BSE case: six-year-old cross-bred born and raised in Alberta

[Anonymous]

I guess you would have to define 'cluster'. What some of you still seem to be missing is that Alberta has roughly 70% of Canada's cattle. Odds are very good that most bse cases will be found there.
Another thing you need to consider befor going on this 'cluster' rant is the actual size of Alberta. Is it still a cluster if the cases are scattered of 1000 miles? :roll:

Silver- I think most of the cases were found originating out of a pretty definitive area within Alberta too.....

C'mon Oldtimer you have been told before. The May 20th 2003 case didn't even originate in Alberta.

CFIA lists her as found in Alberta- They also say they could not track her origin except to say Canada- with only 95% accuracy...I thought she was from just across the provincial line in Sask.-still in the cluster area, but its hard to keep all these case seperate anymore...
Will have to buy a calculator to get them added up pretty soon :wink:

Interesting statement on the CFIA website of what happened to that cow tho:
The remains of the BSE-infected cow were traced through their distribution into pet food and animal feed. As many as 1,800 farms (600 recipients of bulk feed and 1200 recipients of bagged feed) may have received animal feed containing MBM made from the infected cow.

 

[flounder]

Bill writes;

>The silence is deafening. Embarassed I wonder if most of those samples were from a "cluster" area in Texas?<


well Bill, you know what the FDA says about feeding 5.5 grams of potentially tainted ruminant feed will do for ya in TEXAS ;-)



IN TEXAS we feed our cattle 5.5 grams of potentially BSE/TSE tainted protein, and that's o.k. per the FDA;


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
P01-05
January 30, 2001
Print Media: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: On Dec. 23, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that a cow in Washington state had tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease). As a result, information on this Web page stating that no BSE cases had been found in the United States is now incorrect. However, because other information on this page continues to have value, the page will remain available for viewing.

FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT


Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests taken on feed used at a Texas feedlot that was suspected of containing meat and bone meal from other domestic cattle -- a violation of FDA's 1997 prohibition on using ruminant material in feed for other ruminants. Results indicate that a very low level of prohibited material was found in the feed fed to cattle.

FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in total, five-and-one-half grams - approximately a quarter ounce -- of prohibited material. These animals weigh approximately 600 pounds.

It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in origin (therefore not likely to contain infected material because there is no evidence of BSE in U.S. cattle), fed at a very low level, and fed only once. The potential risk of BSE to such cattle is therefore exceedingly low, even if the feed were contaminated.

According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner, "The challenge to regulators and industry is to keep this disease out of the United States. One important defense is to prohibit the use of any ruminant animal materials in feed for other ruminant animals. Combined with other steps, like U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ban on the importation of live ruminant animals from affected countries, these steps represent a series of protections, to keep American cattle free of BSE."

Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless announcing that it is voluntarily purchasing all 1,222 of the animals held in Texas and mistakenly fed the animal feed containing the prohibited material. Therefore, meat from those animals will not enter the human food supply. FDA believes any cattle that did not consume feed containing the prohibited material are unaffected by this incident, and should be handled in the beef supply clearance process as usual.

FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first reporting the human error that resulted in the misformulation of the animal feed supplement and then by working closely with State and Federal authorities.

This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into place is essential for protecting the food supply and that continued vigilance needs to be taken, by all concerned, to ensure these rules are followed routinely.

FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials to ensure that companies and individuals comply with all laws and regulations designed to protect the U.S. food supply.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html


WE know what happens to most stumbling and staggering suspect mad cows in TEXAS too. THERE tissue samples either sit up on a shelf for 7+ months waiting for everyone to forget about, OR ;


FDA Statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA


Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse.

FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA.

Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison).

FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs.

To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle.

Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry.

FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger.

####


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html


WE know now, and we knew decades ago, that 5.5 grams of suspect feed in TEXAS was enough to kill 100 cows.


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused 7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%) 1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (icip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. icip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf


2

6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less than say 100

grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one

considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it

could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route within the

same species. This information did not become available until the "attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment

designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to ensure

that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the study

and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to trigger

infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that time

ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the designing

scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the

dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf


Re: BSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts

[BBC radio 4 FARM news]

http://www.maddeer.org/audio/BBC4farmingtoday2_1_03.ram

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3923s1_OPH.htm


2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/bio/bseesbe.shtml


SADLY, DEC 2005 SHOWS THAT WE STILL HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BSE/TSE MAD COW DISEASE FEED


GAO


GAO-06-157R FDA Feed Testing Program

October 11, 2005


SNIP...FULL TEXT 29 PAGES ;


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06157r.pdf


Mad Cow Disease: An Evaluation of a Small Feed Testing Program FDA Implemented in 2003 With Recommendations for Making the Program a Better Oversight Tool. GAO-06-157R, October 11

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-157R


CVM Update
November 2005 Update on Feed Enforcement Activities to Limit the Spread of BSE


Issued by:
FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Communications Staff, HFV-12
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
Telephone: (240) 276-9300 FAX: (240) 276-9115
Internet Web Site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm


http://www.fda.gov/cvm/5580.htm


[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

03-025IFA
03-025IFA-2
Terry S. Singeltary


Page 1 of 17

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:17 PM

To: [email protected].

Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements

for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Greetings FSIS,

I would kindly like to submit the following to [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and

Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

THE BSE/TSE SUB CLINICAL Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

Broken bones and such may be the first signs of a sub clinical BSE/TSE Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle ;

snip...FULL TEXT ;


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf


that stumbling and staggering cows in TEXAS (NO TSE TEST AT ALL)


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html


TSS

 

[Tam]

I guess you would have to define 'cluster'. What some of you still seem to be missing is that Alberta has roughly 70% of Canada's cattle. Odds are very good that most bse cases will be found there.
Another thing you need to consider befor going on this 'cluster' rant is the actual size of Alberta. Is it still a cluster if the cases are scattered of 1000 miles? :roll:

Silver- I think most of the cases were found originating out of a pretty definitive area within Alberta too.....

Tell us Oldtimer would you rather have a cluster area with cases originating out of one definitive area within say Texas that could have been caused by one cow like in Alberta or would you rather no cluster area but still have 5 cases spread from coast to coast with no common source meaning each had to have had an infectious source of its own meaning five infected cows hit your feed system without you detecting even one. I'll take the small cluster area any day :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

I guess you would have to define 'cluster'. What some of you still seem to be missing is that Alberta has roughly 70% of Canada's cattle. Odds are very good that most bse cases will be found there.
Another thing you need to consider befor going on this 'cluster' rant is the actual size of Alberta. Is it still a cluster if the cases are scattered of 1000 miles? :roll:

Silver- I think most of the cases were found originating out of a pretty definitive area within Alberta too.....

Tell us Oldtimer would you rather have a cluster area with cases originating out of one definitive area within say Texas that could have been caused by one cow like in Alberta or would you rather no cluster area but still have 5 cases spread from coast to coast with no common source meaning each had to have had an infectious source of its own meaning five infected cows hit your feed system without you detecting even one. I'll take the small cluster area any day :roll:

Me too Tam- And that is why many ,including scientists, have called for additional testing in that Alberta area and/or quarantine and testing of everything in that area slaughtered.....Quarantine was and still is the major way we have to keep disease from spreading-- anyway it was until the USDA decided that short term economic gain should take precedence to long term safety- of both consumers and cattle....

 

[Silver]

Silver- I think most of the cases were found originating out of a pretty definitive area within Alberta too.....

Tell us Oldtimer would you rather have a cluster area with cases originating out of one definitive area within say Texas that could have been caused by one cow like in Alberta or would you rather no cluster area but still have 5 cases spread from coast to coast with no common source meaning each had to have had an infectious source of its own meaning five infected cows hit your feed system without you detecting even one. I'll take the small cluster area any day :roll:

Me too Tam- And that is why many ,including scientists, have called for additional testing in that Alberta area and/or quarantine and testing of everything in that area slaughtered.....Quarantine was and still is the major way we have to keep disease from spreading-- anyway it was until the USDA decided that short term economic gain should take precedence to long term safety- of both consumers and cattle....

The first cow came from the Peace country, the rest scattered arond down south. Several HUNDRED miles from the furthest south case. Once again, define cluster please.

 

[Silver]

As far as I am concerned it matters not if there is a cluster or not. It's all the self proclaimed experts with all their incredibly insightful holier than thou wisdom that set me off.
If there is a cluster, great, we'll deal with it. If it proves to be leftover feed from pre-feedban times, well that's fine too.
What we all know, including the least perceptive of us, is that Canada is doing a reasonable job of dealing with bse and preventing it's spread. Can the same be said for the our neighbours to the south?

 

[Tam]

Silver- I think most of the cases were found originating out of a pretty definitive area within Alberta too.....

Tell us Oldtimer would you rather have a cluster area with cases originating out of one definitive area within say Texas that could have been caused by one cow like in Alberta or would you rather no cluster area but still have 5 cases spread from coast to coast with no common source meaning each had to have had an infectious source of its own meaning five infected cows hit your feed system without you detecting even one. I'll take the small cluster area any day :roll:

Me too Tam- And that is why many ,including scientists, have called for additional testing in that Alberta area and/or quarantine and testing of everything in that area slaughtered.....Quarantine was and still is the major way we have to keep disease from spreading-- anyway it was until the USDA decided that short term economic gain should take precedence to long term safety- of both consumers and cattle....

Many as in R-CALF and their scientists Oldtimer, And are you quarantining Texas and/or testing ever animal in the area that the Texas cow came from at slaughter just to make sure you don't have a cluster area hiding there or is this something that these scientist of yours think only Canada should do.

Quarantine was and still is the major way we have to keep disease from spreading--

Yes when a disease is contagous that may be true but we know that is not the case with BSE. Stopping the BSE infected cattle remains from entering the feed system is the main known way of stopping the spread of BSE and if your feed system can't stop that from happening with imported cattle now that the feed bans were suppose to have been in place since 1997 that is the US's problem not Canada's. But again I ask if the US feed system is at risk of spreading imported BSE what is stopping them from spread DOMESTIC BSE? As far as the testing done Alberta does test a higher percentage of cattle than all other provinces.

the USDA decided that short term economic gain should take precedence to long term safety- of both consumers and cattle.

if you cared at all about consumers Oldtimer you and your scentist would be quarantining Texas until you know exactly what kind of a problem you have down there. :roll:
Now I have a web site for you to read where it tells you EXACTLY WHERE the 4 Canadian cases were born. And gee Oldtimer it just happens to be the CFIA website. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/eval2005/evale.shtml#theo
Just so you don't miss it Oldtimer

North America's first four cases (diagnosed from May 2003 to January 2005) were born and spent their first 12 months of life in a geographic area within Central Alberta and Western Saskatchewan (Figure 3). Investigation continues into whether these four cases reflect one or possibly two geographic BSE clusters as described above. It is noteworthy that this geographic area also includes the location of the Canadian herd where the infected U.K. import was diagnosed with BSE in 1993.

They even show a map pointing to the farm in Sask. marked CASE one 2003 Angus, so I think the CFIA had a pretty good Idea where she came from.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam I knew some of those Class C schools were bad- but now 1 is a cluster to you... :???: :lol:

 

[Tam]

Tam I knew some of those Class C schools were bad- but now 1 is a cluster to you... :???: :lol:

Gee was this meant to hurt my feelings and make me feel bad Oldtimer. :cry2:
You never answered me are you or the R-CALF leadership asking to have Texas quarantined until you know what kind of problem is there? In your words Quarantine was and still is the major way we have to keep disease from spreading-- R-CALF wanted us quarantined until we knew exactly was kind of a problem we had in Alberta but that sure doesn't seem to be their stand on Texas and the problem that may be hiding there. Aren't you worried about the risk US consumers could be in by eating Texas beef? :shock: What am I saying all beef in Canada is tainted because of the BSE in Alberta so all beef from the US including that in Montana should be considered tainted.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam- You really do have to have it spelled out to you--I had been just joking about Class C school educations- Now I'm not sure :???: You can't start concentrating on an area or in this case doing quarantines until you have a pattern...ONE cow in the US does not set a pattern-ONE cow in Texas does not set a pattern... 4-5-6 whatever the number is now, all from Alberta is a pattern- especially where I think about 3 came from within 100 miles of each other.......

And yes I think the USDA and FDA should have the safeguards in place now- even with our 1 cow--But most definitely before they allow any OTM cattle or beef from Canada........

As far as consumer safety and which countries beef is safest- That is why I believe all beef (all foodstuffs) should be labeled as to their country of origin and leave that important decision up to each individual consumer...But thats too simple for most folk to understand.........

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Oldtimer says ".ONE cow in the US does not set a pattern-ONE cow in Texas does not set a pattern..."


Gee R-CALF said all beef from Canada was tainted with one cow. They said no cows from Canada should be imported with one cow . Now we see R-CALFs pattern.

 

[Anonymous]

Oldtimer says ".ONE cow in the US does not set a pattern-ONE cow in Texas does not set a pattern..."


Gee R-CALF said all beef from Canada was tainted with one cow. They said no cows from Canada should be imported with one cow . Now we see R-CALFs pattern.

If I remember right R-CALF said we should wait with Canada until you got some tested-- and when you did you found how many more? And a pattern developed--Looks like R-CALF gave you folk good advice....

Are you thanking us?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Oldtimer says ".ONE cow in the US does not set a pattern-ONE cow in Texas does not set a pattern..."


Gee R-CALF said all beef from Canada was tainted with one cow. They said no cows from Canada should be imported with one cow . Now we see R-CALFs pattern.

If I remember right R-CALF said we should wait with Canada until you got some tested-- and when you did you found how many more? And a pattern developed--Looks like R-CALF gave you folk good advice....

Are you thanking us?

So are you saying to lock all the gates on Texas until they can get more tested to find a pattern. Good advice . or is it" Do as we say not as we do."

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "Gee R-CALF said all beef from Canada was tainted with one cow. They said no cows from Canada should be imported with one cow . Now we see R-CALFs pattern."

Actually, the USDA were the ones who first started that. Come to think of it, Canada did, and DOES the same thing today - everytime they closed the border to a BSE country, it was after the discovery of ONE cow.

It seems Ottawa has the same policy R-CALF is touting.

 

[Kathy]

All I ask is you take some time to look at how much lead, mercury, toxic chemicals etc. are released out there every year.

The US EPA Toxic Release Report for 2001-2002 lists 4.79 BILLION pounds of this waste released, stored on site, or poured down deep holes (out of sight, out of mind).

Link to summary:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri02/TRI_2002_Key_Findings.pdf

Keeping in mind that lead accumulates in the bones and the brain.

Dr. AN Hamir's 1984 study "Neuorpathological lesions in experimental lead toxicosis of dogs", showed that animals fed a high fat-low calcium diet had "bilateral symmetrical spongioform changes in the brain stem. The cerebellum had spongiform changes in the roof nuclei and in the lingula there was spongiosis of the Purkinje cell layer and vacuolation of Purkinje cells".

Accumulation of lead in the bones would attribute to brittle bones and easily broken legs of cattle.

 

[Econ101]

All I ask is you take some time to look at how much lead, mercury, toxic chemicals etc. are released out there every year.

The US EPA Toxic Release Report for 2001-2002 lists 4.79 BILLION pounds of this waste released, stored on site, or poured down deep holes (out of sight, out of mind).

Link to summary:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri02/TRI_2002_Key_Findings.pdf

Keeping in mind that lead accumulates in the bones and the brain.

Dr. AN Hamir's 1984 study "Neuorpathological lesions in experimental lead toxicosis of dogs", showed that animals fed a high fat-low calcium diet had "bilateral symmetrical spongioform changes in the brain stem. The cerebellum had spongiform changes in the roof nuclei and in the lingula there was spongiosis of the Purkinje cell layer and vacuolation of Purkinje cells".

Accumulation of lead in the bones would attribute to brittle bones and easily broken legs of cattle.

And now they say that they are going to outlaw teflon as we are all carrying a bit of one of the chemicals that doesn't degrade in the environment from teflon.

Pollution in the oceans is causing the mercury to go up in fish. There are limits now on the recommended amount of certain fish high on the food chain that collect this mercury. It is said this mercury came from the burning of coal without cleaning the emissions.

The EPA came out with rules to reduce acid rain, another environmental effect of coal burning. Should we reduce the pollution controls and have more acid rain just so the coal industry can have more profits? Should we reduce mining safety and not really enforce the laws that protect miners for the same reason?

Environmental costs that are shifted from the industries producing these costs is just wrong. It affects us all.

 

[Kathy]

Help me out Econo. I find your message a little confusing.

Development of alternative energies like solar power and wind energy are key to the future. Solar panels are so darn expensive it is sickening. These inflated prices have more to do with stopping their use, than cost of production. Although I read somewhere that some states in the USA give rebates when you purchase solar panels, up to 50 percent.

Scrubbers in the coal plants could capture the mercury; but, we are told the electricity would be to expensive. Hog wash.

Many can barely afford to pay their bills now. Private for profit business has no right to tell us, they won't fix the problems because it will cost, them, to much. (what about our health) Governments have deregulated power - big mistake, government may have to get back into the business of power production to protect us from high costs and pollution.

 

[Econ101]

Help me out Econo. I find your message a little confusing.

Development of alternative energies like solar power and wind energy are key to the future. Solar panels are so darn expensive it is sickening. These inflated prices have more to do with stopping their use, than cost of production. Although I read somewhere that some states in the USA give rebates when you purchase solar panels, up to 50 percent.

Scrubbers in the coal plants could capture the mercury; but, we are told the electricity would be to expensive. Hog wash.

Many can barely afford to pay their bills now. Private for profit business has no right to tell us, they won't fix the problems because it will cost, them, to much. (what about our health) Governments have deregulated power - big mistake, government may have to get back into the business of power production to protect us from high costs and pollution.

What is confusing about my message? Some industries are making a buck off of not capturing their own pollution and putting the costs of their products on every one else. That is what happens when companies get away with cost shifting. Shifting some of the costs of their products on other people.

 

[Kathy]

I get you better now.

Either way there is a cost. One is a health cost, the other is a monetary cost.

In both situations the consumer will pay. High carbo-based energy prices will push the further development of atomic energy and alternative energies.

I just heard today, from a Saskatchewan resident, that Sask. is planning to build a nuclear power station. I don't know the location; but I imagine it will be northern Saskatchewan, close to the uranium mines.

 

[Silver]

...gulp...
Are we allowed to enrich uranium?
:shock: :lol: :lol: