Radiation Found in U.S. Milk

Washington (CNN) -- There is no health risk from consuming milk with extremely low levels of radiation, like those found in Washington state and California, experts said Thursday, echoing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"When we have a disaster like we've had with a nuclear power plant in Japan, we're probably going to find things that are truly not a public health risk, but I think it's very difficult for the public to assimilate this information and understand the risks," said Dr. Wally Curran, a radiation oncologist and head of Emory University's Winship Cancer Center.

The federal agency said Wednesday it was increasing its nationwide monitoring of radiation in milk, precipitation, drinking water, and other outlets. It already tracks radiation in those potential exposure routes through an existing network of stations across the country.

Results from screening samples of milk taken in the past week in Spokane, Washington, and in San Luis Obispo County, California, detected radioactive iodine, or iodine-131, at a level 5,000 times lower than the limit set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, officials said.

At that level, a person would have to drink 1,000 liters of milk to receive the same amount of radiation as a chest X-ray, said Dr. James Cox, radiation oncologist at Houston's MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The I-131 isotope has a very short half-life of about eight days, the EPA said, so the level detected in milk and milk products is expected to drop relatively quickly.

"The good news about iodine is, it has a short half-life," said Curran. "It doesn't dwell in any biologic system, be it an adult, a child, a cow, for any significant period of time, and at those levels there's no evidence that there's any medical significance."

Radiation gets into the milk because it falls on grass eaten by cows. The milk does not itself absorb radiation.

FDA senior scientist Patricia Hansen also said the findings are "minuscule" compared to what people experience every day.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said tests confirmed the milk is safe to drink.

"This morning I spoke with the chief advisers for both the EPA and the FDA and they confirmed that these levels are minuscule and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children," Gregoire said in a statement.

"According to them, a pint of milk at these levels would expose an individual to less radiation than would a five-hour airplane flight."

Similarly, the California Department of Public Health reassured residents that the levels do not pose a threat.

"When radioactive material is spread through the atmosphere, it drops to the ground and gets in the environment. When cows consume grass, hay, feed, and water, radioactivity will be processed and become part of the milk we drink. However, the amounts are so small they pose no threat to public health," the department said.

At least 15 states have reported radioisotopes from Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in air or water or both. No states have recommended that residents take potassium iodide, a salt that protects the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine.

Iodine-131 has been found in Eastern states from Florida to Massachusetts as well as in Western states like Oregon, Colorado, and California, according to sensors and officials in those states.

None of the levels poses a risk to public health, they said.

At high levels, the isotope focuses on and accumulates in a person's thyroid gland, Curran said. A medical test for thyroid health involves a person ingesting iodine-131 and undergoing a nuclear scan to examine the gland.

The Japanese plant has been leaking radiation since it was damaged in a tsunami that followed a massive earthquake March 11.

162-0

It can happen. It's OUR time!!!
Antlers and claws to all you Rangers fans out there!!!!

HAPPY OPENING DAY!!!!

Stephen Strasburg isn’t the only pitcher who will be missing from the mound when the Washington Nationals host the Atlanta Braves this afternoon to open the 2011 Major League Baseball season. President Barack Obama won’t be on hand to throw out the ceremonial first pitch either.

Like Strasburg, the 22-year-old phenom who underwent Tommy John surgery in September to repair ligament damage in his right elbow, Obama may be letting his wounds heal. The president got a PR pummeling earlier this month for taking time away from world affairs to appear on ESPN to reveal his March Madness basketball picks.

Or perhaps the president is still sensitive after the national chortling he set off when he appeared in his high-waisted “dad jeans” at an earlier All-Star Game — although he seemed to make up for that fashion flub at last year’s home opener when he sported khaki trousers, a red Nats jacket and a Chicago White Sox cap as he launched a high toss in the direction of Ryan Zimmerman.

Another possibility is that Obama’s absence could be calculated to avoid a possible boo beatdown from fans unhappy with … well, pick your gripe. It wouldn’t be the first time a baseball crowd heckled a president: As the Great Depression and Prohibition dragged on in the early ‘30s, Herbert Hoover was verbally roughed up at a World Series game in Philadelphia by a crowd that chanted “We want beer!”

Whatever the reason for Obama’s absence, he is departing from a largely unbroken, century-old tradition that began with William Howard Taft on opening day 1910 when the hometown Senators took on the Philadelphia Athletics. (The Senators won, 3-0, as Walter Johnson fired a one-hitter.) For you trivia fans, the first president to take the show on the road was Richard Nixon, who launched the 1973 season from Anaheim Stadium, home of the California Angels. (They won, too, 3-2.)

This isn’t Obama’s first whiff. He skipped out on the 2009 opener as well, sending Joe Biden to Baltimore in his place. In characteristic fashion, Biden trotted to and from the mound like a JV player getting his big break.

In Obama’s (and Biden’s) place this year, the Nationals will have five flag officers — one from each branch of the U.S. military — throw the ceremonial first pitches. It’s safe to say no one will boo them.

H.R. 1

The House is expected to pass their newly-touted “Government Shutdown Prevention Act” - essentially a repackaging of H.R.1, the $61-billion in spending cuts already passed by the House - this week. The new bill would also add a provision that would prevent members of Congress from being paid during a federal shutdown, a proposal originally made and passed by Senate Democrats.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said passing this new version of the bill "will say to the American people [that] the Senate's got to act prior to the expiration of the [current continuing resolution.] If it does not act, H.R. 1 becomes the law of the land ... it reiterates, again, the deadline."

(During the announcement of the new/old bill, the circling press questioned how this could become "law of the land" if the Senate already rejected H.R.1 and is sure to do so again. Cantor's office put out a statement that read in part, "We are hopeful that this proposal will urge the Senate to act instead of play politics with a shutdown. Funding the government at the levels passed by House Republicans might not be what Senator Reid wants, but surely even he would agree that it's a better alternative than shutting down the government.")

Symbolic votes aside, the GOP’s exasperation with the Democratically-controlled Senate's lack of momentum appears to be at a boiling point with just over a week left to cut a deal.

With frustration mounting at the Senate’s failure to pass a long-term federal budget bill, House Republicans are planning another symbolic vote this week in the attempt to force the upper chamber to propose a viable plan to keep the government open beyond an April 8th funding deadline.

“Pass the damn thing, alright?” House Speaker John Boehner urged Senate leaders in a press conference Wednesday. “And send it over here and let's have real negotiations.”

Boehner accused President Barack Obama, who has largely deferred to Congress in the budget negotiations, of abdicating a leadership role in the erratic budget talks.

Asked if he had an idea of what kind of bill the president would agree to sign, Boehner said, "No. No way. I have no clue."

Cantor added, "The President is M.I.A. on this issue."

Off camera, the Boehner's office has confirmed that GOP leaders and the White House have been in discussions but hs not provided any concrete numerical cuts that are being discussed or the status of the controversial policy riders that are contained in H.R. 1.

****BONUS POINTS****
To the first person that can find what's wrong with H.R. 1

Obama Approval Rating at All Time Low...Again

President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did.

The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent – a record low – in the poll released Wednesday. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent.

The downward shift may in part be the result of dissatisfaction over U.S involvement in Libya, with 47 percent of those surveyed saying they oppose it. By a margin of 58 percent to 29 percent, registered voters said that Obama has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission.

The poll as conducted March 22-28 and surveyed 2,069 registered voters. The error margin is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.

Obama Approves C.I.A. Covert Operation in Lybia

NEAR BREGA/BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Rebels massed for a counter-attack against Muammar Gaddafi's forces in eastern Libya on Thursday, both encouraged by and wary of news of covert U.S. support and his foreign minister's defection.

"We are beginning to see the Gaddafi regime crumble," rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani said in the eastern town of Benghazi, while stopping short of welcoming fugitive foreign minister Moussa Koussa, a former spy chief, into the rebel fold.

Analysts agreed the defection of Koussa, who flew to London on Wednesday, was a blow to Gaddafi whose forces have gained ground in recent days. It did not, however, reduce the risk of greater government violence.

Despite almost two weeks of Western air strikes, Gaddafi's troops have used superior arms and tactics to push back rebels trying to edge westward along the coast from their eastern stronghold of Benghazi toward the capital Tripoli.

News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of wider support for the rebels.

Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. Public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement.

The rebels, whose main call is for weapons -- not authorized yet by Washington because of a U.N. arms embargo which NATO says it is enforcing -- said they knew nothing about Western troops in Libya and that too big a foreign role could be damaging.

"It would undermine our credibility," Gheriani said.

U.N. RESOLUTION

Obama's order is likely to further alarm countries already concerned that air strikes on infrastructure and ground troops by the United States, Britain and France go beyond a U.N. resolution with the expressed aim only of protecting civilians.

"I can't speak to any CIA activities but I will tell you that the president has been quite clear that in terms of the United States military there will be no boots on the ground," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

The top Vatican official in the Libyan capital cited witnesses on Thursday saying at least 40 civilians had been killed in Western air strikes on Tripoli.

NATO said it was investigating but had no confirmation of the report. Libya's state news agency, citing military sources, said Western air strikes had hit a civilian area in the capital overnight, but did not mention casualties.

Rebels said Gaddafi loyalists had killed 38 civilians over the past two days alone in Misrata, the only town in western Libya still under rebel control. "Massacres are taking place in Misrata," a rebel spokesman called Sami said by telephone.

Britain said it was focusing air strikes around Misrata, which has been under siege from government forces for weeks. Rebels say snipers and tank fire have killed dozens of people.

About 1,000 people are believed to have been killed in clashes between supporters and opponents of Gaddafi since the uprising against his 41-year-old rule began on February 17, the British government said.

The rag-tag forces fighting Gaddafi say they desperately need more arms and ammunition to supplement supplies grabbed from government depots. The United States, France and Britain have raised the possibility, but say no decision has been taken.

NATO, which took over formal command of the air campaign on Thursday, said it would enforce a U.N. arms embargo on all sides: "We are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm the people," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Stockholm.

More Western military help may strengthen the rebels on the battlefield but at the price of a propaganda boost for Gaddafi, quick to portray his foes as lackeys of the West.

Rebels driven back by a hail of rocket fire to a spot outside the eastern oil town of Brega, where there were clashes at dawn, were keen to stress they would fight on with or without Western help, despite their military setback this week.

"God willing there will be more air strikes today, but we will advance no matter what," said Muneim Mustafa, a fighter with an AK-47 rifle slung over his shoulder.

DEFECTION

They were also wary of any attempt by Koussa to negotiate immunity, saying Gaddafi and his entourage must be held accountable: "We want to see them brought to justice," senior rebel national council official Abdel Hameed Ghoga told Reuters.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Koussa was not being offered immunity but encouraged others around Gaddafi to follow suit. "Gaddafi must be asking himself who will be the next to abandon him," he told a news conference.

That question was answered soon afterwards when former Libyan foreign minister Ali Abdussalam Treki -- appointed by Gaddafi to replace his U.N. ambassador, who defected in February -- refused to take up the job.

Treki condemned the "spilling of blood," his nephew said in a statement send to Reuters.

While British officials hope Koussa will provide military and diplomatic intelligence, Scottish officials and campaigners want him to shed light on the 1988 Pan Am airliner bombing over Lockerbie in Scotland, which killed 259 people, mostly Americans, on the plane and 11 on the ground.

Pamela Dix, whose brother was among those killed said if Libya was responsible for Lockerbie then Koussa was too, adding: "he should not be a free man in this country.

Analysts agree Koussa's defection is significant but note Gaddafi's inner circle consists of family members who may resort to more violence to stay in power.

A government spokesman said Gaddafi and all his sons would stay "until the end."

Libya's top oil official said on Thursday he remained in Tripoli and the country was continuing to produce some oil, although output was much reduced. Shipping industry sources say oil shipments from Libya are at a standstill.

Gates said Gaddafi's removal was "not part of the military mission" by coalition forces and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Western military action would not oust him.

"It is not through actions of war that we can make Gaddafi leave, but rather through strong international pressure to encourage defections by people close to him," Frattini said.

Obama Administration Curtails Miranda on Terror Suspects

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

The Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to "exceptional cases" where investigators "conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat." Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the memo ensures that "law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents." He said "the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks—which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots—creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases."

Attorney General Eric Holder suggested changing the guidelines last year after dust-ups over Miranda's use in two major domestic-terror arrests. The suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 bombing, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was questioned by FBI agents for less than an hour before being read his rights. Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad was questioned for three hours.

In both cases, the administration said suspects provided valuable information to the FBI despite being advised of their rights. But the decision nonetheless provoked criticism from Republicans and some Democrats who said an opportunity to gain time-sensitive intelligence was lost.

The new guidelines could blunt criticism from Republicans, many of whom have pushed for terror suspects to be sent to military detention, where they argue that rigid Miranda restrictions don't apply. But many liberals will likely oppose the move, as might some conservatives who believe the administration doesn't have legal authority to rein in such rights.

The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.

"I don't think the administration can accomplish what I think needs to be done by policy guidance alone," said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "It may not withstand the scrutiny of the courts in the absence of legislation."

New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder's call to change Miranda. At a hearing last year, Mr. King said, "It's important that we ensure that the reforms do go forward and that at the very least the attorney general consults with everyone in the intelligence community before any Miranda warning is given."

The administration suggested legislation last year to alter Miranda but was rebuffed by Congress, administration officials said. Its proposals faltered due to objections from Democrats, who had no appetite for tinkering with Supreme Court precedent, and Republicans who aired civil-liberties concerns or rejected civilian custody for terror suspects.

The Miranda protocols have been controversial since the high court formalized a practice that was already in use by the FBI, albeit not uniformly. Conservatives have long argued that the warning impedes law enforcement's ability to protect the public.

President Barack Obama has grappled with a web of terrorism policies cobbled together since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before becoming president, Mr. Obama had criticized the Bush administration for going outside traditional criminal procedures to deal with terror suspects, and for bypassing Congress in making rules to handle detainees after 9/11. He has since embraced many of the same policies while devising additional ones—to the disappointment of civil-liberties groups that championed his election. In recent weeks, the administration formalized procedures for indefinitely detaining some suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allowing for periodic reviews of those deemed too dangerous to set free.

The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, chose to bypass the Miranda issue altogether as it crafted a military-detention system that fell outside the rules that govern civilians. Under Mr. Bush, the government used Miranda in multiple terror cases. But Mr. Bush also ordered the detention of two people in a military brig as "enemy combatants." The government eventually moved both suspects—Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, and Ali al-Marri, a Qatari man—into the federal criminal-justice system after facing legal challenges. In other cases, it processed suspects through the civilian system.

An increase in the number of domestic-terror cases in recent years has made the issue more pressing.

The Miranda change leaves other key procedures in place, notably federal rules for speedy presentation of suspects before a magistrate, normally within 24 hours. Legal experts say those restrictions are bigger obstacles than Miranda to intelligence gathering. The FBI memo doesn't make clear whether investigators seeking exemptions would have to provide a Miranda warning at the time of such a hearing.

Also unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn't be admissible in court, the memo says.