An MD named Anila Jacob recently testified in the US House about the impact on infants from perchlorate (solid rocket fuel used in explosives and rocket propellants) now found in drinking water and food in many U.S. cities.

The EPA has studied and been warned about this in the past:

Perchlorate a powerful oxidant used in solid rocket fuels by the military and aerospace industry has been detected in public drinking water supplies of over 11 million people at concentrations of at least 4 parts per billion (ppb).

Apparently Illinois Congressman John Shimkus challenged Dr. Jacob’s testimony by saying the financial burden of cleaning up America’s water would be too burdensome for corporations like Lockheed Martin and the US should indefinitely delay definition of a contaminant level.

The Doctor’s response to Shimkus is notable:

Congress’s first concern ought to be the health of the nation’s children who are forced to drink rocket fuel in their tap water.

Is Shimkus really more concerned about the security of Lockheed Martin’s profits than the health and safety of US citizens? One would think he would realize that the security of the country is closely tied to a clean environment. I don’t buy the argument that more data is required before setting a limit since the health risks are documented while the source data is intentionally obscured:

Production and use estimates of perchlorate are hard to come by: the military considers the numbers secret, and fertilizer producers won’t share them, saying they are proprietary information.

For what it is worth, it turns out Shimkus is not exactly the sort of man who carries a strong sense of ethics, or even stands by his own words:

Shimkus announced in September 2005 that he will run for reelection in 2008, despite making a pledge when first elected in 1996 not to stay in office for more than 12 years. He said he will run for a seventh term in 2008 if he wins re-election in 2006. “It was a mistake at the time,” he said about his 1996 campaign promises. “Unless everyone plays by the same rules, term limits don’t make sense.”

Uh, it’s ok to do the wrong thing if other people are doing it too? Maybe Shimkus will run a campaign on “I’ll allow toxins in every cup”. Or maybe he should continue his pro-life stance with “abortion is wrong, but intentionally poisoning your baby is ok if it keeps defense and aerospace companies profitable.” I can see my ethics professor rolling his eyes and pulling on his hair in frustration. Clearly US national security is most at risk from exactly this kind of malfeasance.

One day in school my English teacher asked a fellow student to explain the significance of chapter three in the Grapes of Wrath. Fortunately she called on the eminently brilliant Brad Setzer who suggested that the chapter, ostensibly about a turtle trying to survive as it crossed a road, was not only a synopsis for the rest of the book but that it represented the very struggle of life itself.

Compare that fictional tale with the recent news about an overturned rabbit truck that deposited huge numbers of the fuzzy creatures on a road near Budapest:

“There are thousands of them on the road but they’re not using their newfound freedom well; they’re just sitting around, eating grass and enjoying the sun,” [highway patrol spokesman] Galik told Reuters.

Are we now less like the struggling turtle and more like rabbits sitting on the motorway, dazed and confused by the concept of freedom?

Before you decide, note the conclusion of the real story:

By midday, 4,400 bunnies had been rounded up, but 100 were still roaming the fields surrounding the highway.

“Those 100 are free to go. We will not collect them,” Galik said.

The ending wasn’t so happy for the ones that were recaptured. They were expected to complete the trip to a slaughterhouse, authorities said.

What would Steinbeck say?

Brad has since moved on to discussion of more mundane things, if you ask me:

I also suspect the impact of inappropriate currency pegs – like the de facto currency union between the world’s biggest oil importer and the world’s biggest oil exporter – is an under-reported story.

Much more fun to report about bunnies on the loose.

While reading about Anniversary Day for Wellington, I noticed some dissenting opinion. For example here is a report from 2005:

Wellington Anniversary Day commemorates the arrival of the first British immigrant ship in the area, marking the start of settlement and consequent taking of Maori land. The day also commemorates the formal settlement of the New Zealand Company which largely organised such settlement and theft.

[…]

The Foreshore and Seabed Act enables the elimination of Maori customary ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the name of public access while private ownership is upheld. The Act breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, and national and international human rights standards and laws, making a mockery of the government’s claims that it protects people’s rights.

“We’ve chosen Chaffers Marina to mark this anniversary of past and present theft as there are locked gates here and signs saying ‘No Fishing’ which is hardly public access”.

“Hapu and iwi, who have historically allowed others access to beaches and seabed, have had their rights stripped away – but the rights of private property owners who can and do deny access are protected. This is clearly discriminatory and illogical”.

Removal of traditional access fishing rights to award public access control to a private group that will restrict it…interesting control dispute.