Remember the nuclear "disaster" at Three-Mile Island? In 1979, a minor accident at the Pennsylvania nuclear plant led to the release of tiny amounts of radioactivity. The ensuing panic was out of all proportion to the actual health threat, which was zero.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has come under fire recently over a study it published that reported that fetuses probably cannot feel pain before the 29th week of pregnancy. It is not the science itself that is being called into question. Rather, it is the employment history of the study authors. One of the authors, Dr. Eleanor Drey, performs abortions and is the medical director of an abortion clinic. Another author, Susan Lee, is a medical student who worked at one time in the NARAL Pro-Choice Legal Department.

As an economic development expert, I have written about and been an advisor on disaster relief. Now that there is a major disaster close to home and very much in the news, it might be a good idea to outline some basic principles of disaster intervention. Ironically, since the effects of Hurricane Katrina are so close at hand for us in Houston, many of the established rules of intervention -- which hinge on recognizing the distinction between local knowledge and the desire by distant donors to grant assisitance -- can be violated, but it is still important to know the general rules.

A September 2, 2005 article by Anthony Fletcher describes ACSH's criticism of California's new attack on acrylamide:
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has attacked California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's lawsuit against a number of high-profile food firms as "unfortunate and contrary to the interest of public health."

An August 31, 2005 article by Nathaniel West in the Journal Gazette & Times-Courier concerned people like Soso Whaley who've lost weight while eating fast food, and the piece quoted ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava:
According to the physician who reviewed Whaley's program, success stemmed from the age-old advice about healthy living: Eat in moderation, and exercise.

For over a year, the FDA has held adamantly to its stance that repeated delays in deciding whether to approve the over-the-counter sales of the "morning after" pill, Plan B, have nothing to do with abortion politics. Much of the science community, however, is finding this harder and harder to believe.

We told you so. We told you some recent health scares were groundless or exaggerated, and a couple recent headlines are reminders we were correct:
1) "No allergy problems from GM corn or soy: study"http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050831/hl_nm/gm_study_dc
We told you so, here:
Biotechnology and Food (September, 2000)http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.289/pub_detail.asp

New York, New York -- August 2005. The lawsuit brought by California Attorney-General Bill Lockyer is unfortunate and contrary to the interest of public health, according to physicians and scientists associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

After Friday's suit by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer demanding that snack food companies put warning labels on foods such as potato chips and French fries because of the chemical acrylamide found in them, it's worth taking a look back at the calmer comment sent by ACSH Nutrition Director Dr. Ruth Kava to California's Office of Health Hazard Assessment about acrylamide:

On March 29, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a revised set of Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment to replace those adopted in 1986. The revisions reflect a gradual evolution of the process by which EPA performs risk assessment for possible cancer-causing agents.