concerns about whether the FDA is striving to resolve the critical public health issues raised by widespread exposure to BPA, or is avoiding making a decision because of the pending research, the results of which will not be available for review for many years.”

Tax dollars at work…..$7 million…..to tell us what we already know.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What’s In Your Burger?

October 8, 2009 By

Unless you grind it yourself, the juicy hamburger that you’re wolfing down is truly a mysterious concoction. It could be an abhorrent mixture of slaughterhouse trimmings, mash from scraps, diverse grades of meat from various cow parts slaughtered in numerous facilities across America and abroad.

Hopefully, those pesky stray nails and metal hooks were removed. They sometimes get mixed with the ingredients and could damage the grinders!

According to an in-depth stomach churning New York Times expose citing government and corporate records plus revealing interviews, our US beef inspection system is in dire need of a ‘slap upside the head.’

The Times article traced the path of a 2007 Sunday dinner hamburger eaten by a 22 year old children’s dance instructor who is now paralyzed from the waist down. Stephanie Smith’s nervous system was ravaged from an extreme form of food-borne illness caused by E.coli. The culprit was a frozen patty made by Cargill labeled “American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties.”

Cargill recalled over 840,000 pounds of the Angus patties and others in October 2007 after at least 900 burger eaters became ill from E.coli 0157:H7 linked to their product.

United States Department of Agriculture officials did a countrywide sweep conducting spot checks at 224 meat plants to ascertain the scope of the E.coli situation. Supposedly, inspectors had been continuingly monitoring these plants. If so, why did they find serious problems at 55 facilities that were failing to implement and follow their own safety procedures?

“Every time we look, we find out that things are not what we hoped they would be,” said Loren D. Lange, an executive associate in the Agriculture Department’s food safety division.

Shortly before Ms. Smith’s patty was made, federal inspectors had repeatedly discovered that Cargill was violating its own safety protocol for handling ground beef. Were they slapped with a sanction or fines? No indication in the records. However, after the outbreak, the agency threatened to withhold their seal of approval that states “US Inspected and Passed by the Department of Agriculture.”

After a U.S.D.A. scolding and much haggling, Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country’s largest private business, promised to do better…although they defended their safety measures and initially balked at making necessary changes.

Still, tens of thousands of people are stricken annually by the E. coli pathogen, according to federal health officials. Hamburger, the worst offender, has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years and recently, contamination necessitated a beef recall from 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Saving money is the reason most burger makers acquire the fatty bits sliced from meat (beef trimmings) from multiple slaughterhouses. The hamburger mix is usually “50/50” trimmings or half fat, half meat that costs about 60 cents per pound.

Slaughterhouses are asked, not required, to test meat for E. coli before supplying it. The hamburger makers generally don’t check it themselves so it’s difficult to pinpoint the source of any contamination.

Ms. Smith’s contaminated burger, according to confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records obtained by the New York Times, was made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a Wisconsin plant.

The ingredients came from slaughterhouses in Texas, Nebraska, Uruguay—as in South America—and from a South Dakota company that processes fatty trimmings and treats them with ammonia to wipe out the bacteria.

Combining sources is the norm for most large producers of fresh and packaged hamburger. In Cargill’s case, they spent roughly 25% less than if they had used cuts of whole meat, fattening their bank account, indeed.

According to officials at two massive grinding companies, many large slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli. They worry that one grinder’s detection of the pathogen will cause a recall of ingredients sold elsewhere.

The insightful Times article mentions the prominent Greater Omaha Packing slaughterhouse that massacres 2,600 cattle every day in a facility “the size of four football fields.” The trimmings for Ms. Smith’s burger were bought from them.

As with many slaughterhouses, federal inspectors and workers claim the potential for contamination is always present. The cattle often arrive with smears of feedlot feces containing E.coli. Workers slicing away the hide can inadvertently spread fecal matter to the meat, if not careful. Also, large clamps that hold the hide during processing sometimes slip and smear the meat with feces.

There is extreme pressure on Greater Omaha employees to move carcasses quickly. Earlier this year, dozens of workers walked off the job in protest. Last year, workers sued the company, saying that they were not paid for time spent cleaning contaminants from their knives and other gear before and after their shifts. Greater Omaha is contesting the lawsuit.

The company would not grant the New York Times an interview but in a written statement, a Greater Omaha official claimed they had a “reputation for embracing new food safety technology and utilizing science to make the safest product possible.”

Since “a few stray cells” of E. coli can sicken a person, it’s distressing that laboratories used by food companies missed about 80% of E. coli in meat, according to a recent industry test.

It is interesting to note that E. coli in beef is a relatively new problem.

Remember when cows used to eat grass? Now it’s corn diets and overcrowded feedlots. Thus, meat contamination begins before the cattle reach the slaughterhouse, the meat packing plant or the grocery.

The USDA regulates meat and poultry products, which comprise about 20% of the food supply.

An assistant administrator in the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service was quoted as saying, “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for the public health.”

Are you still eating that burger?

Filed Under: Food Poisoning