Google+

New Use for Ethanol – Kill Cancer

Ethanol - good to fuel your car, and now potentially kill tumors
Ethanol – good to fuel your car, and now potentially kill tumors(Credit: erierika/Depositphotos)

Scientists have known for some time that ethanol can kill cancer cells, but several limitations held it back from becoming a broadly used treatment. A team at Duke University has recently developed a new type of ethanol solution that can be injected directly into a variety of tumors to potentially offer a new, safe, and cheap form of cancer treatment. read more

A World Turning Against Biofuels

from CFACT.org:

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suddenly reversed its support for biofuels. The panel now admits growing crops for fuel “poses risks to ecosystems and biodiversity.”

ethanolmakingScientists—and many Green activists—turned against ethanol and biodiesel years ago because it took too much land. However, the United States and EU governments have kept their farmer subsidies. “Environmentalism” had suddenly become political payoff.

The key science for the turnaround was supplied in 2008 by Princeton’s Tim Searchinger in Science (“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increased Greenhouse Gases Through Land Use Change,” Science 313:1238–1240). The research revealed that plowing up more grassland for renewable energy crops frees massive amounts of soil carbon to gas off into the air. When rainforests are cut in Brazil to grow sugar for ethanol or in Indonesia where peat-lands are drained to grow palm oil for EU biodiesel, the gas-off of soil carbon is far greater. That means tripling our food costs and paying higher costs for auto fuel has achieved no real reduction in greenhouse emission. read more

Pleas Fall on Deaf EPA Ears

The EPA Rejects Governors’ Plea Over Ethanol

The governors of seven drought afflicted states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency, asking for a suspension of rules requiring refiners to blend biofuel — mostly ethanol — into the nation’s gasoline supply.

The governors of Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, drought-afflicted statesNorth Carolina, Maryland, New Mexico, and Delaware contended that the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program requiring the use of biofuel, combined with the worst drought in 40 years, had pushed corn prices to record highs and harmed the states’ meat and dairy producers, who use corn as an animal feed.

On Friday, Nov. 16, the Obama administration’s EPA turned down the petition.

This year about 4.7 billion bushels, or 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop, will be used for ethanol production, and ethanol production is set to increase next year.

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to waive the RFS targets for ethanol production for one year if the requirements would “severely harm” the economy of a state or the nation as a whole, which the governors claimed they do.food-prices-rise

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe’s petition to the EPA stated that “virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe, extreme, or exceptional drought conditions,” and rising corn prices are “having a severe economic impact” on the state’s livestock producers.

“While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn,” the fuel standards exacerbated the problem — the policy boosted corn prices 193 percent since 2005.

He also asserted that livestock producers hit hard by rising corn prices “represent nearly half” of the state’s farm sales.

“However, the EPA stacked the decks against petitioners, establishing a burden of proof that was virtually impossibleethanol to meet,” according to Mario Lewis, a senior fellow in energy and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In an article on National Review Online, Lewis explained that the EPA in essence required the petitioners to show that the biofuel requirement was entirely responsible for the harm and not merely a contributing factor, and that waiving the requirement would “remedy” the hardship facing livestock producers.

“These criteria are ridiculous,” Lewis declared.

“The Clean Air Act does not require the EPA to don analytical blinkers and ignore other factors that, in combination with the RFS, cause severe harm, nor does it say that any waiver granted must be a silver bullet.”ethanol scam

But he adds: “This cloud may yet have a silver lining. Jackson’s rejection of the waiver petitions exposes the RFS program as an arbitrary, inflexible system that provides corporate welfare to corn farmers at the expense of livestock producers, consumers, and hungry people in developing countries.”

Administrator Jackson was designated for the post by President-elect Obama in December 2008, and she was confirmed by the Senate in January 2009.

Lewis observes: “The EPA’s decision may very well build support for RFS reform — or repeal.”

Attribution: Drudge Report