I thought these executive protection recommendations by Bruce Alexander were interesting:

Despite what Capt. Al Della Fave of the NJSP said regarding SUVs “operate in all terrains. They won’t get bogged down.� “They are heavier and can withstand a crash better,� get rid of the SUV.

Bogged down? Where are you taking him, to a tar pit? When it comes to Executive Protection there are a variety of considerations when it comes to selecting a vehicle but getting “bogged down� is rarely one of them.

There are times when an SUV is appropriate but based on the publicly available information in this situation, this isn’t one of them. An SUV simply can not maneuver as well as a sedan particularly at higher rates of speed or under an emergency driving condition requiring braking, skid or traction control. Another consideration is the increased vehicle profile that an SUV presents as opposed to a sedan.

Finally when it comes to weight as a means of protection in an accident, like they say back home “that dog don’t hunt.� Weight in this case simply means you have a heavier object in motion, not greater protection. Memo to Capt. Fave, an armored sedan is pretty darn heavy

Nice analysis. Wonder what times require an SUV. Ground clearance? Photo shoot at the New Jersey car dealers association meetings? Maybe it’s the least different model of transportation for the state and therefore a form of camouflage — spinners might soon be required too.

Update (23 Apr 2007): Bruce has posted more commentary with even stronger language regarding the misleading characteristics of giant SUVs.

An SUV should not be used as a regular means of transportation for Executive Protection. SUVs are difficult to control and simply do not perform as well in emergency situations typically encountered in Executive Protection which includes accident avoidance in addition to vehicle ambushes etc… Compounding this problem is that most Executive Protection driver’s training programs do not spend the same amount of training time in an SUV practicing evasive driving techniques as they do in a sedan. Consequently when it comes time to drive an SUV in an Executive Protection mission, driver skill isn’t usually as proficient.

It time to put to rest the notion that “bigger is better� when it comes to vehicle size and safety and Executive Protection.

I’ve been curious about the bee news for a while, but today’s Independent has the first story that suggests a possible cause for the sudden death of bee colonies across America:

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London’s biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: “There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK.”

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world’s crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, “man would have only four years of life left”.

Nice Einstein quote, but apparently he actually said something more like “No bees, no food for mankind. The bee is the basis of life on this earth.”

Doesn’t that sound more like something he would say?

Another quote I found (related to an insecticide ban due to sudden death of bees) suggests Einstein said “if bees were to disappear, man would only have a few years to live.” That’s even closer to the Independent but the important thing is that the great relativist is unlikely to have suggested a specific timeline like four years. Surely it depends.

German research has long shown that bees’ behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a “hint” to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: “I am convinced the possibility is real.”

I think we are seriously underestimating the environmental impact of radical increases in power and wireless radiation. The question will be how quickly people can move past a state of denial, or a state of shock and anger, in order to reach a period of scientific inquiry and then enlightenment. I suspect some people will focus entirely on what Einstein really said and demand detailed proof and evidence of his exact words, but miss the point of the news and fail to seek any proof and evidence of the exact cause of bee death. Kudos to Landau University for bringing the discussion forward, and to the Independent for covering it, but I am now curious whether companies in the US will move to support the research and find a happy solution or will they take the tobacco/utility approach…

A comment by someone on my post about the death of the Armenian PM got me thinking about export death and tobacco. I did a little reading and searching and ran into a Trade and Environment Database (TED) report called Zimbabwe Tobacco Exports (ZIMTOBAC Case). I think it’s from 1994 and it has some interesting claims. Consider, for example, this little nugget in the Description section:

Tobacco smoke is the most widespread of known pollutants. In developed countries, ethanol and tobacco are the two principal causes of avoidable death.

Based on what? More than lead? More than mercury? And what’s that about ethanol?

A little more reading and it appears it has been flagged by the EPA. Here is a revealing story from 2002:

Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels “many times greater” than they promised, the government says.

[…]

States started measuring VOC emissions at ethanol plants about a year ago following complaints of foul odors. One small facility in St. Paul, Minn., had to install $1 million in pollution control equipment to reduce the emissions.

“To the extent that this new test procedure is identifying new VOC emissions, the industry has certainly agreed to address those,” said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the recipient of EPA’s letter.

Is that ethanol pollution or ethanol plant pollution? A study from 1997 speaks directly of pollution from ethanol fuel:

A recent field study in Albuquerque, N.M., published this month in Environmental Science & Technology, showed that use of ethanol fuels leads to increased levels of toxins called aldehydes and peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN).

[…]

PAN is highly toxic to plants and is a powerful eye irritant. It has been measured in many areas of the world, indicating that it can be carried by winds throughout the globe.

“Although these pollutants are not currently regulated,” said Argonne chemist Jeff Gaffney, “their potential health and environmental effects should be considered in determining the impact of alternative fuels on air quality.”

Incidentally, Dinneen’s comment reminds me of a discussion I had recently with a guy in charge of thousands of servers running all over the world. He had the classic “tell me what’s wrong, but don’t tell me anything I don’t want to know” approach to risk management. Yes, it’s contradictory. Or maybe I should say he did not seem to fully appreciate the opportunity to review a comprehensive list of issues in order to prioritize risks to his environment. Even my basic tests revealed important risks, but he slipped into denial and then anger when a messenger brought the message. Eventually he agreed to a Dinneen-like position — to address things brought to his attention. More on that later.

Back to the ethanol, it turns out that a million dollars spent on emission controls is just the beginning of the story on the Minnesota plant. Data released by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the US Department of Justice showed that there were to be impressive results:

The agreements announced today will ensure each plant installs air pollution control equipment to greatly reduce air emissions such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 2,400-4,000 tons per year and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by 2,000 tons per year. In addition to contributing to ground-level ozone (smog), VOCs can cause serious health problems such as cancer and other effects; CO is harmful because it reduces oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues. The settlement also will result in annual reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 180 tons, particulate matter (PM) by 450 tons and hazardous air pollutants by 250 tons.

This of course was the tail end of the Clinton EPA and the start of the Bush and Cheney policies to remove regulation of harmful emissions, as a Washington Post story explains with regard to coal:

The case against Duke Energy was one of many initiated by the EPA across the country in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

The Clinton crackdown was bitterly opposed by utilities, and the Bush administration promised to change EPA enforcement policy.

But the EPA continued to press cases that were already pending when the administration took office in 2001, so the Bush EPA and Environmental Defense had been on the same side of the Duke Energy case until the 4th Circuit’s ruling.

That soon changed. I’m certain Cheney or one of his minions thinks it is best for the industry to shoot messengers who bring the wrong messages instead of spending efforts on innovation and research to solve the actual problems. Solving problems requires that he acknowledge they exist and address them.

So, with the high profile of this coal case and the number of deaths cited I am curious if ethanol actually has a higher risk?

Environmental Defense says that about 17,000 facilities are covered by the rules, and it cites studies that show 20,000 premature deaths per year traceable to pollution from coal-fired plants.

The decision on coal is apparently due this July. Wonder if it will set a precedent for other energy companies, especially as the Bush administration appears to want to pander to the corn lobby with bold invitations into the fuel industry.

Still looking for data on ethanol-related deaths in industrialized countries…