The mammoth, multi-million-dollar mansion where resident Barack Obama and his family will reportedly live after the first family exits the White House is located 1,096 feet from the Islamic Center of Washington — one of the largest mosques in the Western Hemisphere.
The Islamic Center is a tremendous resource for the District’s Muslim community. “It provides Qur’an and Islamic Literature and distribution of such publications that would create awareness and knowledge of Islamic Truth,” according to the center’s website.
The Islamic Center in our nation’s capital also provides help for families in need, holds wedding ceremonies, organizes language courses, offers counseling and makes available ample research material related to Islam.
The Islamic Center features prayer five times daily. Jumaa Prayer, a traditional, congregational prayer held each Friday, occurs at 1:30 p.m.
BANGKOK – A Thai man is recovering from a bloody encounter with a 10-foot python that slithered through the plumbing of his home and latched its jaws onto his penis as he was using a squat toilet.
Published May 26, 2016
Associated Press via Fox News
No comment on the intimate intrusion available from PETA or Obama’s homosexual agenda advocates.
Meanwhile, A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside animals.
Ivanpah, the world’s largest solar power plant located in California’s Mojave Desert, caught fire last Thursday, causing damage to one of the plant’s three towers. This latest engineering setback is the least of the plant’s woes. Prohibitive economic realities are the true problem.
Earlier this year, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decided to postpone its continued support of the struggling facility, which was touted as the future of solar power when it opened in 2014. But after receiving $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE) and $535 million from the U.S. Treasury Department, the facility’s promising future is turning out to be a multi-billion-dollar waste of money.
Ivanpah is unable to meet its intended electricity generation of 940,000 megawatt-hours per year, despite its designation as the largest concentrated solar plant in the world. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) received only 45 percent of the electricity it expected from Ivanpah in 2014 and 68 percent in 2015.
Output is so low, in fact, that it fails to meet Ivanpah’s power purchase agreement, which requires a set amount of electricity production for a certain price.
Ivanpah’s managers found that the facility needs to produce much more steam than initially thought to run efficiently, which requires substantially more natural gas than originally planned to supplement the concentrated solar each morning. Weather predictions underestimated the amount of cloud cover the area receives, which prevents the facility from consistently producing high levels of electricity.
Compounding this reality, the price of solar photovoltaic panels has dropped precipitously, making concentrated solar more costly and less efficient in comparison to new solar technologies. Ivanpah is a concentrated solar power (CSP) facility, using mirrors to concentrate sunlight and power a steam turbine to create electricity. Solar photovoltaic panels, in contrast, convert sunlight into electricity directly. Although CSP was once thought to be the future of solar power, technology improvements have made photovoltaics cheaper and more efficient.
Despite these realities, PG&E has given Ivanpah an extra six months to meet the required electricity production. If Ivanpah can’t produce enough power by July 31, the $2.2-billion facility will shut down.
The reasons why are simple. Ivanpah has been selling electricity for, on average, anywhere from $135 to $200 per megawatt-hour of electricity. Existing coal-fired power plants produce electricity for $88 per megawatt-hour, after accounting for social and environmental costs, and even solar photovoltaic was being sold for $57 per megawatt-hour in 2015. Despite the CPUC continuing to force PG&E to pay an expensive premium for electricity, Ivanpah simply cannot deliver.
Ivanpah is not the first taxpayer-funded renewable to fail. In 2009, Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, received a $535-million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The Obama administration encouraged the DOE to expedite the decision-making process so Vice President Biden could announce the program as a political success sooner. At the same time, Chinese solar panels became cheaper, and natural gas prices plummeted, making Solyndra a lousy investment. The DOE convinced Solyndra to delay layoffs until after the 2010 midterm elections as a political move. In August 2011, Solyndra declared bankruptcy.
Taxpayers paid a half-billion dollars to Solyndra and never saw the promised benefits. Both Solyndra and Ivanpah were free to make risky investments without risk of failure because the companies funding came through the political system rather than through the competitive market.
Proponents of such loan guarantee programs argue that although a few companies fail, the majority have not and are actually turning a profit for the federal government. But the DOE often awards loans for financially unsound political reasons, with Solyndra and Ivanpah being prime examples.
If the government is making a profit off these loan programs, the private sector will fill the investment gap left by a government exit. At least 28 utility-scale photovoltaic projects have been funded by private investors since 2011, while the DOE approved loans for just five projects. The private sector offers loans to the most promising renewable investments, rather than throwing money at risky but politically enticing roads to nowhere.
Renewable energies undoubtedly have a future in the United States. As the cost of extracting and using fossil fuels rises and costs for renewables decrease following technology improvements, developing renewable energies will become more cost-effective. Until then, forcing investment in renewables comes at a huge cost to taxpayers with little reward.
[Byline Ryan Yonk, Ph.D., an assistant professor of research at Utah State University, is vice president and executive director of research at Strata. Devin Stein student research associate at Strata.]
Source: American Thinker
Solar Energy’s other Real Problem – Cronyism and the darkness of night.
UNDIAGNOSED ILLNESS – COLOMBIA: (CUNDINAMARCA) FATAL, FUNGICIDE SUSPECTED, REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Published Date: 2016-05-25 05:31:18
Subject: PRO/EDR> Undiagnosed illness – Colombia: (CU) fatal, fungicide suspected, RFI
Archive Number: 20160525.4241004
Date: Mon 23 May 2015
Source: Fresh Plaza, La Razón report [edited]
The fire department of Cundinamarca stated that the irresponsible use of a fungicide on a potato crop, in the village of San Rafael, in the municipality of La Calera [Cundinamarca], near Bogotá, had left a tragic toll of one dead and 19 people intoxicated on Wednesday night [18 May 2016].
Captain Alvaro Farfán said 5 people had been taken to a local clinic because they had a high degree of intoxication and that one of them had died. A few hours later, the number of intoxicated people increased and the medical personnel started to experience symptoms of intoxication, so the medical facility had to be evacuated to avoid a mass poisoning and the patients were referred to other clinics in Bogotá.
The director of the Regulatory Center of Emergencies of Cundinamarca, Carlos Arturo Maria Julio said in an interview with Caracol Radio that the emergency had been generated by the misuse of the fungicide, which had not been handled following the appropriate protective measures. Authorities are uncertain as to what fungicide was used. They suspect that it was ME-8 [tetraconazole].
[Maps of Colombia can be seen at http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/southamerica/map-of-Colmbia.gif and http://healthmap.org/promed/p/53351. – Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ
The article does not tell us precisely what symptoms the affected individuals were experiencing. I assume that these people must have been within the drift of the fungicide, as the article does not mention ingestion of the potatoes.
If the fungicide was tetraconazole it is regarded as low toxicity (category III or IV) but it is classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans, based on the occurrence of liver tumors in male and female mice. Tetraconazole is harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin, or inhaled, and causes moderate eye irritation. However, most of the toxicities with this chemical are not as acute as this article leads us to believe.
Data indicate tetraconazole is an eye irritant but not a dermal irritant or sensitizer, so the rapidness of the death and the other illnesses reported are not indicative of exposure to tetraconazole, even with high concentration of this chemical. As emergency personnel were also affected it seems more likely this may have been a pesticide such as an organophosphate off-gassing from the clothing, resulting in secondary exposure.
Several other articles report that those using the fungicide spray were mixing dithane (mancozeb), curaxil M8 (m8 cymoxanil mancozeb), curzate (cymoxanil), and pegal (agricultural adjuvant) and that the mixture was being used without any type of protection. This resulted in contamination of the environment and led to the illness.
Mancozeb (trade name Dithane) is relatively non toxic (category IV) fungicide. It is essentially not toxic by dermal absorption and by inhalation. It is a mild irritant to the skin and may be weak sensitizer. It is commonly found in combination with , another fungicide.
Zineb is an ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDCs) fungicide for crops, slightly to moderately toxic when ingested. Following a single large dose of zineb, rats and mice exhibited incoordination, hyperactivity followed by inactivity, loss of muscle tone, and loss of hair.
In spray or dust forms, the EBDCs are moderately irritating to the skin and to respiratory mucous membranes. Poisoning from this class of chemicals includes itching, scratchy throat, sneezing, coughing, inflammation of the nose or throat, and bronchitis. Early symptoms from exposure of humans to inhalation of zineb include tiredness, dizziness, and weakness. More severe symptoms include headache, nausea, fatigue, slurred speech, convulsions, and unconsciousness. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity, that is nerve tissue destruction or behavioral change, from the EBDCs. However, EBDCs are partially chemically broken down, or metabolized, to carbon disulfide, a neurotoxin capable of damaging nerve tissue. EBDC residues in or on foods convert readily to ETU during commercial processing or home cooking.
Zineb is a skin and eye irritant and a dermal sensitizer. Cross sensitization with maneb and mancozeb may occur. Mucous membrane irritation has also been reported in humans. Absorption of large amounts of zineb through the skin can lead to the same acute symptoms caused by inhalation exposure.
The product curzate M8 or curaxil M8, is a formulation of 8 per cent cymoxanil and 64 per cent mancozeb. Cymoxanil is an acetamide compound used as both a curative and preventative foliar fungicide. Cymoxanil has low acute toxicity, both by dermal and inhalation exposure. It is not a skin sensitizer and is category III fungicide
All in all it appears these people were spraying with several trade name chemicals that had mostly the same active ingredient. Zineb seems to have the potential to cause the problems, or some of the problems mentioned in this article. More information and more clinical features are needed. If a definitive answer is found we would appreciate an update.
Portions of this comment were extracted from http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/zineb-ext.html.
1. Agway, Inc. Material safety data sheet on zineb formulations. No date given. Chemical Division. Syracuse, NY; http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/zineb-ext.html.
2. Berg GL (ed.). Farm chemicals handbook. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Co, 1986.
3. Pesticide Management and Education: An on-line pesticide information database in CENET, Cornell Cooperative Extension Network. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
4. Clayton GD, Clayton FE (eds.). Patty’s industrial hygiene and toxicology. rd edition. Vol. 2: Toxicology. NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
5. Cornell University. 1988 New York State pesticide recommendations. 49th annual pest control conference. Nov. 9-11. Ithaca, NY: 1987.
6. Gosselin RE, et al. Clinical toxicology of commercial products. 5th edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.
7. Hallenbeck WH, Cunningham-Burns KM. Pesticides and human health. NY: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
8. Hartley D, Kidd H (eds.). The agrochemicals handbook. Nottingham, England: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1983.
9. Hayes WJ. Pesticides studied in man. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1982.
10. Morgan DP. Recognition and management of pesticide poisonings. 3rd edition. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1982.
11. Pimentel D. Ecological effects of pesticides on nontarget species. Executive Office of the President’s Office of Science and Technology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1971.
12. Shepard TH. Catalog of teratogenic agents. 5th edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
13. Thomson WT. Agricultural chemicals. Book IV. Fungicides. Fresno, CA: Thomson Publications, 1985.
14. Tucker R, Crabtree DG. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. USDA Fish and Wildlife Service. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1970.
15. Memorandum from EF Tinsworth, director, Special Review and Reregistration Division. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Data call-in for small-scale retrospective ground-water monitoring. US Environmental Protection Agency: 1988.
16. Memorandum from E Neil Pelletier. Status of EBDC fungicide registrations. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Science Support Branch. Benefits and Use Division (TS-768-C). Washington, DC. Photocopy (1987 (May 13)).
17. Pesticides fact book. (A-107/86-003). Washington, DC: Office of Public Affairs, 1986 (June).
18. User’s manual for the pesticide root zone model (PRZM). Release 1. Athens, GA: Environmental Research Laboratory, 1984 (Dec).
19. Wagner SL. Clinical toxicology of agricultural chemicals. Environmental Health Sciences Center. Oregon State University. NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1983.
20. Witt JM (ed.). Chemistry, biochemistry, and toxicology of pesticides. Proceedings of an extension service short course at Oregon State University. Eugene, OR: Pest Control Education Program, 1985.
21. Worthing CR (ed.). The pesticide manual: A world compendium. Croydon, England: The British Crop Protection Council, 1983.
22. Hayes WJ, Laws ER (eds.). Handbook of pesticide toxicology, Vol 3, classes of pesticides. NY: Academic Press Inc, 1990.
23. Meister RT (ed.). Farm chemicals handbook ’92. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Company, 1992.
24. Howard PH (ed.). Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic chemicals, Vol. III: pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1989.
25. Occupational Health Services, Inc. MSDS for Zineb. Secaucus, NJ: OHS Inc, 1991 (21 Feb).