Melamine in Milk?
What is it? Why do they adulterate milk with melamine in China? Are we at risk too?
Melamine, a relatively heavy, white solid with a high melting point and only slightly soluble in water, is an organic (heterocyclic aromatic) six-sided-ring-compound (formula: C3H6 N6) with three nitrogen atoms replacing three carbons alternately in the ring. Three amine groups (NH2) are attached to the ring at the carbon positions. The formal chemical name of melamine is: cyanourotriamine. It should be noted here that melamine is not related to the familiar substances melanin (a skin pigment) and melatonin (a common hormone in mammals).
In solution, melamine acts as a chemical base reacting with acids to form salts. In industry, this substance is combined with formaldehyde to form a melamine resin, a strong (thermosetting) plastic, and a melamine foam. Melamine is common in industry and may end up as countertops, dry-eraser boards, fabrics, glues, house-wares, packaging, flame retardants and as a strengthener in cement. An important use of this substance is as an admixture to concrete (as sulfonated melamine formaldehyde) which increases the fluidity and slows the hardening of concrete, while adding great mechanical strength to the mix. It is this latter use (in construction) which probably makes it a cheap, easily available substance in China where construction activity is widespread.
The production of melamine in China has grown rapidly over the last decade or so. Unfortunately its production continued even during economic declines so need has declined while production continued unabated, resulting in a melamine “glut” on the Chinese market. Its use as an adulterant in other applications is probably a result of this ready availability and low cost.
By itself melamine is relatively non-toxic white substance. It is however, often associated with cyanuric acid in waste-water. Melamine and cyanuric acid often occur together as contaminants. It is the reaction of cyanuric acid and melamine which can produce an insoluble crystalline salt: melamine cyanurate. When these two substances are ingested or inhaled a chemical reaction may produce melamine cyanurate crystals (“stones”) in the victim’s kidneys, resulting in fatal renal failure.
Studies on animals indicate that ingestion of melamine can lead to kidney and bladder stones and bladder cancer. A 1953 study of dogs fed a diet laced with (3% by wt?) melamine resulted in changes in urine production, as well as evidences of blood, protein and melamine crystals in the urine. Since melamine cyanurate crystals do not dissolve easily, they remain in the bladder or kidneys and lead to long term chronic conditions including bladder and kidney cancer.
In 2007 melamine was detected in pet food imported from China. The melamine, in a white granular form was found as a contaminant among similarly appearing wheat-gluten a component in the pet food. Why add melamine to pet food? It is a cheap (or cost free) additive which increases the profit margin of the producer. Melamine which has a high in nitrogen content (C3N6H6) is recorded as “protein” on the relatively unsophisticated chemical procedures used to test pet foods. Melamine superficially mimics proteins when these simple tests measure only the amount of nitrogen present. Proteins are of course complex organic molecules composed in part of nitrogen compounds called amino acids. Thus the pet food laced with melamine was cheaper to produce than pet food with real wheat gluten-- a more expensive component. Many dogs were sickened and an unknown number died as a result.
A less well known result of this scandal was that the melamine laced wheat gluten was used in both chicken and pig feeds. See: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006027.html and chickens http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070502072434.htm
In a similar but less well known case in 2007 melamine was purposely added to fish-food as a binder by USA suppliers located in Ohio and Colorado. These materials were recalled after the pet food scandal broke out. What effects the fish-foods laced with melamine had on public health are unknown. The fish food was used in commercial hatcheries for food production as in salmon, catfish or tilapia producers. What effects these would have on humans ingesting such tainted fish are unknown. However for Alaska hatcheries See: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/news/issues/docs/2007/melamine_briefing.pdf
Well now that you know how greed, a cheap product, and lack of sufficient government oversight in China caused the melamine scandal that remains a threat to our health, simply substitute “sub prime mortgages” for melamine, and USA for China and you will better understand our economic distress at present.
In September 2008, the Sanlu Milk company in China was forced to recall 10,000 tons of milk, milk powder and infant formula which was tainted with melamine. Fifty-three thousand infants were sickened and nearly 13,000 were hospitalized. There were four confirmed deaths due to acute renal failure. Kidney stones as large as 1 cm (nearly ½ inch) diameter were found in infant kidneys. Melamine may have been added to the milk by unscrupulous producers who after diluting the milk with water used melamine to boost the nitrogen component and thus fool government regulations which approximate milk protein levels by measuring nitrogen levels.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine “
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist - Cash for Trash - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist - Cash for Trash - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
Read Paul Krugman's excellent opinion piece on Bush's Bailout...Cash for Trash...Authorization for Use of Financial Force.
Read Paul Krugman's excellent opinion piece on Bush's Bailout...Cash for Trash...Authorization for Use of Financial Force.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Krauthammer’s Fantasy World
Mr. Charles Krauthammer, in his piece, “History Will Judge” (Newsday, Opinion, 09-19-08) attempts a restoration of Mr. G.W. Bush’s reputation with a revision of history which might be characterized as absurd and laughable, if the events were not so frightening and such a revision were not so dangerous for the future of our Nation. The piece is only more irritating in that it appears at a time when we are faced with President Bush hiding in the White House as the economic disaster of Wall Street (which his deregulation efforts helped to spawn) swirls around us all like the veritable winds of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Kraithammer, again erroneously conflates, Mr. Bush’s disastrous preemptive attack on Iraq with the 9-11 tragedy, and goes on to make a preposterous comparison between past US Presidents who were forced by tragic events into war (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt) and Mr. Bush, who mis-led his Nation into an infamous preemptive attack on Iraq (the first in our history), inflated threats which he knew were false, and then disastrously mismanaged the conflict so that as he leaves office his country remains struggling to clean up the mess (the longest war in our history) he created. Mr. Krauthammer’s only point of defense for this president is the so-called “surge”, an expansion of in-theater military forces which Mr. Bush finally agreed to when there was no other choice. The “surge-was-a-success” argument favored by Republicans reminds me of the surgeon who, revealed to have operated on the wrong patient, looks closely at the ghastly wound, and with “calm and confidence” points to his neat and orderly sutures and pronounces his disastrous error a “successful operation”. Unfortunately, for Krauthammer’s thesis, Mr. Bush’s display of “calm and confidence” is just another example, among many, of Mr. Bush’s appalling errors in judgment.
Mr. Charles Krauthammer, in his piece, “History Will Judge” (Newsday, Opinion, 09-19-08) attempts a restoration of Mr. G.W. Bush’s reputation with a revision of history which might be characterized as absurd and laughable, if the events were not so frightening and such a revision were not so dangerous for the future of our Nation. The piece is only more irritating in that it appears at a time when we are faced with President Bush hiding in the White House as the economic disaster of Wall Street (which his deregulation efforts helped to spawn) swirls around us all like the veritable winds of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Kraithammer, again erroneously conflates, Mr. Bush’s disastrous preemptive attack on Iraq with the 9-11 tragedy, and goes on to make a preposterous comparison between past US Presidents who were forced by tragic events into war (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt) and Mr. Bush, who mis-led his Nation into an infamous preemptive attack on Iraq (the first in our history), inflated threats which he knew were false, and then disastrously mismanaged the conflict so that as he leaves office his country remains struggling to clean up the mess (the longest war in our history) he created. Mr. Krauthammer’s only point of defense for this president is the so-called “surge”, an expansion of in-theater military forces which Mr. Bush finally agreed to when there was no other choice. The “surge-was-a-success” argument favored by Republicans reminds me of the surgeon who, revealed to have operated on the wrong patient, looks closely at the ghastly wound, and with “calm and confidence” points to his neat and orderly sutures and pronounces his disastrous error a “successful operation”. Unfortunately, for Krauthammer’s thesis, Mr. Bush’s display of “calm and confidence” is just another example, among many, of Mr. Bush’s appalling errors in judgment.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Massacre in Herat
Imagine these headlines! "Nearly One Hundred Dead In Mistaken Bombing." Imagine three classrooms of young American children and a group of teachers were killed when their school was flattened by a mis-directed bomb. It is frightening to contemplate. Yet such a tragic event did occur in Afghanistan on August 22-23, 2008 where sixty innocent Afghan children and thirty adults were killed by coalition forces when US troops using faulty intelligence, bombed an inhabited compound in Herat province, Afghanistan mistakenly believing it was a Taliban stronghold. The story left me angry as should we all be at this tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Yet unfortunately we hear little in our press about this event and even less concerning the suggestion that it was caused by lax and careless battleground policies used by our forces as they target potential enemies.
On September 15, 2008, Newsday (War Update, September 15, 2008) reported, that the US military, after weeks of denial, finally agreed that a raid led by American forces had indeed killed 90 Afghan civilians, two-thirds of whom were children. The August 21-22 raid (See AP report, August 23, 2008) led by American Special Forces was first described as a successful attack on a "Taliban gathering" in which US-led forces killed "thirty militants" in the Shindad district of Herat province in Afghanistan. The initial report indicated that "after taking fire from the compound, coalition forces (justifiably and in self-defense) called in aerial bombardment which leveled the village" and according Lt. Nathan Perry, a US spokesperson, "thirty militants were killed and five were detained". In addition, a large quantity of weapons and ammunition were recovered. Furthermore, a US military spokeswoman, Lt Col. Rumi Neilsen-Green confirmed "a thorough assessment was done and that the coalition confirmed that it killed 30 militants including a Taliban leader Mulla Sidiq (or Mullah Siddiq) the supposed target of the attack.
Over the course of several days, additional information became available which varied with the initial official report. Furthermore, Afghan officials initiated their own inquiry when angry villagers demonstrated against coalition forces. During this period, US spokespeople continued to strongly defend their original characterization of events, until the Afghan government and a UN field-team produced actual photographics taken at the site. The US finally responded, by sending a one-star general to investigate.
The results of the investigations cause an unbiased reader to question many of the statements of the original report. In fact the new evidence clearly indicates no Taliban were killed or captured. Coalition forces were not fired on first. No "thorough" assessment of civilians killed was attempted. The initial attack by coalition forces was not a ground attack, but an aerial bombardment. The mysterious Mullah Siddiq was not present, captured or killed. Even more troubling was the revelation by Humayun Hamidzada, a spokesperson of Afghan President Karzai, that the victims were all the employees and their families of a British security firm! The terrible truth is we targeted and killed our own allies and their wives and children!
Furthermore, Hamidzada also revealed the finding that "false information" was provided to US forces which initiated the attack. The malfeasant informers were subsequently arrested by the Afghans and held in 'protective custody' by the Americans, they were revealed to be members of "a neighboring tribe', one of whom was actually identified by name as Nader Tawakil. The "evidence" of Taliban presence, in the form of recovered weapons, ammunition and particularly the maps of near-by allied bases were then not Taliban materials, but were attributable to the fact that the victims were employees of a British security firm.
Though the fact that the US led forces relied on faulty intelligence, if true, goes some way to explain the cause of the tragic event, but it also raises serious questions about our conduct on the battlefield. The investigation reveals that the attack was probably initiated as an aerial bombardment by US-led forces and only afterward, when the dust had settled, did US and allied forces enter the destroyed compound. The leveling and collapse of the flimsy mud-brick buildings would well-explain why only one-third of the victims (about thirty) were found by coalition troops. The reason: it is very likely that the women and children may have huddled in some interior area after the first wave of bombs fell and were thus more likely to have been buried in the rubble where their bodies remained unobserved and uncounted at first. The arms, ammo, maps and other paraphernalia, belongings of an allied security force, could easily be confused by soldiers unlettered and unsophisticated in the local culture and counted as evidence supportive of a "hit" on a Taliban meeting.
The US military dependence on aerial bombardment and questionable and unreliable informants to launch deadly force against targets where civilians are likely to be killed is patently unjustifiable. If this is our policy, a review is urgently needed. The US has regularly castigated others nations for using similar battleground tactics and we have at times characterized such behavior as 'war crimes'. Furthermore, these policies go counter to our stated policy aims of winning over the locals to our side (winning hearts and minds) and plays directly into the hands of the Taliban insurgency.
Addendum (Posted October 8, 2008) See NYT report: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08inquiry.html
Imagine these headlines! "Nearly One Hundred Dead In Mistaken Bombing." Imagine three classrooms of young American children and a group of teachers were killed when their school was flattened by a mis-directed bomb. It is frightening to contemplate. Yet such a tragic event did occur in Afghanistan on August 22-23, 2008 where sixty innocent Afghan children and thirty adults were killed by coalition forces when US troops using faulty intelligence, bombed an inhabited compound in Herat province, Afghanistan mistakenly believing it was a Taliban stronghold. The story left me angry as should we all be at this tragic and unnecessary loss of life. Yet unfortunately we hear little in our press about this event and even less concerning the suggestion that it was caused by lax and careless battleground policies used by our forces as they target potential enemies.
On September 15, 2008, Newsday (War Update, September 15, 2008) reported, that the US military, after weeks of denial, finally agreed that a raid led by American forces had indeed killed 90 Afghan civilians, two-thirds of whom were children. The August 21-22 raid (See AP report, August 23, 2008) led by American Special Forces was first described as a successful attack on a "Taliban gathering" in which US-led forces killed "thirty militants" in the Shindad district of Herat province in Afghanistan. The initial report indicated that "after taking fire from the compound, coalition forces (justifiably and in self-defense) called in aerial bombardment which leveled the village" and according Lt. Nathan Perry, a US spokesperson, "thirty militants were killed and five were detained". In addition, a large quantity of weapons and ammunition were recovered. Furthermore, a US military spokeswoman, Lt Col. Rumi Neilsen-Green confirmed "a thorough assessment was done and that the coalition confirmed that it killed 30 militants including a Taliban leader Mulla Sidiq (or Mullah Siddiq) the supposed target of the attack.
Over the course of several days, additional information became available which varied with the initial official report. Furthermore, Afghan officials initiated their own inquiry when angry villagers demonstrated against coalition forces. During this period, US spokespeople continued to strongly defend their original characterization of events, until the Afghan government and a UN field-team produced actual photographics taken at the site. The US finally responded, by sending a one-star general to investigate.
The results of the investigations cause an unbiased reader to question many of the statements of the original report. In fact the new evidence clearly indicates no Taliban were killed or captured. Coalition forces were not fired on first. No "thorough" assessment of civilians killed was attempted. The initial attack by coalition forces was not a ground attack, but an aerial bombardment. The mysterious Mullah Siddiq was not present, captured or killed. Even more troubling was the revelation by Humayun Hamidzada, a spokesperson of Afghan President Karzai, that the victims were all the employees and their families of a British security firm! The terrible truth is we targeted and killed our own allies and their wives and children!
Furthermore, Hamidzada also revealed the finding that "false information" was provided to US forces which initiated the attack. The malfeasant informers were subsequently arrested by the Afghans and held in 'protective custody' by the Americans, they were revealed to be members of "a neighboring tribe', one of whom was actually identified by name as Nader Tawakil. The "evidence" of Taliban presence, in the form of recovered weapons, ammunition and particularly the maps of near-by allied bases were then not Taliban materials, but were attributable to the fact that the victims were employees of a British security firm.
Though the fact that the US led forces relied on faulty intelligence, if true, goes some way to explain the cause of the tragic event, but it also raises serious questions about our conduct on the battlefield. The investigation reveals that the attack was probably initiated as an aerial bombardment by US-led forces and only afterward, when the dust had settled, did US and allied forces enter the destroyed compound. The leveling and collapse of the flimsy mud-brick buildings would well-explain why only one-third of the victims (about thirty) were found by coalition troops. The reason: it is very likely that the women and children may have huddled in some interior area after the first wave of bombs fell and were thus more likely to have been buried in the rubble where their bodies remained unobserved and uncounted at first. The arms, ammo, maps and other paraphernalia, belongings of an allied security force, could easily be confused by soldiers unlettered and unsophisticated in the local culture and counted as evidence supportive of a "hit" on a Taliban meeting.
The US military dependence on aerial bombardment and questionable and unreliable informants to launch deadly force against targets where civilians are likely to be killed is patently unjustifiable. If this is our policy, a review is urgently needed. The US has regularly castigated others nations for using similar battleground tactics and we have at times characterized such behavior as 'war crimes'. Furthermore, these policies go counter to our stated policy aims of winning over the locals to our side (winning hearts and minds) and plays directly into the hands of the Taliban insurgency.
Addendum (Posted October 8, 2008) See NYT report: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08inquiry.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)