BREAKING NEWS: WHO Health chief: Swine flu has 'pandemic potential'
4/25/2009
Never-before-seen mixture of swine, human and avian viruses kills up to 68.
GENEVA – An outbreak of swine flu in Mexico and the United States is a quickly evolving situation that has "pandemic potential," the head of the World Health Organization said Saturday before an emergency meeting of flu experts. WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said the North American outbreak of a never-before-seen virus was a very serious situation. She called Saturday's emergency meeting to consider declaring an international public health emergency over the outbreak, which is believed to have killed dozens of people in Mexico and sickened at least eight in the U.S. The experts are also expected to recommend whether WHO should raise its pandemic alert to a higher level. At least 62 people have died from severe pneumonia caused by a flu-like illness in Mexico, according to WHO. Some of those who died are confirmed to have a unique version of the A/H1N1 flu virus that is a combination of bird, pig and human viruses. Mexico has closed schools, museums, libraries and theaters in a bid to contain the outbreak, which may have sickened about 1,000 people there. "The situation is evolving quickly," Chan said at a telephone news conference in Geneva. "A new disease is by definition poorly understood. "In the assessment of WHO, this is a serious situation which must be watched very closely." "This is an animal strain of the H1N1 virus, and it has pandemic potential because it is infecting people," Chan said. "However, we cannot say, on the basis of currently available laboratory, epidemiological and clinical evidence, whether or not it will indeed cause a pandemic," she added. It is the first time Chan has convened such a crisis panel since the procedure was created almost two years ago, spokesman Gregory Hartl said. The committee may decide Saturday that the outbreak constitutes a public health emergency, and if so, whether WHO should consider measures including travel advisories, trade restrictions and border closures. The global body's flu pandemic alert level is now set to phase three — meaning there is no or very limited risk of a new virus spreading from human to human. The committee "will be asked, 'should we raise the alert level to phase four or phase five,' depending on their appreciation of how far the virus has spread," Hartl said. An increased alert level was considered likely, as initial evidence from the outbreak in Mexico indicates the virus has spread between people. Hartl said, however, that a decision would not be made Saturday.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Two different Presidents on US safety
President Bush declared war on terrorism after the bombings of the world trade centers. President Bush used all legal and military means to keep this country safe from another terrorist attack. President Bush was successful in his efforts as Commander and Chief.
President Obama now has made public, methods that were used to keep this country safe. He has openly condemned the successful practices and has opened the door to prosecute people that were involved with keeping this country safe. The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse by US personnel during the Bush administration of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Five CIA directors -- including Leon Panetta and his four immediate predecessors and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release" of the memos.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden said releasing the interrogation techniques gave terrorists a precise guild for what to expect.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Thursday that any attempt by the Obama administration to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote memos signing off on waterboarding would start a 'witch hunt.'"
Consider the following definitions and ask yourself a question;
TREASON –
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
BETRAYING
1: to lead astray 2: to deliver to an enemy by treachery 3: to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a: to reveal unintentionally b: to disclose in violation of confidence betray a secret
TREACHERY
1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence 2 : an act of perfidy or treason
BREACH OF ALLEGIANCE;
WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.—Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the UnitedStates, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy.
President Obama now has made public, methods that were used to keep this country safe. He has openly condemned the successful practices and has opened the door to prosecute people that were involved with keeping this country safe. The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse by US personnel during the Bush administration of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Five CIA directors -- including Leon Panetta and his four immediate predecessors and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release" of the memos.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden said releasing the interrogation techniques gave terrorists a precise guild for what to expect.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Thursday that any attempt by the Obama administration to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote memos signing off on waterboarding would start a 'witch hunt.'"
Consider the following definitions and ask yourself a question;
TREASON –
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
BETRAYING
1: to lead astray 2: to deliver to an enemy by treachery 3: to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a: to reveal unintentionally b: to disclose in violation of confidence betray a secret
TREACHERY
1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence 2 : an act of perfidy or treason
BREACH OF ALLEGIANCE;
WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.—Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the UnitedStates, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
EPA to tax cows
In a move that could have far-reaching impacts on businesses down to the grower level, EPA last week announced that greenhouse-gas emissions would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said that these gases endanger public health and welfare of future generations.
The finding will be followed by a 60-day comment period, after which EPA could begin drawing up regulations. It is believed those regulations would focus first on automobile emissions, but eventually could target power plants, factories, and other businesses.
Agribusiness could be affected by the new regulations. In November, the Florida Farm Bureau issued an Action Alert on how this move might impact some in agriculture. Once an endangerment finding is made, Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that any entity with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit in order to continue to operate.
For previously regulated pollutants, a threshold of 100-tons meant that only the largest of emitters were required to be permitted. For greenhouse gases, the situation is much different. Not only would power plants and factories, but also many office and apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, large churches and even large homes would be regulated. According to the alert, literally hundreds of thousands of entities could be required to obtain permits.
The vast majority of livestock operations would easily meet the 100 ton threshold and fall under regulation. In fact, USDA has stated that any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, or 50 beef cattle would have to obtain permits. According to USDA statistics, this would cover about 99% of dairy production and more than 90% of beef production in the U.S.
As the proposal stood in November, the permit fees would equate to a "tax" of $175 per dairy cow and $87.50 per beef cow.
President Obama has stated that he would rather Congress take on the issue and pass cap and trade legislation, which would cap the levels of pollution an entity could emit. If the business exceeds the cap, it would in effect have to pay a tax for the right to pollute.
Regardless if Congress passes cap and trade, Friday’s EPA finding could likely have the same effect as regulations are put into place over the next few years.
The finding will be followed by a 60-day comment period, after which EPA could begin drawing up regulations. It is believed those regulations would focus first on automobile emissions, but eventually could target power plants, factories, and other businesses.
Agribusiness could be affected by the new regulations. In November, the Florida Farm Bureau issued an Action Alert on how this move might impact some in agriculture. Once an endangerment finding is made, Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that any entity with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit in order to continue to operate.
For previously regulated pollutants, a threshold of 100-tons meant that only the largest of emitters were required to be permitted. For greenhouse gases, the situation is much different. Not only would power plants and factories, but also many office and apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, large churches and even large homes would be regulated. According to the alert, literally hundreds of thousands of entities could be required to obtain permits.
The vast majority of livestock operations would easily meet the 100 ton threshold and fall under regulation. In fact, USDA has stated that any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, or 50 beef cattle would have to obtain permits. According to USDA statistics, this would cover about 99% of dairy production and more than 90% of beef production in the U.S.
As the proposal stood in November, the permit fees would equate to a "tax" of $175 per dairy cow and $87.50 per beef cow.
President Obama has stated that he would rather Congress take on the issue and pass cap and trade legislation, which would cap the levels of pollution an entity could emit. If the business exceeds the cap, it would in effect have to pay a tax for the right to pollute.
Regardless if Congress passes cap and trade, Friday’s EPA finding could likely have the same effect as regulations are put into place over the next few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)