Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Gerald Celente: The Economics Of War Unfolding Now: 29th April 2010
Click this link ..... http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11712
Vitamin D in pill form may cut breast cancer risk
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women's dietary intake of vitamin D and calcium doesn't seem to influence their risk of breast cancer, before or after menopause, new research from Canada shows. But the findings do suggest that taking vitamin D in supplement form may be protective against the disease.
Given these new findings on vitamin D supplements, "it looks promising for vitamin D," Laura N. Anderson, one of the study's authors and a doctoral student at Cancer Care Ontario in Toronto, told Reuters Health. "We certainly need more research done in this area," she said.
Some prior studies have suggested that vitamin D may reduce breast cancer risk. Breast cells have receptors for vitamin D, Anderson noted, raising the possibility that the nutrient could help regulate the division and proliferation of these cells; there's also growing evidence that vitamin D could help protect against other types of cancer.
When it comes to diet and supplements, vitamin D and calcium often go hand in hand, she added. Vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorption, so women who want to keep their bones strong as they age are advised to take both; also, many calcium-rich foods, like milk, are enriched with vitamin D.
Anderson and her team sought to separate out the effects of vitamin D and calcium on breast cancer risk by surveying 3,101 breast cancer patients and 3,471 healthy controls about their intake of food and supplements.
The researchers found no relationship between overall vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk; nor was there any association between overall calcium intake and risk of the disease.
However, women who reported taking at least 400 international units of vitamin D every day were at 24 percent lower risk of developing breast cancer.
The findings are published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Right now, Anderson noted, health authorities in Canada, the US and other countries are looking at revising the current recommendations on vitamin D intake upward, given that it looks like higher intakes of the vitamin D may be more beneficial.
Further research is needed, she and her colleagues conclude, to investigate the relationship between bigger doses of vitamin D and calcium and breast cancer risk.
SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online April 14, 2010.
BP CEO: ‘It wasn’t our accident’ but we’ll clean spill; Liability waivers were ‘misstep’
British Petroleum is warned to stop distributing oil spill settlement agreements
The CEO of British Petroleum told NBC's Meredith Vieira that his company wasn't responsible for creating the oil spill but they are responsible for cleaning it up. And he told ABC that liability waivers that fishermen were being asked to sign was an "early misstep."
Tony Hayward said on Monday's Today show, "It wasn't our accident, but we are absolutely responsible for the oil, for cleaning it up, and that's what we intend to do."
The rig that exploded on April 20 and then sank was run by another company, Transocean, he reminded viewers. That rig, he said, "was run by their people, their processes."
Hayward added that the failure of the rig's "blow-out preventer" — a device that should have shut off the well when the rig exploded and sank — was "unprecedented in our industry."
"What has failed here is the ultimate safety device on a drilling rig," he said, "There are many barriers of protection that you have to go to before you get to this. It isn't designed to not fail."
Reuters notes that "Hayward also said the company was preparing for a 'worst case scenario' that it would need to contain the spill for two to three months."
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told "Good Morning America" today that it was unacceptable for BP to ask fishermen it hired to help with the cleanup of the Gulf oil spill to sign waivers that would limit the company's liability.
"I'm looking into that right now." she said. "I was just alerted to that and if that in fact is the case, that is a practice we want stopped immediately."
BP CEO Tony Hayward told "GMA" this morning that the company has already put a stop to the practice.
"That was an early misstep George, frankly. We were using a standard contract. We've eliminated that," Hayward told George Stephanopoulos.
Alabama Attorney General Troy King said Sunday night that he has told BP they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians, the Mobile Press-Register reports. King reportedly said the agreements stipulate that residents will give up their right to sue the company in exchange for a payment of up to $5,000.
"People need to proceed with caution and understand the ramifications before signing something like that," said King, who noted that he is prohibited from giving legal advice to private citizens. "They should seek appropriate counsel to make sure their rights are protected."
The Press-Register reports that BP spokesman Darren Beaudo responded, "To the best of my knowledge BP did not ask residents of Alabama to waive their legal rights in the way that has been described."
This video is from NBC's Today Show, broadcast May 3, 2010.
Tax on Oil May Help Pay for Cleanup
Gerald Herbert/Associated Press
The spill began after an explosion last month on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. When well-insured companies have a spill, the government can try to recover the money spent from a reserve fund.
WASHINGTON — The federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the expanding damage on the Gulf Coast, generated by a tax on oil for use in cases like the Deepwater Horizon spill.
Up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion reserve could be used to compensate for losses from the accident, as much as half of it for what is sometimes a major category of costs: damage to natural resources like fisheries and other wildlife habitats.
Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.
The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.
The result is a rainy-day fund, which over the years has been used mostly for spills that exceed the liability caps by relatively small amounts. But the trust fund managers have warned that a single big spill could make a sizable dent in the reserve.
The money is also used to prepare for spills, including anticipatory measures like stockpiling oil containment booms. And Congress can use money from the fund to reimburse the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their spill-related expenses.
“The idea behind creating it was that we wouldn’t have to wait on money to clean up an oil spill,” said Michael C. LeVine, the Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, an environmental group.
A federal supervisor at the scene of a spill can authorize states to spend up to a quarter-million dollars on the spot.
The president can authorize up to $50 million a year without Congressional approval.
When a rich and well-insured company like BP is responsible for the spill, the government will seek reimbursement of what it spends on cleanup from the company and its insurers.
Experts say the fund is invaluable in spills involving smaller companies, which may not have money for cleanup, or in cases where the identity of the responsible party is not instantly clear.
But damages in oil spills can run to big money.
“One billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it really might not be,” said Mr. LeVine, who is based in Juneau, Alaska.
Companies that lose business — fishermen who cannot fish, or hotel owners who cannot rent out rooms — can seek damages. So can governments that see tax revenues decline.
A count made by the Department of Homeland Security last August found that since 1991, there had been 51 instances in which liability exceeded caps.
In most years it was a handful; in 1999 there were 11, because of a typhoon in American Samoa that wrecked eight fishing vessels that spilled oil.
Numerically, cargo vessels and fishing vessels are the biggest culprits, but oil tankers and barges cause the most dollar damage.
The fund’s single largest expense so far came after a tanker in the Delaware River, the Athos I, spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil in 2004.
Money can be sought by the states for expenses like restoration of a damaged wetland or compensation for loss of use of a resource.
Payments are limited by the amount actually on hand in the fund; if this spill depletes the trust fund, it might take time to replenish it for future use.
The balance was projected to rise to about $1.9 billion from the current $1.6 billion — but that was before the spill.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 4, 2010
An article on Saturday about the response by BP America and the federal government to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico misstated a provision in a pollution law passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, stipulates that “each responsible party for a vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged” is liable for cleanup costs. It does not state that the owner of a rig or a vessel is automatically responsible for the costs. An article on Sunday about an oil tax fund that helps pay for damages from oil spills repeated the error about the cleanup costs and it misstated part of the name of a federal agency responsible for coastal and deep ocean waters. It is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, not the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2010, on page A31 of the New York edition.
What a washout! First the rain... then the SLEET as May Bank Holiday comes to a chilly end
Sleet, hail, single figure temperatures, soaking rain.
Yes, that was the Bank Holiday weekend. Now brace yourselves for even colder weather as 'monsoon May' continues with a chill that may even bring frost.
Forecasters say that the mercury could fall as low as 3c overnight for much of the week with more rain to follow the torrential downpours of Saturday and Sunday.
Chilly: A couple stroll on a decidedly grey Bournemouth beach in Dorset yesterday. Frost was forecast over much of England and Wales last night
Barren: The cloudy weather left Bouremouth beach almost deserted, a far cry from how it looked for much of last month
It will do little to lift the spirits of those who were soaked over the miserable weekend.
The worst of the weather was in the East and hilly areas of the North, where temperatures struggled to get into double figures.
South-West England and Wales fared better, with longer bright spells. But the highest temperature, recorded in St Athan, near Cardiff, was still only 13.3c (56f).
Hundreds of people gathered in the rain in Bath yesterday to set a new world record for the largest number of people to dance along to the Gene Kelly classic Singing In The Rain. The attempt, which saw 234 people take part, was overseen by adjudicators from the Guinness Book Of World Records
Enlarge 
Brightening the day: One of the 234 people who sang Singing In The Rain in Bath yesterday
At this time of year, temperatures of around 15c (59f) can normally be expected in northern England and 17c (62.6f) in the South.
The uninspiring temperatures followed heavy rain earlier in the weekend.
Parts of the Cotswolds were drenched by more than two inches of rain on Saturday night and Sunday morning - half the average for the month - while London had an inch-and-a-half in the same period.
The start of 'monsoon May', as it has been dubbed, was in stark contrast to last month, which turned out to be the third driest April in a century.
Met Office forecaster Andrew Sibley said: 'You won't remember the Bank Holiday weekend, that's for sure. Most of the showers weren't particularly heavy but they were of nuisance value if you got caught out in them.'
Gordon Brown found himself a victim of the changeable conditions as he faced heavy sleet in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, yesterday.
Another Met Office forecaster, Charles Powell, predicted the miserable week ahead, saying: 'There is even a chance of overnight frost as evening temperatures fall to between 3c and 5c.
'And towards the end of the week an easterly wind will bring a cold breeze over from the Continent.'
Enlarge 
Washout: People walk past palm trees yesterday on the promenade at Southend, Essex
Enlarge 
Beach huts stand empty at Southend yesterday beneath overcast skies
'Hypocrite' Harman and her family's inheritance tax dodge on £750,000 estate
Harriet Harman was accused of 'hypocrisy' yesterday for attacking Tory plans to cut inheritance tax although her own family exploited loopholes to shelter their fortune from the levy.
The Labour deputy leader was revealed to be one of the beneficiaries of a trust set up in her father's will designed to reduce the amount of tax she would eventually pay on his estate.
Miss Harman has repeatedly railed against the Tory proposal to raise the inheritance threshold substantially, describing it as a 'tax cut for the wealthiest estates'.
But documents show how her father attempted to use complex tax avoidance loopholes to protect some of his fortune from the Inland Revenue.
Harriet Harman's family have exploited loopholes to shelter their fortune from the tax levy
John Bishop Harman, a surgeon who died in 1994, set up a trust designed to minimise the amount his children would pay in tax on his £750,000 estate.
He created a 'nil-rate-band discretionary trust', a structure used by wealthy families at that time.
It allows one spouse to transfer assets up to the value of the inheritance tax threshold to a trust when he or she dies, and name the chosen heirs as beneficiaries.
The remaining estate passed on to the surviving spouse is correspondingly smaller, limiting the tax liability to the children on their death and effectively doubling the inheritance tax threshold.
One expert said the family would have had to go 'out of their way' to draw up the then little-known arrangement.
The Conservatives claimed it undermined Miss Harman's 'class war' attacks on their proposals to lift the inheritance tax burden.
Tory chairman Eric Pickles said: 'Harriet Harman's hypocrisy is breathtaking. You need to judge Labour not on what they say, but on what they do.'
Let us pray: Gordon Brown at the Church of the New Testament in Streatham yesterday
Tax experts said that the rules changed in 2007, since when couples have been allowed to transfer their inheritance tax allowances - making trusts of the kind Mr Harman set up redundant.
Miss Harman's mother Anna is still alive, aged 91, and would now be able to use her late husband's tax allowance when making a will even if he had not set up the trust.
But had the inheritance been passed on before 2007, Miss Harman and her siblings would have benefited by thousands of pounds.
Mark Spragg, an expert in probate at Keystone Law, said of the trust scheme: 'Not everybody would have known about it at the time. It wasn't widely publicised by the Revenue.
This was something people thought up as a good idea. It was an avoidance scheme when it came out - it was obviously a bit of a tactic.'
John Bishop Harman was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons who lived and practised on Harley Street. His sister was married to the celebrated aristocrat, the Earl of Longford.
He died in May 1994 and left his estate to Anna, an heiress to a paper manufacturing firm, and his four children as beneficiaries of the trust fund. The children stand to benefit when their mother dies.
The house where Miss Harman grew up, 108 Harley Street, was sold in 1990, for an undisclosed amount. Similar properties sell today for upwards of £15million.
Dr Harman's will shows he left £758,472 to his wife - which would have been the value of stocks, shares, and cash rather than any properties owned by the couple.
Miss Harman, who is tipped as a potential 'caretaker' leader for Labour if Gordon Brown quits after a defeat in Thursday's general election, has attacked Tory plans for inheritance tax several times.
Under the current system, when someone dies the estate is liable for inheritance tax if the value is more than £325,000.
That £325,000 is now transferrable between couples, even if they die in different years, so in practice a husband and wife would actually have a combined threshold of £650,000.
The Tories have pledged to increase this to £1million, or £2million if transferred between couples.
A spokesman for Labour's deputy leader said: 'Miss Harman's father's will was a matter for him. Her mother is still alive and her financial arrangements are private.'
A source close to Miss Harman said she had not benefited from any income drawn from the trust.
My bizarre chat with Gordon, by 'bigot' widow
The pensioner who Gordon Brown called a bigot has revealed that he invited her to meet his family in Downing Street as part of a desperate attempt to persuade her to pose for pictures with him.
Gillian Duffy described an excruciating 40-minute conversation with the Prime Minister in which he repeatedly begged her to make a public act of forgiveness in front of the cameras.
Mrs Duffy, 66, a lifelong Labour voter, bluntly told Mr Brown that she would not be voting for him following his insult, which was caught by a live microphone.
'I said, "I'm sorry for you Gordon, because you have more to lose than me. I'm very sorry that this has happened, but it's you who's going to lose out, not me".'
Gillian Duffy: called a 'bigot' by Gordon Brown on the election campaign
But Mr Brown persisted, even asking if Mrs Duffy would like to meet his wife Sarah and family at Downing Street. She said: 'He asked, "Have you met Sarah?" Well, how would I have met his wife?
'Then he asked, "Do you ever come down to London? If you ever come down you must come to Number Ten and meet me and Sarah".
'Well, I just looked at him. I didn't like to say it, but all I could think was, "I don't think you'll be there".'
The exchanges came last Wednesday, after Labour's election campaign was thrown into disarray when news of Mr Brown's extraordinary gaffe broke.
Interviewed by the Mail on Sunday, Mrs Duffy told how behind her closed front door Mr Brown made a series of grovelling apologies and tried to persuade her to reward him with a public act of forgiveness.
'He wanted me to go outside with him and shake hands in front of all the cameras, but I didn't want that fuss.'
She said what hurt her most was the dismissive way in which he referred to her as 'that woman'.
She added: 'I'm not "that woman". It's no way to talk of someone, that, is it? As if I'm to be brushed away. Why couldn't he have said "that lady"?'
Mrs Duffy, a widow, travelled at the weekend to Canada for a holiday with friends arranged long before her confrontation with the PM. She had arranged a postal vote, but decided not to use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)