Go Nuclear or Go Native

SUBHEAD: Being indigenous isn't really so bad, considering the alternative. It's just means being in a community in a place in the world.

By Juan Wilson on 20 OCtober 2014 for Island Breath -

Image above: Ceremony of the lighting of the Indigenous Sacred Fire in Cuiaba November 8, 2013. Forty-eight Brazilian tribes presented their cultural rituals and competed in traditional sports such as archery, running with logs and canoeing during the XII Games of Indigenous People.
From (http://totallycoolpix.com/2013/11/the-xii-games-of-indigenous-people/).

There are several movers and shakers in the world that I have had respect for who have come to realize the desperate situation that modern mankind faces. This group senses that Peak Energy and Climate Change (due to the burning of the afore mentioned energy) are conspiring to put Modern Civilization off the road and in the ditch.

As mentioned before on this blog the group includes:
  • James Hansen -  NASA atmospheric physicist; climatologist; Climate Change activist.
  • James Lovelock - proponent of the Gaia Hypotheses; author "The Vanishing Face of Gaia".
  • Steven Hawking - cosmologist of Black Holes; author of "A Brief History of Time".
  • Stewart Brand - founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and The Long Now Foundation.
  • Bill Gates - software engineer, founder of Microsoft, philanthropist, author of "The Road Ahead".
These guys perceive, quite rightly, that there aren't many ways to stay on the road and keep the wheels turning. The universities, the industries, the technology hubs, medical research facilities, the information/entertainment networks all require a level of refinement and continuous clean energy that does not appear possible with our current means.
    This group has concluded that there is no way forward but a crash course of building nuclear power plants to support the power grid and information systems and organizations that sustain Modern Civilization throughout the world. This would require the construction of several hundred nuclear power plants to replace virtually all the oil, coal and natural gas power generating stations in the world.

    There is plenty of Main Stream Media techno-porn about "New" and "Improved" nuclear power technology:

    Popular Science: Compact Fusion Reactor  10/17/14
    As they look to the sun Lockheed is working to develop a source of infinite energy... Suuuure.

    The Telegaph: Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors 9/24/14
    A revolution in nuclear power could slash costs of energy below cost of coal... Suuuure.

    Forbes Magazine: Small Modular Reactors  5/13/14
    Safe as a nuclear sub. These units be installed anywhere to supply needed power... Suuuure.

    The facts are that the infrastructure to support a nuclear powered future does not exist and the resources to create and sustain that infrastructure do not exist.

    As one example: We simply will not be able to repair and maintain the US Interstate Highway System necessary to provide the support for building, operating, and decommissioning of those nuclear power plants we want to build.

    Just need for concrete, steel, and paving that is required for the bridges, over/under passes, culverts and roadways is monumental. As it is, our highway systems are crumbling and we do not seem to have the ability to keep up with its decay. Just imagine the lack of highway repair if we get to the point that interstate trucking is an unprofitable undertaking due to the cost of diesel fuel.

    Although they won't yet admit it, Japan has demonstrated that nuclear power is a dead-end. The continuing massive release of radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean and the contamination of a large section of the middle third of Honshu Island (including greater Tokyo) is a permanent testament to the folly of nuclear power.

    Japan's economy has been destroyed. The fact is hat they cannot afford to keep the Toyota, Nissan, Hitachi, and Mistubishi industries running on oil and they do not dare restart their 50 nuclear plants. This will be much clearer when the thyroid cancers emerge and other debilitating consequences of the Fukushima nuclear plant failure can no longer be hidden.


    However, there is an alternative to nuclear already in hand. As early as late 2011 James Howard Kunsler precicted (http://www.kunstler.com/Mags_Forecast2012.php):
    Turning to Japan....That sore beset kingdom is suffering all the blowback of modern times at once: the Godzilla syndrome up in Fukushima; a demographic collapse; an imminent bond crisis; the collapse of export market partners; and a long, agonizing death spiral of its banks. I stick by a prediction I tendered back in March, after the deadly tsunami: Japan will decisively opt for a return to pre-industrial civilization. Why not? The rest of the world will be dragged kicking and screaming to the same place. Let Japan get there first and enjoy the advantage of the early adapter - back to an economy of local, hand-made stuff, rigid social hierarchy, folkloric hijinks in whispering bamboo groves, silk robes, and frequent time outs for the tea ceremony.
    I wholeheartedly agree with Kunstler on this point and see that there is really no alternative to climbing down off our high horse and dealing with reality.

    It seems the cost of keeping Western Civilization running is too expensive for the planet Earth to handle. As a result we will soon be forced to close that franchise or face the consequences - which likely will include several ramifications that could be called Extinction Level Events (ELE). Those would include among other things:
      • Worldwide economic collapse due loss of non-renewable resources - Peak Everything.
      • Massive desertification and/or soil loss in food producing areas of the world; 
      • Wars fought with WMDs for diminishing resources - especially water, food and fuel.
      • Multiple breaches of nuclear containment facilities due to industrialization's failures;
      • Extinguishing of world's coastal urban centers due to global warming ocean level rise;
      • Loss of knowledge and technological skill resulting from failure of information systems.
      What will be needed as a base to work from is being able to conduct our lives with the energy and renewable resources immediately around us. That means sun, water, animals, plants and soil where we live.

      For some places and peoples that may mean being hunter/gatherers with no fixed settlements; for others that may mean small rural gardening communities. The point is that the hunters and gardeners will be the rule not the exception. We will be indigenous, finally again.

      This does not mean we will have no education or culture. But the subject matter and art forms however will be your own responsibility.

      There will be repositories of knowledge - likely in the country monastery or manor library. There may even be villages with a school and the occasional town with a university, but they will be the exception not the rule.

      Being indigenous isn't really so bad, considering the alternative. It's just means being in a community in a place in the world... and not somewhere else. It also means embracing that arrangement.

      Forget the airports, the strip malls, the office cubicle and the cul-de-sac. You won't have to go there anymore. In fact you won't be able to. But you will have to get together to make dinner then make some music.

      Go Nuclear or Go Native. There won't be much in between.


      Two Maui streams reach the sea

      SUBHEAD: The flow returns to two streams on Maui that have been diverted for more than 150 years.

      By Isaac Moriwake on 13 October 2014 for Earth Justice -

      Image above: A Maui resident enjoys the flow of ʻĪao Stream for the first time in his life. From original article.

      Today, flow will return to two streams on Maui that have been diverted for more than 150 years.

      This restoration of Wailuku River (also known as ʻĪao Stream) and Waikapū Stream is a result of an ongoing Earthjustice campaign on behalf of Maui community groups Hui o Nā Wai ʻEhā and Maui Tomorrow Foundation to restore instream flows to Nā Wai ʻEhā—“The Four Great Waters” of Waiheʻe, Waiehu, Wailuku, and Waikapū.

      It was here in Wailuku and Waikapū that the first sugar plantations on Maui began draining the streams more than 150 years ago. In a sense, today’s restoration of flow brings us full circle to where the private diversions of stream flows and deprivation of Native Hawaiian communities and stream, wetland, and nearshore ecosystems began.

      Wailuku River, the second largest river on Maui (Waiheʻe River is the largest) and one of the ten largest in the state, flows through ʻĪao Valley and the Wailuku region, a cultural and historical epicenter of the island. Waikapū Stream flows through the neighboring Waikapū region and is the primary freshwater source for the Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge and Māʻalaea Bay.

      We began this legal action over 10 years ago, in June 2004. Together with our long-time ally, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we took the case all the way to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, which ruled in our favor in August 2012.

      Under a settlement approved by the state Commission on Water Resources Management in April 2014, the two companies diverting these waters, Wailuku Water Company and Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar, agreed to restore up to 10 million gallons per day (mgd) to Wailuku River and 2.9 mgd to Waikapū Stream. The settlement also maintained the restoration of 10 mgd and 2.5 mgd to Waiheʻe River and Waiehu Stream, respectively, which the Commission initially ordered in 2010.

      Our work to rectify 150 years of injustice is far from over. In addition to releasing water, the diverters still must modify their diversion structures to ensure passage of native stream life. We are also engaged in ongoing proceedings to regulate uses of Nā Wai ʻEhā stream water via permitting, which will further increase accountability over stream diversions.

      Nonetheless, today we can take a moment to celebrate this hard-won and long-awaited victory. All four waters of Nā Wai ʻEhā are now flowing for the first time since the 19th century.

      Over years of dedicated effort, many people helped to make this moment a reality. This moment is a tribute to them and their commitment and belief in justice, which turned the tide of history for Maui’s Four Great Waters.

      Video above: After 150 Years - Water Returns to Maui Streams. From (http://youtu.be/tz9YQ0bRg1o).


      EPA approves 2-4-D for GMOs

      SUBHEAD: Dow Chemical's new line of GMO seeds will drastically increase the use of 2,4-D, a toxic pesticide.

      By Linda Wells on 16 October 2014 for Earth Island -

      Image above: Dow Agro-Science main facility entrance lies between Waimea and Hanapepe along the Kaumualii Highway on Kauai, Hawaii. This is where the 2-4-D will be tested on humans residents; particularly those (many of whom are employees) living in nearby Makaweli and Kaumakani. Photo by Ian Umeda. From (http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2012/02/26/dow-and-monsanto-set-to-team-up-to-reintroduce-agent-orange-pesticide-in-the-midwest/).

      It's official. Yesterday, the US Environmental Protection Agency approved Dow AgroSciences’ new pesticide product Enlist Duo, a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate. Given that the US Department of Agriculture has already cleared the way for Dow’s new genetically engineered corn and soybean crops, this pesticide and seed combination can now be sold commercially.

      The move is bound to drastically increase the use of 2,4-D, a harmful and volatile chemical linked to reproductive harms and cancer.

      This is a turning point, not just for grain production but also for food production in the US and across the world. The introduction of Enlist corn and soybeans, and the widespread adoption of this new seed line, will have pervasive impacts on farmer livelihoods, public health and control of our food system.

      This is a decision that our regulators should not have taken lightly. And yet, it seems they did. Both USDA and EPA set up an intentionally narrow scope for evaluating the potential harms posed by 2,4-D resistant crops – one that ignored the biggest problems and held up irrelevant factors as evidence of safety.

      As small farmers brace for the impact of pesticide drift that will hit their farms once the Enlist crops are introduced, it is time for us to look forward. It's time to demand a regulatory system that takes a rigorous approach to pesticides and genetically engineered crops, one that values small farmers as much as industrial agriculture – and public health as much as corporate profit.

      It's a set up
      Dow Chemical's Enlist seeds and pesticides passed this approval process with relative ease, despite extended public outcry from farmers, health professionals and communities across the country.
      Dow, and the other "Big 6" global pesticide corporations, would have us believe that this was a drawn-out, rigorous approval process that once again proves the safety and necessity of genetically engineered crops. The reality is that the whole process was a tricky sleight-of-hand: Enlist passed the test because the test itself was set up to be a cakewalk.

      From the beginning, opponents of 2,4-D-resistant crops have focused on three main objections:
      1. Enlist crops will mean a massive increase in the use of the toxic and volatile chemical 2,4-D. Neighboring farms, especially those that grow fruits and vegetables, will be put at risk for increased crop damage. Their livelihoods will be threatened, and fruit and vegetable production will become an even riskier venture for US farmers.
      2. Rural exposure to 2,4-D will also increase to unprecedented levels. 2,4-D is linked to cancer and reproductive harm, among other negative impacts. USDA itself predicts 2,4-D use in corn and soybean production to increase between 500 and 1,400 percent over the course of nine years.
      3. Dow is presenting Enlist as the answer to farmer's prayers about "superweeds," an economic must-have that outweighs any side effects. But the truth is that superweeds developed because of Monsanto's RoundUp Ready seed line, the current king of pesticide-resistant crops — and there's nothing to stop weeds from developing resistance to 2,4-D just as they have to glyphosate, RoundUp's active ingredient. USDA needs to invest in real solutions for weed management, not allow this false solution to exacerbate the problem.
      And of these major points, how many were accounted for in the approval process run by USDA and EPA? Not a single one.

      Agency hot potato
      What happened? Well, to Administrators Tom Vilsack (USDA) and Gina McCarthy (EPA), when it comes to evaluating the safety of new GE crops, apparently the buck stops  somewhere else. Each agency accepted the narrowest possible interpretation of its responsibilities to safeguard our fields and families.

      USDA essentially decided to only look at the damage that GE seeds themselves would cause, ignoring the threat of pesticide drift entirely — and passing the onus of evaluating pesticide-related issues to EPA.

      Meanwhile, EPA did a rather shoddy job of addressing the health impacts of this dramatic increase in 2,4-D use. McCarthy didn't consider tthe cumulative damage that will result from repeated 2,4-D exposures, and instead insisted that 2,4-D health impacts in general had already been evaluated by a previous process. As for crop damage from pesticides, well, crop damage is USDA's domain. So EPA didn't consider that issue at all.

      And neither Vilsack nor McCarthy tackled the one of the biggest questions: Why would we put a product on the market that's going to make superweeds even more out of control? As stated in a recent LA Times editorial:
      “No agency looks at the bigger policy question of whether the nation is embarking on a potentially dangerous path toward creating ever-more resistant weeds and spraying them and crops with larger and larger doses of stronger herbicides. That question should be answered before the country escalates the war out in the fields.”
      Hear, hear!

      Do better.
      It's time to intercept this game of agency hot-potato with clearly defined directives for protecting farmers and rural families. PAN is joining allies in demanding that USDA and EPA produce a new, more robust process for the approval of new GE crops and pesticides – one that considers the full implications of these new products before they hit the market, from pesticide drift to cumulative impacts.

      No distractions, no loopholes. Let's take our food and farming system seriously, and make decisions based on all of the facts.

      Take action
       Join PAN and partners in calling on President Obama to step in and keep 2,4-D crops from hitting the market. He has the authority to direct USDA and EPA to take a closer look at on-the-ground impacts and better protect community health and farmer livelihoods.


      DOI and OHA End Run

      SOURCE: Gypsie Me ( gypsieme@hotmail.com)
      SUBHEAD: Obama administration will use an executive policy statement to recognizing the Native Hawaiian roll, or instruct the DOI to do so.

      By Ehu Kekahu Cardwell on 17 Friday 2014 for Free Hawaii -

      Image above: Modified image with no credit "We are not Indians. No thanks Kana'iolowalu". 

      Highly reliable sources have informed us that the US Department of Interior has arrived at their decision regarding new rule making and federal recognition of Hawaiians.

      Because of the overwhelming numbers of testifiers throughout Hawai`i as well as the US that stated they were against the DOI proposed plans, both in person at the hearings and online, the US Department of Interior itself has decided not to issue any new rules or re-recognition.

      However, because those few who would stand to benefit directly from such a move have lobbied the White House intensely, the Obama administration will instead either issue an executive policy statement (as was done in Alaska) federally recognizing the Native Hawaiian roll, or they will instruct the DOI to issue an administrative policy that the Obama administration will then support.

      Either of these actions are actually worse than any DOI rule making.

      This yet to be announced policy statement will empower OHA and the Roll Commission to form a governing entity that will be rubber stamped with no oversight or advance public input whatsoever.

      It is the “payoff” the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Council For Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA), the Sovereign Councils Of Hawaiian Homelands Assembly (SCHHA) and the Danners have been seeking for so long.

      It also explains two recent developments -

      First, the recent creation by OHA of itʻs “consortium,” of which the CNHA, the SCHHA and even the Association Of Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AOHCC) are said to become key controlling players.

      This consortium would be the entity that administers and runs the creation of this federally recognized Native Hawaiian tribe. They would also be able to tightly control who gets admitted as members.

      Second, the recent announcement postponing the Native Hawaiian convention and election of officers until sometime next year. This is to time the staging of the convention after the Obama administration publicly reveals its plans.

      Since the public announcement regarding the Obama administration policy statement is not planned for some time, now is the time to let the Obama administration know that you are opposed to this scheme.

      Contact the White House and DOI Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas Esther Kia`aina today and say NO! to their “proposed policy statement” or any US federal policy that would recognize the Native Hawaiian roll.

      Email the White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
      Or call the White House (202) 456-1111.

      Email DOI Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas Esther Kia`aina - esther_kiaaina@ios.doi.gov

      Let them know that after all the public testimony overwhelmingly against federal recognition you wonʻt stand for any end-run scheme that would in fact create a tribe to benefit a small group of kanaka maoli Americans.

      Video above: Ehu Kekahu Cardwell presents possible DOI policy on native Hawaiians. From (http://youtu.be/E32EHxH7WhY).


      The Tao of the Apocalypse

      SUBHEAD:  It is the story of the Tao and a life lived in accordance with nature that I want to play a role in.

      By Andy Russell on 12 October 2014 for Auton0my Acres-

      Image above: Which future will we choose? Both? Painting "New Pioneers" by Mark Henson, 2009, oil on canvas. From (http://markhensonart.com/galleries). From original article. Note: If this image looks familiar it is because  a detail of this painting was used in a previous IB post Ea O Ka AIna: The Trouble With Permaculture.

      A few nights ago I had a dream that would fall under the category of post apocalyptic. It took place in the present day, at my house, on what appeared to be a bright sunny summer day. My son and I were out back by the garage getting trailers hooked up to our bikes, collecting baseball bats and machetes, cans of food, and other supplies that have now left my memory. What the cause of our hasty retreat was I also can’t recall, but I knew we had to get going fast.

      Throughout the dream I was also worried as to where my wife and daughter were. Maybe we were off to meet them, or worse yet to rescue them from some unseen and unknown antagonist. Either way, I missed the rest of my family very much, and I knew it was my job to keep my son safe.

      Before awakening, the last thing I remember doing in the dream was getting the two dogs into the trailers, tying down the rest of our supplies, and then having to say goodbye to our two cats Charlie and Brown. It broke my heart to have to leave these two little guys behind. But even in the dreamtime, I realized that they would be fine without us and could fend for themselves living the rest of their days happily eating songbirds and mice.

      I love dreams, but I usually cannot recall them as well as I can this one. And most of the time they are not nearly as involved or as intense. I have plenty of anxiety work dreams, and random fantastical ones with a rotating cast of familiar characters, but rarely do I have a dream that is so realistic and that is set in a familiar, yet somehow mystical and alternative apocalyptic world.

      I couldn’t help but tell my son about this dream, and from that a great conversation was sparked. He was curious as to what a post apocalyptic world meant. Having just recently watched Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome for the first time with him, I told him to think back to that movie, but try to imagine it not quite so barren or destroyed. I think he understood what I was getting at and then proceeded to say something along the lines of “like what happens to you after war comes to your country”. I was amazed by the depth of his understanding and realized he had a good grasp of the idea. I responded with a “yeah, something like that…”

      It was then that he asked me what else we would take with us. He automatically assumed I would take my Chromebook with us. And in hindsight I probably would take it if I knew it could be recharged and could access the internet! But I said “no, we wouldn’t take the Chromebook because what good would it do us if there were no power.” We could agree on this.

      The conversation stayed on books. I took a quick look at our bookshelf, and pulled down an old, tattered copy of the Tao Te Ching that I have had for well over 20 years. I showed it to him, and he wondered why I would take a book like that, and not one of our foraging field guides or a wilderness survival book. The question was a good one, and now I had something else to explain to an inquisitive 8 year old.

      While I am not an overly mystical person, the Tao has been one of those books that I found fairly early on in my journey. It has always been there for me, ready to be picked up, dusted off, and reread over and over again throughout the years. The 81 passages contained within the Tao Te Ching are a manual of sorts that has helped me to walk lightly upon this Good Earth. It is not a book filled with answers, or a God, or a map to a final destination. But more of a signpost. A compass. A star chart to the infinite. The book of the way.

      So that is why I would grab that book if I found myself living in my recent dream. To help keep me centered and focused, but also fluid like water. But my son had a good point. If we were fleeing, not knowing when we would find safety, I would also pack my favorite field guides and survival manuals. I can identify many plants and fungi, but I don’t know a whole lot when it comes to cleaning an animal or making a splint for a broken leg.

      In reality though, I try very hard to keep the post apocalyptic narrative from playing too big of a role in my day to day life. If I let it dominate my thoughts, it is hard to be productive or a positive role model. While it is a possible outcome for our world, especially if we stay our present course, I find it more helpful to focus on the present and how we can create a more fulfilling future for ourselves.

      So even though post apocalyptic stories are my favorite ones to read and watch, it is the story of the Tao and a life lived in accordance with nature that I want to play a role in. When we take the time to observe our surroundings, draw our conclusions based on evidence, and implement solutions that are balanced and inspired by nature, that is when we can move forward and create a truly wonderful, and self sustaining world.

      Tao #80
      If a country is governed wisely,
      its inhabitants will be content.
      They enjoy the labor of their hands
      and don’t waste time inventing labor saving machines.
      Since they dearly love their homes,
      they aren’t interested in travel.
      There may be a few wagons and boats,
      but these don’t go anywhere.
      There may be an arsenal of weapons,
      but nobody ever uses them.
      People enjoy their food,
      take pleasure in being with their families,
      spend weekends working in their gardens,
      delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
      And even though the next country is so close
      that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
      they are content to die of old age
      without ever having gone to see it.

      Note: Here is a link to a variant translation of the Tao by Derik Lin in 2006


      Nurse flew with Ebola symptom

      SUBHEAD: Amber Vinson, 2nd nurse from Dallas to be infected, flew to and from Cleveland.

      By Alan Horowitz on 15 October 2014 for Huffington Post -

      Image above: Photo of the three people diagnosed with Ebola from Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital; (l-r) Thomas Eric Duncan (deseased), nurse Nina Pham and nurse Amber Joy Vinson. CDC let Vinson fly from Cleveland to Dallas with low grade fever later determined to be from Ebola. From (http://www.11alive.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/10/15/ebola-nurse-amber-joy-vinson-flew-plan-wedding/17313413/).

      [IB Publisher's note: "Brownie You're Doing A Heck Of A Job", George W. Bush to FEMA head. It is beginning to look like the CDC (Center for Disease Control) is handling the Ebola outbreak in 2014 as badly as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) handled Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) handled BP oil spill in 2010. ]

      A Dallas nurse who took a commercial flight from Cleveland hours before reporting symptoms of Ebola says that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention told her it was okay to fly.
      Amber Vinson helped treat Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man who died in Dallas of the Ebola virus earlier this month. On Wednesday, the CDC announced that she had contracted the virus as well.

      The CDC also revealed that she had taken a flight to Dallas on Monday, though it said that it was extremely unlikely that any other passengers were exposed.

      Vinson told CBS Dallas Fort Worth that she was feeling ill before boarding her flight. She had a low grade fever, but she said that officials told her it was okay to get on the plane. Vinson told CBS that she called the CDC several times with concerns.

      is only contagious when a patient is symptomatic. Vinson's 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit fever wasn't high enough to be considered a symptom.

      The CDC confirmed to FOX 4 News that they gave Vinson the green light to fly. "Vinson was not told that she could not fly," a government spokesperson told NBC News.

      Vinson's comments contradict remarks made earlier today by CDC Director Tom Freiden, who said that she never should have gotten on the plane.

      On Wednesday night, a letter from Frontier Airlines CEO Dave Siegel to airline employees claimed that the CDC had notified the airline that Vinson may have had symptoms while on the flight, the Denver Channel reported. "At 1:55 p.m. MDT (Wednesday) Frontier was notified by the CDC that the passenger may have been symptomatic earlier than initially suspected; including the possibility of possessing symptoms while onboard the flight," the letter said.

      This would conflict with CDC's earlier statement that she didn't have symptoms of the illness while she was on the flight and didn't start showing symptoms until Tuesday.

      After Vinson reported symptoms of Ebola on Tuesday, she was placed in isolation. On Wednesday, she was transported to Emory Hospital in Atlanta, where she will continue to receive treatment. She is in stable condition.

      The 29-year-old nurse is the second person to contract Ebola in the United States. The first was Nina Pham, who is also a nurse at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, where Duncan was being treated. Duncan is the first person to have died of Ebola in the United States.

      The CDC is trying to locate the 132 passengers that were on the Frontier Airlines flight 1143 with Vinson to determine their potential risk of Ebola. On Wednesday night, an official said that a Fort Worth family with a child had been isolated after a member of the family boarded a Frontier airline with Vinson, according to NBC DFW's Brian Curtis.

      After a scheduled trip to Denver, Frontier Airlines said that the plane that Vinson flew on was taken out of service. The seat covers and carpeting are to be replaced, the crew placed on paid leave, according to Marc Stewart of KMGH.

      Frontier plane flew 5 more times

      SUBHEAD: Carrier completed five more flights after carrying Ebola stricken nurse from Cleveland to Dallas.

      By Hugo Martin & Dan Weinkel on 15 October 2014 for LA Times -

      Image above: The Frontier Airlines plane that Amber Vinson flew from Cleveland to Dallas on Monday, rests at a terminal at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Wednesday, October 15, 2104. From original article.

      The Frontier Airlines jet that carried a Dallas healthcare worker diagnosed with Ebola made five additional flights after her trip before it was taken out of service, according to a flight-monitoring website.

      Denver-based Frontier said in a statement that it grounded the plane immediately after the carrier was notified late Tuesday night by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the Ebola patient.

      Flight 1143, on which the woman flew from Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth, was the last trip of the day Monday for the Airbus A320.

      But Tuesday morning the plane was flown back to Cleveland and then to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., back to Cleveland and then to Atlanta and finally back to Cleveland again, according to Daniel Baker, chief executive of the flight-monitoring site Flightaware.com.

      He said his data did not include any passenger manifests, so he could not tell how many total passengers flew on the plane Tuesday.

      The passenger "exhibited no symptoms or sign of illness while on Flight 1143, according to the crew," Frontier said.

      The plane went through a routine but "thorough" cleaning Monday night, Frontier said. Airline industry experts said routine overnight cleaning includes wiping down tray tables, vacuuming carpet and disinfecting restrooms.

      The healthcare worker also had flown to Cleveland from Dallas three days earlier on Frontier Flight 1142, the airline reported.

      An official with the union that represents Frontier pilots said members were so concerned about possible exposure to the deadly virus that they began reaching out to doctors and other experts Wednesday for information about Ebola.

      The airline said it was working with the CDC to contact all 132 passengers on the Monday flight that carried the Ebola patient.

      Frontier could not be reached to confirm the FlightAware data, and it was unclear whether passengers on the additional flights were being contacted.

      “It seems like it’s not that big of a risk, but it’s pretty scary,” said the union official, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak for the group.

      The union official also said that Frontier sent pilots information Wednesday morning outlining the cleaning procedures the carrier was using to make sure the disease did not spread.

      In response to the news that another Ebola patient had flown on a commercial flight, the union that represents 60,000 flight attendants on 19 airlines is asking the CDC to monitor and care for the four flight attendants who were on the Frontier flight from Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth.

      The Assocciation. of Flight Attendants “will continue to press that crew members are regularly monitored and provided with any additional resources that may be required,” the group said.

      The Ebola scare prompted the union last week to call for better measures to protect flight attendants from exposure to the deadly virus.

      The group's international president, Sara Nelson, suggested that flight attendants are being asked to do too much in the fight against Ebola.

      "We are not, however, professional healthcare providers and our members have neither the extensive training nor the specialized personal protective equipment required for handling an Ebola patient," she said in a statement.

      Amber Joy Vinson of Dallas, traveled by air on October 13th, the day before she first reported symptoms.
      Meanwhile, the trade group for the nation’s largest airlines said carriers were working with federal heath officials “to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the well-being of our passengers, our crew members and the American public.”

      Airlines for America, whose members do not include Frontier, said its airlines are all equipped with “universal precautions kits” that include gloves, masks, aprons and biological waste bags to clean up any medical spill or accident on a plane.

      Earlier this month, United Airlines was rushing to contact passengers who flew on two flights that carried a Liberian man infected with Ebola from Brussels to Washington, D.C., and then to Dallas.

      The Ebola-stricken healthcare worker who flew on Frontier had been treating the Liberian man, Thomas Eric Duncan, who has since died.

      The latest scare has forced some air travelers to think twice about flying.

      “It is very scary and my travel is now very, very limited,” Bruce Remick of Hollywood said. “I prefer Skype conferencing.”

      Airline-industry stock prices have taken a beating in recent weeks, with some analysts blaming the Ebola scare.

      On Wednesday, stocks of Delta Air Lines and United Airlines fell more than 1%. A New York Stock Exchange index of airline stock is down 11.57% over the last month. Frontier is privately held.


      Zuckerberg's idea of Kuleana

      SUBHEAD: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg buying 700 acres of Kauai north shore.

      [IB Publisher's note: This correction from Richard Spacer:
      "On the Zuckerburg article, you made the same mistake Andy Parx did.

      The Zuckerburg purchases have nothing at all to do with Lepeuli. Lepeuli is the ahupua'a that Lepeuli Beach aka Larsen's Beach is in. The land owner is, and remains, Waioli Corporation, a public charity governed by a board of trustees with Wilcox family members and friends.

      Waipake makai of Koolau Road was bought by Zuckerburg from Falko Partners, owned by San Mateo hedge fund owner Larry Bowman. That beach is Waipake Beach.

      Pila'a makai was bought by Zuckerburg from Jimmy Pflueger. There are two beaches in Pila'a.

      None of this has any connection with Lepeuli. Even the photo caption mention Lepeuli when the photo is of Waipake Beach. Thanks."
      The illustrations and description relating purchase to Lepeuli has been removed. Mahalo Richard.

      By Erin Carlyle on 10 October 2014 for Forbes Magazine -

      Image above: Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, (center) walk in Hanalei after lunching at Bubba Burgers on a vacation this spring. From (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-low-key-hawaii-vacation-article-1.1326290).

      Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has purchased two massive, adjacent chunks of land on Kauai’s North Shore in an effort to create a secluded 700-acre sanctuary for his family, sources have confirmed to Forbes. All told, the 30-year-old billionaire has spent in excess of $100 million to acquire the land, and he hasn’t even built a house yet.

      The first acquisition is Pila’a Beach, an isolated, 393-acre parcel with a gorgeous white sand beach. Property records show that an entity called Pila’a International LLC paid $49.8 million for an 89.2% stake (or about 350 acres) in the property on September 12. Pila’a International, LLC has an office in Woodbridge, Conn. The property was not officially listed, but was being shopped discreetly as a “pocket listing.”

      Zuckerberg’s second acquisition is the adjacent Kahu’aina Plantation, a 357-acre former sugarcane plantation that has been off-and-on-the market for a few years, most recently listed for $70 million. That property features 2,500 feet of oceanfront and a working organic farm. The sale price has not yet been recorded at the county, but local reporter Duane Shimogawa of Pacific Business News pegs it at about $66 million. Sources tell Forbes his reporting is accurate.

      Though the Facebook billionaire brought an unusually lengthy non-disclosure agreement along on his property shopping trip, the fact that he bought land on Kauai’s North Shore is a well-known secret on the island. Last year, when Zuckerberg dined at burger joint Bubba Burgers he made the local paper’s front page.

      “We don’t comment on rumors and speculation, but thank you for reaching out!” a Facebook spokesperson said.

      Zuckerberg purchased Pila’a Beach from Pflueger Properties, a Hawaii limited partnership belonging to Jim Pflueger, a retired local Honda dealer. Last year Pflueger reportedly pled no contest to felony reckless endangerment after seven people were killed in a 2006 collapse of a dam on his property.
      The Pila’a Beach property consists of five separate parcels, each which could be developed into private homes.

      Sources tell Forbes that Zuckerberg plans to build just one home on the parcels. But he will have one neighbor, Denver executive Gary Stewart of Melange International, who purchased the remaining 10.8% interest in the property for $6.04 million under the name Koa Kea International LLC, according to property records. Sources tell Forbes that the billionaire tried to buy Stewart out, but that the oil exec wasn’t interested. Stewart did not respond immediately to Forbes’ inquiry about the property.

      But the 30-year-old tech executive is having better luck buying out what a source says are as many as two dozen “kuleanas,” or small plots of landlocked land within the greater 357 acres that is Kahu’aina Plantation.

      Kuleanas are plots of land that often house basic, even ramshackle huts, many without electricity, which have been passed down through families over generations. They are generally used as rustic weekend or vacation spots, although some people live on them full-time. Zuckerberg is said to be paying large sums for these tiny plots of land, so that his compound can be totally private.

      The Kahu’aina Plantation had been approved for up to 80 homes, so Zuckerberg’s buy seems designed to fend off potential neighbors. The seller of the plantation is San Mateo, Calif.-based Falko Partners, which is reportedly owned by a Hawaii landowner named Larry Bowman.
      Zuckerberg has a net worth of $32.2 billion at the time of this story.

      Corrections and amplifications:
      The original article implied that “kuleanas” were the residences on landlocked plots of land within a bigger parcel. “Kuleanas” actually refers to the land rights themselves. Also, a beach was referred to as “private”; Hawaii has no beaches that are not open to the public.

      See also:

      Ea O Ka Aina: Larry Ellison - Oracle 6/21/12
      Oracle Corporation's CEO buys Lanai from Castle & Cook's David Murdoch for half a billion dollars. Too bad Bill Gates and mark Zuckerberg - you missed out.

      Ea O Ka Aina: Trails and Tribulations 2/26/13
      For centuries Native Hawaiians in the ahupua'a of Lepeuli, on the windward or Koolau side of Kauai, have lived their lives, fished and grew taro ...

      Ea O Ka Aina: The Ala Loa Trail 4/10/14
      Lepeuli Beach from the Ala Loa Trail on Kauai's Koolau northshore.


      Challenging the corporate world

      SUBHEAD: Socially and environmentally conscious entrepreneurs are adopting not-for-profit business model.

      By Rajesh Makawana on 13 October 2014 for Sharing.org -

      Image above: Photo of graffiti image of Capitalism on wall by Dr. Mott. From (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmotte/15275326742).

      Does changing the way we do business hold the key to creating a world where resources are shared more equitably and consumed within planetary limits? According to Professor Donnie Maclurcan of the Post Growth Institute, the answer is a definitive yes – but only if we can fully embrace a business model that doesn’t require profits to be distributed to shareholders, and works instead to reinvest revenues back into the company.

      Increasingly, socially and environmentally conscious entrepreneurs are adopting not-for-profit (NFP) business practices across the whole spectrum of traditionally for-profit sectors. Maclurcan, whose book ‘How on Earth’ co-authored with Jennifer Hinton is due out next year, firmly believes that the NFP model presents an alternative macroeconomic framework with the potential to revolutionise how we produce goods and services, and thereby pave the way for an ‘economics of enough’.

      Maclurcan argues that the fundamental flaw inherent in socially-oriented forms of commerce that are not strictly NFP (such as B-corps in the US, or social enterprises and Community Interest Companies in the UK) is that they all potentially allow profits to be given to shareholders as dividends.

      Since this is impossible to do within a NFP framework, the company can focus entirely on job creation as well as its positive ecological and social impacts, without the pressure to maximise returns every quarter regardless of any damaging externalities that might result. Maclurcan suggests that this approach enables businesses to adopt a new triple bottom line of ‘people, planet and not-for-profit’.

      Speaking at London South Bank University as part of a UK tour to promote his upcoming book, Maclurcan highlighted some of the additional benefits that are inherent to the NFP model. Apart from the statutory advantages afforded by NFP status (such as tax exemptions and the ability to receive donations and employ volunteers), NFP businesses tend to have inherently horizontal operational structures that can enable decision making and revenue to be shared more equitably among stakeholders.

      Unencumbered by the profit motive, these businesses can also provide services that are truly tailored to meet social needs, and products that are environmentally sustainable and long lasting – potentially doing away with the need for planned obsolescence.

      Given this more enlightened approach to commerce, Maclurcan argues that ‘purpose-driven motivation’ is far more common among those working for NFP organisations than among those in the traditional for-profit sector.

      Although the NFP model has its roots in charitable, educational and religious organisations that can be traced back thousands of years, there has been a steep rise in the number of businesses adopting the framework in recent decades – a popularity that has paralleled the steady growth in the number of NGOs, foundations and charities that operate in the third sector.

      For example, according to Maclurcan’s research the majority of enterprises in the cooperative sector, which now represent over 1 billion members and employ 20% more people than multinational corporations, are run on a NFP basis. In the US alone, approximately 44% of those who are economically active already use banking services provided by credit unions that are governed by both cooperative and NFP principles.

      With every year that passes, an increasing share of new business start-ups are adopting a NFP governance structure, which suggests that the insatiable pursuit of profit might be starting to mellow – at least within small business that are newly established. If these trends continue, Maclurcan estimates that NFP enterprises could outcompete for-profit companies across all sectors by 2050.

      Transforming the private sector

      In recent years there has been an intense focus among progressives on the need for a great transition in society away from neoliberal capitalism – a debate that even broke through to the mainstream media for a short time in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The Occupy movement did much to further highlight the need for ‘system change’, particularly through their enduring reference to the trickling-up of wealth from the 99% to the richest 1% of the populace.

      More recently, Naomi Klein has powerfully reignited this debate in her latest book, which dissects the stark choice we face between saving capitalism and protecting the planet – options that she rightly argues are wholly incompatible within the current political-economic paradigm.

      There can be little doubt that the NFP proposal put forward by Maclurcan aligns closely to many post-capitalist and new economy perspectives that have long been proposed by progressive thinkers and activists. Indeed, the notion that businesses can thrive without making a profit for shareholders clearly challenges a central tenet of modern capitalism: the privatisation of wealth into the hands of a minority.

      As Bill Blackwater explains in an insightful essay (pdf), it is widely accepted that re-investing money to make ever-more profit is the core feature of capitalism today. He goes on to highlight how the relentless pursuit of profit is one of the main reasons why capitalist economies are predicated on the need for continual expansion and economic growth – all of which is facilitated by access to cheap credit, energy and natural resources, and inevitably results in the mass production of (mostly unnecessary and highly wasteful) consumer goods.

      Maclurcan’s solution is also entirely compatible with his other paradigm-shifting projects that emphasise the need to move beyond economic growth and promote forms of sharing and gifting.

      Instead of focusing on the production of goods and services for the sake of endlessly expanding profits, NFPs have the option to focus exclusively on socially and ecologically beneficial goods and services that need not create any profit at all – they only require a robust business model that can ensure the company’s ongoing viability.

      Maclurcan also argues that wealth redistribution is inherent to NFP enterprises, and that if such models are scaled up to predominate in the private sector in decades to come, this process of economic sharing within the workplace could help counter the growing divide between rich and poor, which is now widely recognised as a structural consequence of capitalism.

      Overall, Maclurcan presents a convincing argument that a combination of socially and environmentally useful commerce alongside the elimination of the profit motive has potentially revolutionary implications for the business world of tomorrow - if it can be widely adopted.

      The impact of the NFP model is likely to be even more transformative when combined with forms of peer-to-peer production, collaborative consumption, and the revitalisation of small businesses serving local communities.

      Maclurcan’s statistics detailing the ongoing rise of NFPs also points to an encouraging shift in cultural attitudes in a world that has been dominated by the profit and growth paradigm for far too long.

      Beyond the profit and growth imperative

      Maclurcan’s vision offers great promise for those thinking about how to make the transition to a steady-state economy that operates within ecological boundaries. However, in order for the NFP model to present a comprehensive macroeconomic solution to the whole gamut of social and environmental problems we face, it should also be explored within a much broader political context. For example, the NFP model naturally pertains to the role that the private and charitable sectors can play in an economy, rather than the public realm and government policy. But as citizens in Hong Kong and other countries have bravely highlighted in recent years, democratic governance systems are central to the transformative economic reforms that are urgently needed across the world. This more extensive macroeconomic perspective is particularly important in relation to social justice and environmental stewardship, since the root causes of injustice and ecological degradation are firmly embedded in the policies and institutions that underpin our economies – they are clearly not confined to our business practices alone.

      It is also important to note that the failure of policymakers to regulate the drive for profit-at-all-costs is part of a broader neoliberal consensus that goes far beyond individual business ethics and influences policy decisions at the highest levels of government. Moreover, this same political ideology has an enormous influence over global economic policy such as trade rules and international financial arrangements, which then set restrictive parameters on how individual governments can manage their economies – the alarming implications of the ‘TTIP’ free trade agenda being a case in point.

      If we want to create lasting progressive change and a sustainable economic model that includes both private and public sectors, we must therefore also consider the potential of NFP companies from the angle of government regulation and public policy. This could mean, for example, pushing for better government incentives for those setting up NFP enterprises. But even if the vast majority of new businesses adopted NFP practices, the positive trend would do little to address one of the most proximal causes of inequality and climate change: the small number of powerful multinational corporations that drive consumerism and encourage unsustainable patterns of extraction and production around the globe.

      Loosening the corporate stranglehold

      Across all the major fields of commerce such as pharmaceuticals, insurance, agriculture and energy production, our world is already dominated by well-established and financially powerful for-profit businesses - and a mere 10 of these corporations own the vast majority of brands most people are familiar with.

      Not only do these companies overshadow the marketplace, but the financial power afforded to them through their pursuit of profit enables them to wield tremendous influence over government policy. This has been a perennial issue for activists and concerned citizens, with ongoing campaigns and petitions to get ‘big money’ out of politics; to institute publicly funded election campaigning; and even to end corporate influence over the United Nations.

      The importance of this problem for post-capitalism theorists cannot be underestimated. Given the huge lobbying power of dirty energy companies, for example, it is difficult to see how it will ever be possible to create a truly sustainable world until the illegitimate power of big corporations is held in check.

      One way to combat the profit-driven business ethic in established institutions is to wrestle key public services away from corporate control so that they can be managed in the interests of stakeholders instead. An inspiring recent example is the re-municipalisation of energy infrastructure in many parts of Germany, which was kick-started by citizen efforts in Hamburg to facilitate a transition to renewable energy.

      As austerity measures and privatisation continue to take their toll on government services, similar initiatives across healthcare, social housing, transport and other traditionally ‘public’ sectors are finally on the rise, but must be urgently scaled up in countries across the world.

      The various causes and initiatives highlighted above are among many that are directly linked with the problem of profit maximisation, and therefore warrant consideration among those working towards the creation of a not-for-profit world.

      But a macroeconomic model that functions within a post-growth framework must also consider other critical issues that fuel the relentless expansion of capital, all of which demand a sharp reversal of neoliberal government policies. These include, for example, access to cheap credit and natural resources, as well as the culture of consumerism which continues to be given pride of place in society.

      Numerous proposals by progressive thinkers and NGOs have outlined additional aspects of what a sustainable macroeconomic model should include, such as public control over money creation, a shorter working week, a green new deal, social protection for all, and an international framework for cooperatively managing natural resources – to name but a few examples. Alongside a transformation of the private sector that Maclurcan advocates for, such public policy measures must play a fundamental role in the creation of a sustainable and equitable future for humanity.

      The urgent need for wholesale systemic change presents an unprecedented challenge to concerned citizens and policymakers alike, partly due to the diverse economic, social and political issues that are implicated in the interconnected global crises we face today. Undoubtedly, for-profit business models have played a central role in creating these intractable problems, and a profound transformation within the private sector is therefore long overdue.

      As such, there is no doubt that Maclurcan’s upcoming book could play a crucial role in the search for a sustainable alternative to neoliberal capitalism, and it has the potential to inspire a whole generation to embrace a NFP culture. If those working within non-profit organisations also engage politically in the battle to end excessive commercialisation and limit the influence of established corporations, the possibility of achieving an economics of enough could finally become a blessed reality.


      Voting Recommendations for 2014

      SUBHEAD: Island Breath picks for Kauai  for the election on 11/4/14 in the 14th, 15th, 16th Precincts.

      [IB Publisher's note: After Linda Pascatore wrote the first draft of this article, with only State Representatives for District 16,  I added District 14 and 15 with the recommendation to vote for Dylan Hooser (who lost to Jimmy Tokioka in the primary). Oops! I'd still vote for Dylan if I could. Forgive me Linda, I also added the description of Ron Kouchi as a gangster. - Juan Wilson.]

      By Linda Pascatore on 14 October 2014 for Island Breath -

      Image above: Felicia Cowden is running for the Kauai County Council. From (http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/October-2014/2014-General-Election-Candidate-Finder/index.php/name/Felicia-Cowden/listing/32573/).

      Island Breath Voting Recommendations
      To find your polling place,for your particular precinct see list bottom of this article. Go to (http://elections2.hawaii.gov/ppl) to see a sample ballot for your precinct, and also information on the rest of Hawaii.

      US Senator:
      Brian Schatz
      (Looking for growth economy and expanded tourism. Old school Democrat.  Schatz is supported by the Sierra Club. )

      US Representative:
      Tulsi Gabbard
      (Interested in growing local food and supports GMO labeling. Does not support fast tracking Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Gabbard is supported by the Sierra Club.)

      Governor and Lieutenant Governor:
      Jeff Davis (Gov) and Cynthia Marlin (Lt Gov)
      (Davis, a Libertarian,  is sharply opposed to GMO agriculture. He is concerned with local food security and for legalization of recreational marijuana)

      State Representative, District 14:Portion of Hanalei District (Haena, Hanalei, Princeville, Kealia, Kawaihau, Kapaa)
      No One

      State Representative, District 15:
      Portion of Kawaihau District (Waipouli); portion of Lihue District (Wailua, Hanamaulu, Lihue, Puhi); portion of Koloa District (portion of Omao)

      No One
      (Jimmy Tokioka is running as a Democrat. He is a political hack in bed with Ron Kouchi)

      State Representative, District 16:
      Portion of Koloa District (Koloa, Poipu, Lawai, Kalaheo, Numila, Eleele, Port Allen, portion of Omao); portion of Waimea District (Hanapepe, Kaumakani, Pakala, Waimea, Kekaha, Mana, Kokee) 
      Daynette (Dee) Morikawa
      (Supports pesticide regulation. Supported a new Superferry. Doesn't support recreational marijuana.)

      Image above: Justin Barca is running for Mayor of Kauai County. From (http://www.moyabrand.com/blog/gmo-free-hawaii-tee-and-dustin-barca/).

      County of Kauai Mayor:
      Dustin Barca

      (He is sharply opposed to chemical companies and their GMO experimentation here. Young, eager and on a learning curve)

      County of Kauai Councilmembers:
      Gary Hooser
      Tim Bynum
      Felicia Cowden
      Mason Chock
      JoAnn Yukimura
      Jay Furfaro
      Tiana Laranio

      (Above are our top seven picks for County Council, our ideal council from those running. Some strategists suggest voting for just your top candidates so as not to dilute the votes of your favorites.)

      Image above: Mahealani Wendt for Trustee of OHA. From (http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/07/candidate-qa-oha-maui-seat-mahealani-wendt/).
      Office of Hawaiian Affairs:
      Maui Trustee: (Kauai voters too)
      Mahealani Wendt
      (Supports replacing OHA with native Hawaiian Government)
      At Large Trustee:
      Mililani Trask
      (Supports Hawaiian sovereignty)

      Proposed Amendments to the State Constitution:

      Relating to Disclosure of Judicial Nominees 
      Shall the judicial selection commission, when presenting a list of nominees to the governor or the chief justice to fill a vacancy in the office of the chief justice, supreme court, intermediate appellate court, circuit courts or district courts, be required , at the same time, to disclose that list to the public?

      We recommend a Yes vote, in favor of more public disclosure.

      Relating to Agricultural Enterprises
      Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist agricultural enterprises on any type of langd, rather thatn only important agricultural lands?

      We recommend a No vote, because we're afraid the state would use this to fund GMO companies, or Big Ag, rather than small, sustainable, organic farmers.

      Relating to State Justices and Judges
      Shall the mandatory retirement age for all state court justices and judges be increase from seventy to eighty years of age?

      We recommend a Yes vote.

      Relating to Early Childhood Education
      Shall the appropriation of public funds be permitted for the support or benefit of private early childhood education programs that shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or ancestry, as provided by law?

      We recommend a No vote.  If there is public funding for preschool, it should go to public preschools, not private (and often religious) preschools.

      Relating to Dams and Reservoirs
      Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to offer loans to qualifying dam and reservoir owners to improve their facilitities to protect public safety and provide significant benefit to the general public as important water sources?

      We recommend a No vote.  We would rather the State put the money into better inspection of dams.  We are afraid this would encourage private developers and landowners to build more dams and reservoirs, thinking there would be public funding for upkeep.  Better we require stringent environmental impact statements before permitting private dams and reservoirs to be built.

      Proposed Amendments to the Kauai County Charter: 
      Relating to the Department of Personnel Services
      Shall the Department of Personnel Services be changed to the Department of Human Resources, with additional human resources functions?

      We recommend a No vote.  This agency will cost taxpayers, and take personnel decisions like hiring, firing, and salaries, out of the hands of the experts in the individual departments, and put them in the hands of this board.

      Relating to Charter Amendment
      Shall the county be allowed to publish summaries of charter amendments or a new charter in a newspaper of general circulation and entire test on the official website of the County of Kauai?

      We recommend a Yes vote, the more public information the better.

      Relating to Recall Ballots
       Shall Charter section 27.07 regarding recall ballots be amended to comply with State law and to meet voting system requirements?

      We recommend a Yes vote.  This amendment requires a Yes or No vote on a recall petition, which is clearer that just a yes.

      Polling Places for Kauai County Districts and Precincts

      14th Representative District – Island of Kauai
      Dist Pct
      14    01   Hanalei Elementary School,  5-5415 Kuhio Highway
      14    02   Kilauea Elementary School, 2440 Kolo Road
      14    03   Anahola Hawaiian Homes Clubhouse, Kalalea Rd
      14    04   Kapaa Elementary School, 4886 Kawaihau Rd
      14    05   Kapaa Neighborhood Center, 4491 Kou Street

      15th Representative District – Island of Kauai
      Dist Pct
      15    01   Kapaa Middle School, 4867 Olohena Road
      15    02   King Kaumualii Elementary School, 4380 Hanamaulu Road
      15    03   Wilcox Elementary School, 4319 Hardy Street
      15    04   Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School, 4431 Nuhou Street
      15    05   Koloa Elementary School, 3223 Poipu Road

      16th Representative District - Islands of Niihau, Lehua, Kaula and Island of Kauai -
      Dist Pct
      16    01   Koloa Neighborhood Center, 3461 W eliweli Road
      16    02   Kalaheo Neighborhood Center,  4480 Papalina Road
      16    03   Hanapepe Recreation Center,  4451 Puolo Road
      16    04   Waimea Neighborhood Center,  4556 Makeke Road
      16    05   Kekaha Neighborhood Center,  8130 Elepaio Road
      16    06   Niihau Elem/High School, Puuwai, Niihau


      World War III: It's here!

      SUBHEAD: Good lives without perpetual growth in consumption  not a possibility in the minds of most world leaders.

      By Kurt Cobb on 13 October 2014 for Resource Insights -

      Image above: Russian view of the End of the World. Illustration by Vladimir Manyuhin. From (http://www.pinterest.com/dalfaand/vladimir-manyuhin/).

      I've been advancing a thesis for several months with friends that World War III is now underway. It's just that it's not the war we thought it would be, that is, a confrontation between major powers with the possibility of a nuclear exchange.

      Instead, we are getting a set of low-intensity, on-again, off-again conflicts involving non-state actors (ISIS, Ukrainian rebels, Libyan insurgents) with confusing and in some cases nonexistent battle lines and rapidly shifting alliances such as the shift from fighting the Syrian regime to helping it indirectly by fighting ISIS, the regime's new foe.

      There is at least one prominent person who seems to agree with me, the Pope. During a visit to a World War I memorial in Italy last month Pope Francis said: "Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction."

      In citing many well-known causes for war, he failed to specify the one that seems obvious in this case: the fight over energy resources. It can be no accident that the raging fights in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and the Ukraine all coincide with areas rich in energy resources or for which imported energy resources are at risk.

      There are other conflicts. But these are the ones that are transfixing the eyes of the world, and these are the ones in which major powers are taking sides and mounting major responses.

      In Syria, Iraq and Libya, of course, it is oil and also natural gas that underlies the conflict. The ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq have seized oil refineries to power their advance. They and every fighting force in the world understands that oil is "liquid hegemony."

      In the Ukraine natural gas supplies lurk in the background as rebels (supposedly with Russian help) fight to separate parts of eastern Ukraine from the country. The Russians who hold one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world have threatened to cut off Ukraine, a large importer, this winter and to curtail supplies to Europe which depends on Russia for about 30 percent of its gas. The threat against Europe is in response to trade sanctions levied on Russia for its alleged role in helping Ukrainian insurgents.

      Since summer, a friend and I have been periodically reviewing the World War III game board to assess whether the war is heating up or cooling down. The temperature changes as we have gauged them would look like a sine wave on a graph revealing no definitive trajectory.

      And, that is just the kind of war that I believe World War III will be--years of indecisive battles, diplomatic ploys, half-hearted engagement by major powers, and new, unexpected conflicts arising in unexpected places.

      There are, of course, many other reasons for the conflicts I cite. But I wonder if the major powers would be much engaged in these conflicts if energy supplies were not at stake.

      So, the resource wars that are developing, especially those relating to energy, are not about direct conquest so much as concern about access to energy resources, or to put it more clearly, concern about possible interruptions to the flow of energy resources.

      The low-intensity confrontation in the South China Sea between China and its neighbors, Vietnam and the Philippines, is the most prominent dispute over actual ownership of energy resources rather than the mere flow of those resources.

      But in the article cited, the Indians, while laying no claim to resources in that area, have said publicly that they are worried that shipping through the South China Sea could be affected if the conflict heats up. Again, we are back to concern about the flow of resources by countries not directly a party to the dispute--yet.

      Traditional diplomacy among great powers does not seem to have been effective at resolving these conflicts. And, traditional military operations seem less than effective as well. Kurds in Syria report that U.S. airstrikes against ISIS are not working. This conflict and others like it which are characterized by poorly defined boundaries, shifting participants and unclear goals are confounding major powers and wreaking havoc on countries where these conflicts rage.

      One of the most obvious strategies for responding to these conflicts--deep, rapid and permanent reductions in fossil fuel energy consumption through efficiency measures, conservation, and expansion of renewable energy--does not seem to be a prominent part of the policy mix.

      Such a reduction would not necessarily cause these conflicts to disappear; but they might become far less dangerous since the major powers would be less interested in them and thus less likely to make a miscalculation that would lead to a larger global conflict.

      That is the danger that lies in my version of World War III--that it could morph into the kind of global conflict that risks nuclear confrontation between major powers--not because those powers would seek such an obviously insane outcome, but because they might miscalculate and by mistake push the conflict in this terrible direction.

      It is not clear how this danger can be avoided given the current trajectory of world energy use. And, it is not clear how to get the world's leaders to focus on the obvious need to reduce not only fossil fuel energy use, but use of all the world's nonrenewable resources in order to forestall conflict.*

      That humans can have good lives without perpetual growth in the consumption of resources is simply not a possibility in the minds of most world leaders. And that means we should prepare for a very long World War III.

      *Such reductions imply the reorganization of our daily lives with an emphasis on conservation as an ingrained habit. They also imply significant changes to our infrastructure. But they do not necessarily mean that we cannot have the essential services that the current system provides while using far less in the way of inputs. The main impediments to moving rapidly down this road are vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry which profit from the current wildly inefficient and wasteful global system. I agree that this is no small obstacle.

      • Kurt Cobbis an author, speaker, and columnist focusing on energy and the environment. He is a regular contributor to the Energy Voices section of The Christian Science Monitor and author of the peak-oil-themed novel Prelude.


      Ebola maybe airborne

      SUBHEAD: CIDRAP believes there is scientific evidence Ebola has potential to infect as aerosol.

      By Tyler Durden on 13 October 2014 for Zero Hedge -

      Image above: Self contained breathing apparati for highly contagious health environments. From (http://www.approvedgasmasks.com/msa-optimairHC.htm).

      When CDC Director Tim Frieden first announced, just a week ago and very erroneously, that he was "confident we will stop Ebola in its tracks here in the United States", he hardly anticipated facing the double humiliation of not only having the first person-to-person transmission of Ebola on US soil taking place within a week, but that said transmission would impact a supposedly protected healthcare worker. He certainly did not anticipate the violent public reaction that would result when, instead of taking blame for another epic CDC blunder, one which made many wonder if last night's Walking Dead season premier was in fact non-fiction, he blamed health workers for "not following protocol."

      And yet, while once again casting scapegoating and blame, the CDC sternly refuses to acknowledge something others, and not just tingoil blog sites, are increasingly contemplating as a distinct possibility: namely that Ebola is, contrary to CDC "protocol", in fact airborne. Or as, an article posted by CIDRAP defines it, "aerosolized."

      Who is CIDRAP?  "The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP; "SID-wrap") is a global leader in addressing public health preparedness and emerging infectious disease response. Founded in 2001, CIDRAP is part of the Academic Health Center at the University of Minnesota."

      The full punchline from the CIDRAP report:
      We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.
      In other words, airborne. And now the search for the next LAKE, i.e., a public company maker of powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), begins.

      Here is the full note: we hope the CDC will take the time to read it.

      Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola
      Today's commentary was submitted to CIDRAP by the authors, who are national experts on respiratory protection and infectious disease transmission. In May they published a similar commentary on MERS-CoV. Dr Brosseau is a Professor and Dr Jones an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

      Healthcare workers play a very important role in the successful containment of outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola. The correct type and level of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures that healthcare workers remain healthy throughout an outbreak—and with the current rapidly expanding Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it's imperative to favor more conservative measures.

      The precautionary principle—that any action designed to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty—compels the use of respiratory protection for a pathogen like Ebola virus that has:
      • No proven pre- or post-exposure treatment modalities
      • A high case-fatality rate
      • Unclear modes of transmission
      We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

      The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.

      We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa—and beyond.

      There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed "droplet" and "contact."

      These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) "direct" contact with the body fluids of an infected person.

      This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

      The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.4

      Although there are some important barriers to the use of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.

      If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.

      How are infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?

      Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other "aerobiologists" employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.

      Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed "airborne") can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large "droplets" on their face, eyes, or nose.

      Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.

      The chance of large droplets reaching the facial mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol inhalation.

      As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.

      The current paradigm also assumes that only "small" particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site.

      It's time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal tract.
      We recommend using "aerosol transmissible" rather than the outmoded terms "droplet" or "airborne" to describe pathogens that can transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.

      Is Ebola an aerosol-transmissible disease?

      We recently published a commentary on the CIDRAP site discussing whether Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, especially in healthcare settings. We drew comparisons with a similar and more well-studied disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

      For Ebola and other filoviruses, however, there is much less information and research on disease transmission and survival, especially in healthcare settings.

      Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.

      What do we know about Ebola transmission?

      No one knows for certain how Ebola virus is transmitted from one person to the next. The virus has been found in the saliva, stool, breast milk, semen, and blood of infected persons.8,9 Studies of transmission in Ebola virus outbreaks have identified activities like caring for an infected person, sharing a bed, funeral activities, and contact with blood or other body fluids to be key risk factors for transmission.10-12

      On the basis of epidemiologic evidence, it has been presumed that Ebola viruses are transmitted by contaminated hands in contact with the mouth or eyes or broken skin or by splashes or sprays of body fluids into these areas. Ebola viruses appear to be capable of initiating infection in a variety of human cell types,13,14 but the primary portal or portals of entry into susceptible hosts have not been identified.

      Some pathogens are limited in the cell type and location they infect. Influenza, for example, is generally restricted to respiratory epithelial cells, which explains why flu is primarily a respiratory infection and is most likely aerosol transmissible. HIV infects T-helper cells in the lymphoid tissues and is primarily a bloodborne pathogen with low probability for transmission via aerosols.

      Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site. The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse consequences far beyond the initial infection site.

      The potential for transmission via inhalation of aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17

      The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.20-22

      Experimental work has shown that Marburg and Ebola viruses can be isolated from sera and tissue culture medium at room temperature for up to 46 days, but at room temperature no virus was recovered from glass, metal, or plastic surfaces.23 Aerosolized (1-3 mcm) Marburg, Ebola, and Reston viruses, at 50% to 55% relative humidity and 72°F, had biological decay rates of 3.04%, 3.06%. and 1.55% per minute, respectively. These rates indicate that 99% loss in aerosol infectivity would occur in 93, 104, and 162 minutes, respectively.23

      In still air, 3-mcm particles can take up to an hour to settle. With air currents, these and smaller particles can be transported considerable distances before they are deposited on a surface.
      There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route. Jaax et al24 reported the unexpected death of two rhesus monkeys housed approximately 3 meters from monkeys infected with Ebola virus, concluding that respiratory or eye exposure to aerosols was the only possible explanation.

      Zaire Ebola viruses have also been transmitted in the absence of direct contact among pigs25 and from pigs to non-human primates,26 which experienced lung involvement in infection. Persons with no known direct contact with Ebola virus disease patients or their bodily fluids have become infected.12

      Direct injection and exposure via a skin break or mucous membranes are the most efficient ways for Ebola to transmit. It may be that inhalation is a less efficient route of transmission for Ebola and other filoviruses, as lung involvement has not been reported in all non-human primate studies of Ebola aerosol infectivity.27 However, the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems are not complete barriers to Ebola virus. Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols.25-27

      Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission.28 That is, other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.

      Guidance from the CDC and WHO recommends the use of facemasks for healthcare workers providing routine care to patients with Ebola virus disease and respirators when aerosol-generating procedures are performed. (Interestingly, the 1998 WHO and CDC infection-control guidance for viral hemorrhagic fevers in Africa, still available on the CDC Web site, recommends the use of respirators.)

      Facemasks, however, do not offer protection against inhalation of small infectious aerosols, because they lack adequate filters and do not fit tightly against the face.1 Therefore, a higher level of protection is necessary.

      Which respirator to wear?

      As described in our earlier CIDRAP commentary, we can use a Canadian control-banding approach to select the most appropriate respirator for exposures to Ebola in healthcare settings.29 (See this document for a detailed description of the Canadian control banding approach and the data used to select respirators in our examples below.)

      The control banding method involves the following steps:
      1. Identify the organism's risk group (1 to 4). Risk group reflects the toxicity of an organism, including the degree and type of disease and whether treatments are available. Ebola is in risk group 4, the most toxic organisms, because it can cause serious human or animal disease, is easily transmitted, directly or indirectly, and currently has no effective treatments or preventive measures.
      2. Identify the generation rate. The rate of aerosol generation reflects the number of particles created per time (eg, particles per second). Some processes, such as coughing, create more aerosols than others, like normal breathing. Some processes, like intubation and toilet flushing, can rapidly generate very large quantities of aerosols. The control banding approach assigns a qualitative rank ranging from low (1) to high (4) (eg, normal breathing without coughing has a rank of 1).
      3. Identify the level of control. Removing contaminated air and replacing it with clean air, as accomplished with a ventilation system, is effective for lowering the overall concentration of infectious aerosol particles in a space, although it may not be effective at lowering concentration in the immediate vicinity of a source. The number of air changes per hour (ACH) reflects the rate of air removal and replacement. This is a useful variable, because it is relatively easy to measure and, for hospitals, reflects building code requirements for different types of rooms. Again, a qualitative ranking is used to reflect low (1) versus high (4) ACH. Even if the true ventilation rate is not known, the examples can be used to select an appropriate air exchange rate.
      4. Identify the respirator assigned protection factor. Respirators are designated by their "class," each of which has an assigned protection factor (APF) that reflects the degree of protection. The APF represents the outside, environmental concentration divided by the inside, facepiece concentration. An APF of 10 means that the outside concentration of a particular contaminant will be 10 times greater than that inside the respirator. If the concentration outside the respirator is very high, an assigned protection factor of 10 may not prevent the wearer from inhaling an infective dose of a highly toxic organism.
      Practical examples
      Two examples follow. These assume that infectious aerosols are generated only during vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, or similar high-energy emissions such as some medical procedures. It is possible that Ebola virus may be shed as an aerosol in other manners not considered.

      Caring for a patient in the early stages of disease (no bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, etc). In this case, the generation rate is 1. For any level of control (less than 3 to more than 12 ACH), the control banding wheel indicates a respirator protection level of 1 (APF of 10), which corresponds to an air purifying (negative pressure) half-facepiece respirator such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator. This type of respirator requires fit testing.

      Caring for a patient in the later stages of disease (bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, etc). If we assume the highest generation rate (4) and a standard patient room (control level = 2, 3-6 ACH), a respirator with an APF of at least 50 is needed. In the United States, this would be equivalent to either a full-facepiece air-purifying (negative-pressure) respirator or a half-facepiece PAPR (positive pressure), but standards differ in other countries. Fit testing is required for these types of respirators.
      The control level (room ventilation) can have a big effect on respirator selection. For the same patient housed in a negative-pressure airborne infection isolation room (6-12 ACH), a respirator with an assigned protection factor of 25 is required. This would correspond in the United States to a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece or with a helmet or hood. This type of respirator does not need fit testing.

      Implications for protecting health workers in Africa

      Healthcare workers have experienced very high rates of morbidity and mortality in the past and current Ebola virus outbreaks. A facemask, or surgical mask, offers no or very minimal protection from infectious aerosol particles. As our examples illustrate, for a risk group 4 organism like Ebola, the minimum level of protection should be an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.

      This type of respirator, however, would only be appropriate only when the likelihood of aerosol exposure is very low. For healthcare workers caring for many patients in an epidemic situation, this type of respirator may not provide an adequate level of protection.

      For a risk group 4 organism, any activity that has the potential for aerosolizing liquid body fluids, such as medical or disinfection procedures, should be avoided, if possible. Our risk assessment indicates that a PAPR with a full facepiece (APF = 50) or a hood or helmet (APF = 25) would be a better choice for patient care during epidemic conditions.

      We recognize that PAPRs present some logistical and infection-control problems. Batteries require frequent charging (which requires a reliable source of electricity), and the entire ensemble requires careful handling and disinfection between uses. A PAPR is also more expensive to buy and maintain than other types of respirators.

      On the other hand, a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece (hood or helmet) does not require fit testing. Wearing this type of respirator minimizes the need for other types of PPE, such as head coverings and goggles. And, most important, it is much more comfortable to wear than a negative-pressure respirator like an N95, especially in hot environments.

      A recent report from a Medecins Sans Frontieres healthcare worker in Sierra Leone30 notes that healthcare workers cannot tolerate the required PPE for more than 40 minutes. Exiting the workplace every 40 minutes requires removal and disinfection or disposal (burning) of all PPE. A PAPR would allow much longer work periods, use less PPE, require fewer doffing episodes, generate less infectious waste, and be more protective. In the long run, we suspect this type of protection could also be less expensive.

      Adequate protection is essential
      To summarize, for the following reasons we believe that Ebola could be an opportunistic aerosol-transmissible disease requiring adequate respiratory protection:
      • Patients and procedures generate aerosols, and Ebola virus remains viable in aerosols for up to 90 minutes.
      • All sizes of aerosol particles are easily inhaled both near to and far from the patient.
      • Crowding, limited air exchange, and close interactions with patients all contribute to the probability that healthcare workers will be exposed to high concentrations of very toxic infectious aerosols.
      • Ebola targets immune response cells found in all epithelial tissues, including in the respiratory and gastrointestinal system.
      • Experimental data support aerosols as a mode of disease transmission in non-human primates.
      Risk level and working conditions suggest that a PAPR will be more protective, cost-effective, and comfortable than an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.

      We thank Kathleen Harriman, PhD, MPH, RN, Chief, Vaccine Preventable Diseases Epidemiology Section, Immunization Branch, California Department of Public Health, and Nicole Vars McCullough, PhD, CIH, Manager, Global Technical Services, Personal Safety Division, 3M Company, for their input and review.
      1. Oberg L, Brosseau LM. Surgical mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect Control 2008 May;36(4):276-82 [Abstract]
      2. CDC. Ebola hemorrhagic fever: transmission. 2014 Aug 13 [Full text]
      3. ECDC. Outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa: third update, 1 August 2014. Stockholm: ECDC 2014 Aug 1 [Full text]
      4. Martin-Moreno JM, Llinas G, Hernandez JM. Is respiratory protection appropriate in the Ebola response? Lancet 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):856 [Full text]
      5. Papineni RS, Rosenthal FS. The size distribution of droplets in the exhaled breath of healthy human subjects. J Aerosol Med 1997;10(2):105-16 [Abstract]
      6. Chao CYH, Wan MP, Morawska L, et al. Characterization of expiration air jets and droplet size distributions immediately at the mouth opening. J Aerosol Sci 2009 Feb;40(2):122-33 [Abstract]
      7. Nicas M, Nazaroff WW, Hubbard A. Toward understanding the risk of secondary airborne infection: emission of respirable pathogens. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005 Mar;2(3):143-54 [Abstract]
      8. Bauchsch DG, Towner JS, Dowell SF, et al. Assessment of the risk of Ebola virus transmission from bodily fluids and fomites. J Infect Dis 2007;196:S142-7 [Full text]
      9. Formenty P, Leroy EM, Epelboin A, et al. Detection of Ebola virus in oral fluid specimens during outbreaks of Ebola virus hemorrhagic fever in the Republic of Congo. Clin Infect Dis 2006 Jun;42(11):1521-6 [Full text]
      10. Francesconi P, Yoti Z, Declich S, et al. Ebola hemorrhagic fever transmission and risk factors of contacts, Uganda. Emerg Infect Dis 2003 Nov;9(11):1430-7 [Full text]
      11. Dowell SF, Mukunu R, Ksiazek TG, et al. Transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic fever: a study of risk factors in family members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of Congo, 1995. J Infect Dis 1999 Feb;179:S87-91 [Full text]
      12. Roels TH, Bloom AS, Buffington J, et al. Ebola hemorrhagic fever, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995: risk factors for patients without a reported exposure. J Infect Dis 1999 Feb;179:S92-7 [Full text]
      13. Kuhl A, Hoffmann M, Muller MA, et al. Comparative analysis of Ebola virus glycoprotein interactions with human and bat cells. J Infect Dis 2011 Nov;204:S840-9 [Full text]
      14. Hunt CL, Lennemann NJ, Maury W. Filovirus entry: a novelty in the viral fusion world. Viruses 2012 Feb;4(2):258-75 [Full text]
      15. Bray M, Geisbert TW. Ebola virus: the role of macrophages and dendritic cells in the pathogenesis of Ebola hemorrhagic fever. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2005 Aug;37(8):1560-6 [Full text]
      16. Mohamadzadeh M, Chen L, Schmaljohn AL. How Ebola and Marburg viruses battle the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2007 Jul;7(7):556-67 [Abstract]
      17. Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, et al. Measurements of airborne influenza virus in aerosol particles from human coughs. PLoS One 2010 Nov 30;5(11):e15100 [Full text]
      18. Caul EO. Small round structured viruses: airborne transmission and hospital control. Lancet 1994 May 21;343(8908):1240-2 [Full text]
      19. Chadwick PR, Walker M, Rees AE. Airborne transmission of a small round structured virus. Lancet 1994 Jan 15;343(8890):171 [Full text]
      20. Best EL, Snadoe JA, Wilcox MH. Potential for aerosolization of Clostridium difficile after flushing toilets: the role of toilet lids in reducing environmental contamination. J Hosp Infect 2012 Jan;80(1):1-5 [Full text]
      21. Gerba CP, Wallis C, Melnick JL. Microbiological hazards of household toilets: droplet production and the fate of residual organisms. Appl Microbiol 1975 Aug;30(2):229-37 [Full text]
      22. Barker J, Jones MV. The potential spread of infection caused by aerosol contamination of surfaces after flushing a domestic toilet. J Appl Microbiol 2005;99(2):339-47 [Full text]
      23. Piercy TJ, Smither SJ, Steward JA, et al. The survival of filoviruses in liquids, on solid substrates and in a dynamic aerosol. J Appl Microbiol 2010 Nov;109(5):1531-9 [Full text]
      24. Jaax N, Jahrling P, Geisbert T, et al. Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory. Lancet 1995 Dec 23-30;346(8991-2):1669-71 [Abstract]
      25. Kobinger GP, Leung A, Neufeld J, et al. Replication, pathogenicity, shedding and transmission of Zaire ebolavirus in pigs. J Infect Dis 2011 Jul 15;204(2):200-8 [Full text]
      26. Weingartl HM, Embury-Hyatt C, Nfon C, et al. Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates. Sci Rep 2012;2:811 [Full text]
      27. Reed DS, Lackemeyer MG, Garza NL, et al. Aerosol exposure to Zaire Ebolavirus in three nonhuman primate species: differences in disease course and clinical pathology. Microb Infect 2011 Oct;13(11):930-6 [Abstract]
      28. Roy CJ, Milton DK. Airborne transmission of communicable infection—the elusive pathway. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr;350(17):1710-2 [Preview]
      29. Canadian Standards Association. Selection, use and care of respirators. CAN/CSA Z94.4-11
      30. Wolz A. Face to face with Ebola—an emergency care center in Sierra Leone. (Perspective) N Engl J Med 2014 Aug 27 [Full text]
      See also:
      Ea O Ka Aina: Ebola may be airborne in cold 9/16/14