science

Tobacco manufacturers discovered over 40 years ago that radioactive polonium-210 exists in cigarettes and tobacco smoke, and spent decades working to remove it, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health. The companies tried to remove polonium -- a naturally-occurring, alpha particle-emitting constituent of the fertilizers and soil used to grow tobacco -- by creating special filters, washing the tobacco leaf and genetically altering tobacco plants, but ultimately failed. Instead of coming clean, the companies kept their internal research on polonium and information about their unsuccessful efforts to remove it secret. They didn't want to heighten public awareness of polonium in cigarettes. Polonium-210 is the lethal radioactive substance that was used to poison Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

An analysis of Merck internal documents concluded that the pharmaceutical company carried out a clinical study of Vioxx in 1999, "primarily to support a marketing campaign before the drug's launch." Merck stated that the study was done "to test side effects of the painkiller Vioxx," which was pulled from the market in 2004, after being linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. The 1999 study compared Vioxx to the widely-used painkiller Naproxen, in order "to accelerate uptake and advocacy for Vioxx," according to the Merck documents, which were disclosed during litigation. Another document -- a nomination of the 1999 study for a marketing award -- said the study was "designed and executed in the spirit of Merck marketing principles." Carrying out clinical studies for marketing purposes "would raise ethical and scientific questions, from whether study participants were unknowingly -- and needlessly -- put in harm's way, to whether a company's research is reliable." Earlier analyses of Merck documents found evidence the company ghostwrote academic articles and minimized patient deaths in Vioxx trials. The authors of the Merck document analyses were paid consultants in Vioxx lawsuits against Merck.

Overexposure to manganese has caused Parkinson's-like symptoms for thousands of welders, but the makers of manganese-containing welding wire and electrodes are avoiding liability by manipulating science. Jim Morris writes that "the welding companies paid more than $12.5 million to 25 organizations and 33 researchers, virtually all of whom have published papers dismissing connections between welding fumes and workers' ailments. ... The pattern doesn't surprise George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, author of Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Corporate-funded research articles are often 'advocacy documents that are being produced purely for use in court cases,' he says. 'It's unfortunate, because it really pollutes the scientific literature.'" Industrial toxicologists have known since the 1930s that manganese exposure damages the brain and central nervous system. Morris notes that "if you were to graph out the welding industry's spending on science, you'd see a dramatic uptick in 2003 -- the year an Illinois jury awarded $1 million to a welder named Larry Elam." Since then, mounting lawsuits by injured welders have driven a funding boom for pro-industry scientists.

The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."

Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes.

Asked why people like Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand, who made their name as environmentalists are now nuclear power advocates, the highly regarded energy efficiency analyst Amory Lovins was blunt: "I think they haven't done their homework. And I keep asking for their analysis and not getting it, because I don't think they have one." Nuclear power, he argues, is no solution to global warming. "If you buy more nuclear plants, you're going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you'll get it about twenty to forty times slower" than efficient use of electricity, renewables and micropower, he said. Lovins is also dismissive of claims that a "nuclear renaissance" is sweeping the world. "It's a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn't happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies," he told Amy Goodman.

Kool Menthol Ad c. 1975: "The longer you smoke, the more you'll like Kool Super Longs"Harvard School of Public Health researchers combed through tobacco industry documents to find out why the industry adds menthol to cigarettes, and why cigarette brands have differing levels of menthol. Researchers found that tobacco companies use menthol's anesthetic effect to mask the harshness of the smoke and ease throat pain for beginning smokers. Once smokers are addicted, according to documents, they seek cigarettes with increasing levels of menthol to maintain the sensory effects. Tobacco companies respond by making cigarette brands with low levels of menthol for starters, and brands with higher menthol levels for veteran smokers. R.J. Reynolds calls the Harvard study propaganda, and says it is aimed at promoting a federal ban on menthol. The study was published online ahead of print at the Web site of the American Journal of Public Health.

Nuclear advocates often point to France as a success story, with 80% of the country's electricity coming from nuclear power. But a recent leak at the Tricastin plant in Bollene, near Avignon, has raised concerns about health, safety, and transparency. The site houses both a nuclear reactor and a radioactive treatment plant. "Approximately 30 cubic metres of liquid containing unenriched uranium spilled from an overflowing reservoir at the Tricastin facility, which handles liquids contaminated by uranium, into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers." The public was not warned of the breach until the day after it occurred, nor was the government notified in a timely fashion. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) inspected the Tricastin plant after the leak and "found that existing prevention measures were deficient." Until more testing can be done, "People in nearby towns have been warned not to drink any water or eat fish from the rivers ... Officials have also cautioned people not to swim in the rivers or use their water to irrigate crops." An anti-nuclear non-governmental organization is planning legal action against the plant's operator, Societe Auxiliaire de Tricastin (Socatri), over its delay in informing the public.

FTC smoking machineThe U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering stopping use of the "FTC Method" to determine the amounts of tar and nicotine in cigarettes, a test that tobacco companies have touted on cigarette packs for over 40 years and have long used to market "light," "ultralight" and "low tar" cigarettes. The FTC started using the "Cambridge Filter Method" to test for tar and nicotine in 1966, when public health authorities believed that reducing the amount of tar in cigarettes would reduce the risk of lung cancer. In recent years, evidence has proven the test meaningless because it was found that smokers "compensate," or adjust how they smoke, to get the amount of nicotine they need from a cigarette, regardless of nicotine content. Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced a bill to stop cigarette companies from using the "FTC Method" to measure tar and nicotine. "For years, Big Tobacco has relied on the FTC's flawed testing method to mislead smokers into thinking these ['light' and 'low tar'] cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine...In reality, some so-called 'light' and 'low tar' cigarettes can actually be more harmful for smokers," Lautenberg said.

The European Union (EU) has drastically changed its course for the future of biofuels. Until this week, the EU planned to be the world leader in using biofuels as an alternative to petroleum-based fuel, aiming for 10% of transportation fuels to be derived from biofuels by 2020. "But the allure has dimmed amid growing evidence that the kind of targets proposed by the EU are contributing to deforestation and helping force up food prices." In the overall energy landscape, the EU currently produces 8.5% of its energy from renewable sources. The goal was to increase that to 20% by 2020, but biofuels were a large part of that equation. '"I think when we will look back we will say this was the beginning of a turning point for Europe on biofuels,' said Juan Delgado, a research fellow specializing in energy and climate change expert at Breugel, a research organization in Brussels. 'It will be very difficult now for Europe to stick by its targets.'" In a related story, The Guardian newspaper revealed last week that a secret World Bank report found that "biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated." The U.S. government has said that biofuels are only responsible for a 3% increase in food costs worldwide.