Rachel's News #874: U.S. Has Poor Health

[Guest guest]

rachel

Rachel's News #874: U.S. Has Poor Health

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:17:55 -0400

..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #874

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, September 28, 2006............Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

The Health of U.S. Citizens Is Poor and Declining

The health of U.S. citizens is abysmally poor, compared to that of

other wealthy, industrialized societies. When we look for causes, we

often don't examine the real fundamentals -- the " social determinants

of health. " These " social determinants " are, in turn, created or

modified by specific public policies. This week and next we depart

somewhat from our usual journalistic approach to offer this important

new statement on the poor health of U.S. citizens and the public

policies that lie behind the shocking numbers. The statement is framed

as a challenge to the public health community in the U.S.

Our Billionaire Bunch

The 400 exceedingly wealthy individuals on the annual Forbes list

now hold, as a group, nearly as much wealth as the poorer half of

America's households. This has real consequences for public health.

Intersex Fish Raises Pollution Concerns in U.s

The cleanup of the Potomac River has long been considered one of

the nation's great success stories. Ever since Lady Bird Johnson made

it a priority in the 1960s, the Potomac has been getting cleaner.

Now, new evidence indicates that perhaps we were measuring success

incorrectly.

The Ascent of Wind Power

" Wind power may still have an image as something of a plaything of

environmentalists more concerned with clean energy than saving money.

But it is quickly emerging as a serious alternative not just in

affluent areas of the world but in fast-growing countries like India

and China that are avidly seeking new energy sources. "

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #874, Sept. 28, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

THE HEALTH OF U.S. CITIZENS IS POOR AND DECLINING

 

Is the Public Health Community Prepared to Become Involved?

 

By Dennis Raphael

 

[Editors' introduction: Dr. Dennis Raphael is a professor in the

School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto. In

recent years he has edited two volumes on the social determinants of

health -- Staying Alive: Critical Perspectives on Health, Illness,

and Health Care (2006), and The Social Determinants of Health:

Canadian Perspectives (2004). He is the author of Inequality is Bad

for Our Hearts; Why Low Income and Social Exclusion are Major Sources

of Heart Disease in Canada (2001). If you have a high-speed internet

connection, you can see and hear Dr. Raphael delivering an

interesting lecture. If you are not familiar with the concept of

" social determinants of health, " you might read this short article

in Wikipedia. In manuscript, this article was originally titled,

" Public Policies Drive the Deteriorating Population Health Profile in

the USA. " ]

 

Introduction

 

International interest in the social determinants of health represents

yet another cycle of recognition of the importance of structural

determinants of health that began in earnest in the 1850's (1, 2).

 

Yet, recent waves of concern with structural determinants of health

appear to have bypassed the mainstream American public health

community (3-5). Analysis of how early life, education, employment and

working conditions, food security, housing, income and its

distribution, and unemployment and employment security (6) shape

health and creates health inequalities seem especially timely as the

USA presents one of the worse population health profiles among wealthy

developed nations and one of the most undeveloped public policy

environments in support of health (7, 8).

 

These public policy issues concern income distribution, employment

security and working conditions, and quality of the social

infrastructure in support of health. Despite evidence that the USA has

become a striking outlier among wealthy developed nations in its

population health and public policy profiles, the USA public health

community is taking only cautious steps towards addressing the

structural antecedents of health and disease (4, 9) . And when the

social determinants of health concept is explored the analyses are

typically narrow and strangely depoliticized (10-13). Public policy

antecedents of health determinants such as family, labor, tax, social

assistance, and taxation policy, as examples, are rarely mentioned and

when they are, are done in a rather perfunctory manner (14, 15).

Resignation that progressive public policy change in support of health

in the USA is unlikely is frequently a message conveyed in these

analyses (16-19). What roles could the public health community play in

this effort and how likely is it that these efforts could succeed?

 

Social Determinants of Health

 

The renewed focus on social determinants of health (6, 20-25) grew out

of efforts by UK researchers to identify the specific exposures by

which members of different socio-economic groups come to experience

varying degrees of health and illness (26). It is no accident that the

term social determinants of health made its contemporary appearance

during the Thatcher era in a UK volume concerned with policy, social

organization, and health (27). The concept struck a responsive chord

in many wealthy industrialized nations where growing income and wealth

inequalities, the weakening of the welfare state, and increasing

evidence of social exclusion were causes for concern (28-30).

 

The social determinants of health concept failed to gain much traction

within the USA pubic health community even though the growth in income

and wealth inequalities since the 1980's has been greater than any

other wealthy developed nation (8). Despite sporadic mention of the

concept in various American academic articles (10, 14, 31, 32), the

USA public health community gaze is firmly focused on rather narrow

issues of identifying racial and ethnic disparities, health care

access, and behavioral risk factors rather than structural issues

concerned with the distribution of economic and social resources (4,

33). When the social determinants of health are considered, these are

strangely de-politicized such that their public policy antecedents are

rarely mentioned and certainly not criticized through a consistent

political analyses.

 

The key exceptions to this trend include the work of Smeeding and

Rainwater who have labored over the years to raise issues of poverty,

income distribution, and service distribution, their public policy

antecedents, and their implications for health (8, 34-36). Similarly,

the recent volume by Hofrichter brought together much of the sparse

literature on the structural determinants of population health in the

USA (37). See also Alesina and Glaeser, (38), Rank (39), Kawachi and

Kennedy (40), Brooks-Gunn (41) and Auerbach and colleagues (42) and

work on income and wealth inequality by numerous non-governmental

organizations (43-46).

 

At the same time the public health community gazes on ethnic and

racial disparities, access to health care, and behavioral risk

factors, the public policy environment in support of health

deteriorates (43, 47-49). Much of this has to do with the neo-liberal

and neo-conservative resurgence that began in earnest during the

Reagan presidency which coincided -- and was incompatible -- with

growing international interest in structural approaches to health

promotion (50). Now, 20 years after the Reagan Revolution led to

astounding increases in income and wealth inequality, the dismantling

of much of the American welfare state, and hardening public attitudes

towards governmental provision of services, the public health

community is taking cautious steps towards addressing structural

determinants of health. How likely are these efforts to be successful?

 

Within most nations, social class, occupational status, and income are

analyzed as key issues that interact with public policy approaches to

resource distribution and service provision to shape health

inequalities and population health (28, 51, 52). Social stratification

interacts with public policy to produce differential exposures to

societal resources that shape health (53, 54). In the USA however,

issues of social class, occupational position, and income take a back

seat to analysis of " racial and ethnic disparities " in health (4).

Indeed, discussion of resource distribution including income and

general social provision as determinants of health is clearly

undeveloped in the USA. Analysis of social stratification and social

class as health determinants is even less so (42, 55-57).The reasons

for this and the impact this focus has on public health researchers

and workers' activities in the service of health are discussed below.

 

The USA Population Health Profile

 

The social determinants of health and their public policy antecedents

are especially relevant to the USA as its health profile is especially

poor in relation to other wealthy industrialized nations. For the

following indicators of population health of a nation, a rank of 1 is

best, with increasing rank indicating poorer relative performance as

compared to the wealthy industrialized nations of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

 

Life Expectancy

 

In 2002, life expectancy for American males was 74.4 years, and for

women, 79.8 years providing a relative rank of 22nd of 30 wealthy

developed nations for men; and 25th of 30 for women (7). The average

life expectancy increase in the USA of 7.2 years from 1960 to 2002 was

well below the OECD average of 9.2 years giving the USA a rank of 22nd

of 30 nations.

 

Infant Mortality Rate

 

In 2002, the USA's 2002 rate of 6.8/1000 gives it a rank of 25th of

the 29 wealthy industrialized nations for which these data are

available (7).

 

Low Birthweight Rate

 

In 2003 the USA's low birthweight rate was 7.9 per 100 newborns giving

it a ranking of 25th of 28 wealthy industrialized nations for which

these data were available (7).

 

Childhood Death by Injury Rate

 

During the period 1991-1995, 14.1 American children per 100,000 died

from injuries giving the USA a ranking of 23rd of 26 wealthy

industrialized nations (58).

 

Child Maltreatment Deaths

 

During the 1990's the incidence of childhood death by maltreatment per

100,000 children in the USA was 2.2 per 100,000 (59). This gave the

USA an overall rank of 26th of 27 wealthy industrialized nations. A

ranking that takes into account " undetermined intent " raises the USA's

rate to 2.4 per 100,000 and a relative ranking of 25th of 27.

 

Teenage Pregnancy Rate

 

The USA's rate during the 1990's of 51.1 births to 1000 women below 20

years of age gives it a rank of 28th of 28 wealthy industrialized

nations. These rates are exceptionally high -- 21 points higher than

the nearest nation, the UK.

 

To summarize, the USA shows a very poor population health profile on a

variety of health indicators. It does poorly on male and female life

expectancy, infant mortality rank, low birthweight rate, deaths from

child injury and child maltreatment.

 

Poverty as a Health Determinant: USA Rates in International

Perspective

 

Poverty is increasingly seen as the greatest threat to human

development and a nation's quality of life (60, 61). The experience of

poverty also results in -- as well as contributes to -- social

exclusion, a process identified by the European Union and the World

Health Organization as the primary threat to the smooth functioning of

developed societies (62, 63). Where does the USA stand on this

indicator?

 

Overall National Poverty Rates and Poverty Gaps

 

Using the internationally agreed-upon convention of poverty as the

percentage of individuals with disposable income less than 50% of the

median income of the population, the USA's overall poverty rate for

the mid 1990's was 16.6% (7). By 2000 it had increased to 17.0% which

was well above the OECD average of 10.2%. The USA's relative rank in

this important rating was 26th of 27 wealthy industrialized nations.

In terms of the gap between the average incomes of those living in

poverty and the median income of the population, the USA's gap of

34.3% is above the OECD average of 27.7%, providing a rank of 23rd of

27.

 

Child Poverty -- Relative and Absolute Rates

 

During the late 1990s, the USA's relative child poverty rate of 22.4%

gave it a ranking of 22nd of 23 wealthy industrialized nations (64).

These rates can be compared with those seen for the Nordic nations

(Denmark, 5.1%; Finland, 4.3%; Norway, 3.9%; and Sweden, 2.6%),

Belgium (4.4%); and Luxembourg (4.5%).

 

Absolute child poverty rates are generated by applying the USA poverty

standard to other nations adjusting for national currencies and

national purchasing power. The USA poverty standard is set very low

and is usually seen as an indicator of very limited resources

associated with serious material and social deprivation (64). The

USA's rate of 13.9% places it 11th of 19 nations for whom these data

were available. The Nordic nations also have very low absolute poverty

rates (Sweden, 5.3%; Norway, 3%; Denmark, 5.1%; Finland, 6.9%),

Belgium (7.5%), and Luxembourg (1.2%) thereby maintaining their low

rankings on both kinds of poverty indicators.

 

Recent Analyses from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)

 

How does the very high level of poverty in the USA come about? An

analysis of LIS data by Smeeding provides insights into this process

among 11 wealthy developed nations (36). These nations represent four

Anglo-Saxon nations, Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, and the USA;

four central European nations, Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the

Netherlands; one Southern European nation, Italy; and two Nordic

nations, Finland and Sweden.

 

These analyses highlight how public policy determines poverty rates.

Poverty rates are based on the international convention of a poverty

cut-off of less than 50% of median adjusted disposable income for

individuals.

 

The USA's overall poverty rate of 17% places it as the highest of

these 11 nations. For USA children living in single parent households

the poverty rate is a striking 41.4%, almost four times the rate for

Swedish children living in this situation and almost six times the

rate for Finnish children. The situation for USA elders does not fare

much better. The USA's elder poverty rate of 28.4% is the second

highest among these nations exceeded only by the strikingly high rate

of 48.3% seen in Ireland. Similarly, the USA's poverty rate for

childless adults is at 18.8%, exceeding every nation.

 

Have USA rates changed over time? Smeeding compares overall poverty

rates for each nation over a 23 year period from the base year of 1987

to 2000. In 1987, the relative poverty rate for the USA was 17.8%. For

2000 he provides two rates. The 2000 relative rate applies the same

calculation to 2000 as applied in 1987: the poverty line as less than

50% of the median disposable income for all residents. For the USA,

the relative poverty rate in 2000 was 17% showing little change form

1987.

 

The anchored rate refers to the percentage of Americans in 2000 living

below the poverty line as it was calculated in 1987 and adjusted for

increases in the cost of living since that time. In the USA, this

figure is 13.8%. There has been therefore some improvement in the

actual income of those at the bottom, but in relative terms poverty

rates in USA are virtually unchanged from 1987 to 2000.

 

Poverty rates are shaped by government spending programs.

 

Market income refers to income derived from gainful employment or

investments and other private sources. Relying upon the market as the

source of income provides rather high overall poverty rates across all

nations. The USA's poverty rate based on market income is lower than

most nations. Social insurance and taxes -- referring to transfers

such as child benefits and children's allowances and changes in

distribution resulting from taxation -- reduces the USA's poverty rate

to 19.3%. The USA's poverty rate associated with the provision of a

few more varied benefits -- called social assistance -- further

reduces the poverty rate to 17.0%.

 

What is the calculated effect on poverty rates of these government

programs? In the USA, social insurance programs reduce the poverty

rate by 16.5% and all programs reduce it by 26.4% which is the

smallest amount among these nations. In contrast, the overall

reduction rate is 60.9% for the nations included in this analysis.

Indeed, Sweden reduces its poverty rate by 77.4% by such actions.

Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Finland also reduce their overall

poverty rate by at least 70% through government action.

 

The USA expends a miserly 2.3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on

non-elderly citizens. In contrast, Finland and Sweden spend over 10%

of GDP on citizen benefits. The importance of government expenditures

in reducing poverty is illustrated by an analysis that reveals that

non-elderly cash and near-cash (e.g., housing subsidies, active labor

market subsidies, etc.) predict 61% of the variation among these

nations' non-elderly poverty rates. Nations that spend more money on

these benefits have lower poverty rates. Nations that spend less have

higher poverty rates.

 

Smeeding also shows that the percentage of low-paid workers is

strongly related to the percentage of non-elderly citizens within a

nation living in poverty (36). The USA has 25% of its workers

identified as earning less than 65% of the median wage and a poverty

rate of 17.8%. In contrast only 5% of Finnish and Swedish workers earn

low wages and their poverty rates are 4.5% and 6% respectively. These

variations in numbers of low paid workers accounts for a strikingly

high 85% of the variation among nations in the number of people living

in poverty. In essence, the single best predictor of the number of

people living in poverty in a nation is the number of people earning

low wages. This begs the question of why so many USA workers are

low-paid, an issue discussed in following sections.

 

Nations that transfer less resources to citizens are more likely to

have higher levels of poverty -- and as other evidence shows -- poorer

population health profiles (65-67). Nations that tolerate greater

proportions of low-paid workers have higher poverty rates and the

associated population health consequences. The next sections explore

the nature of these differences in governmental support of citizens

through transfers and programs.

 

USA Public Policy in Perspective

 

Health inequalities and population health profiles associated with

these inequalities result from systematic variations in approaches to

public policy (68, 69). Commonly termed the welfare state, this basket

of public policies serves to promote human, social and economic

development, reduce citizen uncertainty, and foster health and

well-being. This political economy of health is well developed in

Europe, much less so in North America (70, 71). It is especially

undeveloped in the USA.

 

Societal Commitments to Citizens and Governmental Spending

 

Public commitment to supporting citizens is seen in percentage of

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) transferred to citizens through programs,

services, or cash benefits. Nations may choose to transfer relatively

small amounts, allowing the marketplace to serve as the primary

arbiter of how economic resources are distributed (72). Or a nation

may choose to intervene to control the marketplace and make decisions

concerning these allocations of resources (73). Nations that transfer

a greater proportion of resources are more likely to show better

population health profiles, and relatively less health inequalities

(67). These health and inequality differences emerge through a series

of mechanisms that involve degree of poverty and the material and

social deprivation that are associated with such levels (65).

 

An especially important indicator is extent of government transfers.

Transfers refer to governments taking fiscal resources that are

generated by the economy and distributing them to the population as

services, monetary supports, or investments in social infrastructure.

Such infrastructure includes education, employment training, social

assistance or welfare payments, family supports, pensions, health and

social services, and other benefits (7).

 

Among the developed nations of the OECD, the average public

expenditures in 2001 was 21% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (74).

There is rather large variation among countries with Denmark (spending

29.2% of GDP) and Sweden (spending 28.9% of GDP) being the highest

public spenders. The USA ranks 26th of 30 wealthy industrialized

nations and spends just 14.8% of GDP on public expenditures. The only

nations that allocate a smaller percentage of GDP to public

expenditure are Ireland (13.8%); Turkey (13.2%); Mexico (11.8%); and

Korea (6.1%).

 

The USA is the highest spender on total expenditure on health care.

However, it is in the mid-range on public spending for health care as

much of its spending on health care is from private sources. It is in

the other areas of benefits and supports to citizens that the USA

reveals itself as a very frugal public spender. The USA ranks near the

bottom of nations in allocations to old-age related spending,

primarily pensions with a rank of 26th of 30 wealthy industrialized

nations. The USA also ranks among the lowest spenders on incapacity or

disability-related issues for a rank of 25th of 29 wealthy

industrialized nations. And the USA ranks very poorly on family

benefits achieving a rank of 28th of 29 of these wealthy

industrialized nations.

 

Another way to slice up the expenditure pie is to consider spending on

income support to the working age population and social services as

well as health and pensions. Income support involves family benefits,

wage subsidies, and child support paid by governments to help keep

low-income individuals and families out of poverty. Social services

include counseling, employment supports, and other community services.

Not surprisingly, the USA ranks relatively low on income supports to

the working-aged population and social services. The USA spends just

7.9% of GDP in income supports to the working age population (rank

28th of 30) and 6.7% on social services (rank 20th of 30).

 

Active Labor Policy

 

Active labor policy refers to the extent that governments support

training and other policies that foster employment and reduce

unemployment. The USA allocates 0.53% of GDP to such policies. This

provides it with a ranking of 20th of 22 wealthy industrialized

nations for which data was available.

 

Public Policy and Citizen: Implications for Day-to-Day Life

 

How do these differing commitments to supporting citizens translate

into differing conditions of day-to-day life? Only a few sets of

issues can be examined here: resources available to the unemployed,

level of social assistance benefits, level of minimum wages, and

levels of pension benefits.

 

Unemployment Benefits over a Five Year Period for an Average

Production Worker

 

For most Americans, benefits that would be available over a five year

period would be unemployment insurance which would expire after a year

of benefits. A family with liquid assets would then need to liquidate

these prior to receiving social assistance benefits. For these non-

destitute families, unemployment insurance provides only 6%

replacement income over this period. This ranks the USA 27th of 28

wealthy industrialized nations in its generosity of benefit. If

families did qualify for social assistance, the benefit percentage

would be 30%, providing a ranking of 26th of 28 nations (7).

 

Social Assistance or Welfare

 

The OECD identifies as social assistance and welfare support as

" benefits of last resort. " On average, USA social assistance benefits

for a married couple with two children provide 22% of median average

income. This places these benefits as 28% less than the <50% of median

income-indicator of poverty. As compared to the other nations for

which these data are provided, the USA ranks 20th of 23 nations in

providing these benefits of last resort (7).

 

Minimum Wages

 

Percentage of low-paid workers is the best predictor of percentage of

citizens living in poverty. How does the USA compare to other nations

in having minimum wages that keep people out of poverty? For an

American two-child family with one full-time minimum wage earner, the

wages received places the family at 34% of the median household

income, well below the commonly accepted poverty cut-off of 50% of

median poverty level (7). For a two-parent family with two children

working full-time at minimum wages, the level of median income

achieved is 46% of the poverty level. The USA's ranking for single

parent working family is 12th of 15 wealthy industrialized nations.

For the two-parent working family, the USA rank is 14th of 15.

 

Pensions

 

The Social Security System provides benefits to individuals upon

retirement. The OECD provides data on the value of pension benefits

provided by each nation as a function of the gross earnings of an

average production worker (7). For a worker earning 50% of an average

production worker, the USA's pension provides a rate of 61% of these

earnings. For an American earning the average production worker's

income, the rate is 51%. The rates for average-waged workers are very

low by international comparison giving the USA a rank of 25th of 30

wealthy industrialized nations. For very low-paid workers, the USA

achieves an even lower rank of 28th of 30.

 

[To be continued next week.]

 

References

 

1. Engels F. The condition of the working class in England. New York:

Penguin Classics; 1845/1987.

 

2. Virchow R. Report on the Typhus Epidemic in Upper Silesia. In:

Rather LD, editor. Collected Essays on Public Health and

Epidemiology,. Canton MA: Science History Publications; 1848. p.

205-319.

 

3. Hofrichter R. The politics of health inequities: Contested terrain.

In: Health and Social Justice: A Reader on Ideology, and Inequity in

the Distribution of Disease. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2003.

 

4. Raphael D, Bryant T. The State's role in promoting population

health: Public health concerns in Canada, USA, UK, and Sweden. Health

Policy 2006;79:39-55.

 

5. Raphael D, Bryant T. The limitations of population health as a

model for a new public health. Health Promotion International

2002;17:189-199.

 

6. Raphael D, editor. Social Determinants of Health: Canadian

Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press; 2004.

 

7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Society at a

Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2005 Edition. Paris, France; 2005.

 

8. Smeeding T. Public Policy and Economic Inequality: The United

States in Comparative Perspective. Syracuse NY: Maxwell School of

Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; 2004.

 

9. Raphael D. A society in decline: The social, economic, and

political determinants of health inequalities in the USA. In:

Hofrichter R, editor. Health and Social Justice: A Reader on Politics,

Ideology, and Inequity in the Distribution of Disease. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass; 2003.

 

10. Berkman LF, Lochner KA. Social determinants of health: Meeting at

the crossroads. Health Affairs 2002;21(2):291.

 

11. Huckabee M. A vision for a healthier America: What the states can

do. Health Affairs 2006;25(4):1005-1008.

 

12. Benjamin GC. Putting the public in public health: New approaches.

Health Affairs 2006;25(4):1040-1043.

 

13. McGinnis JM. Can public health And medicine partner In the public

interest? Health Affairs 2006;25(4):1044.

 

14. Gostin LO, Powers M. What does social justice require for the

public's health? Public health ethics and policy imperatives. Health

Affairs 2006;25(4):1053.

 

15. Fielding JE, Briss PA. Promoting evidence-based public health

policy: Can we have better evidence and more action? Health Affairs

2006;25(4):969-977.

 

16. Mechanic D. Disadvantage, Inequality and Social Policy. Health

Affairs 2002;21(2):48-59.

 

17. Mechanic D. Rediscovery Of the 'Public' In public health. Health

Affairs 2006;25(4):1178-1179.

 

18. Mechanic D. Policy challenges In addressing racial disparities and

improving population health. Health Affairs 2005;24(2):335-338.

 

19. Mechanic D. Disadvantage, inequality, and social policy. Health

Affairs 2002;21(2):48.

 

20. Marmot M, Wilkinson R. Social Determinants of Health. 2nd ed.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.

 

21. World Health Organization. WHO to Establish Commission on Social

Determinants of Health. In. Geneva: WHO; 2004.

 

22. Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public's Health in the

21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2002.

 

23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010:

Understanding and improving health. Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services; 2000.

 

24. Minnesota Department of Health. A Call to Action: Advancing Health

for All Through Social and Economic Change. In. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Department of Health; 2001.

 

25. Turning Point. States of change: Stories of transofromation in

public health. Seattle, WA: Robert Woods Johnson Foundation; 2004.

 

26. Townsend P, Davidson N, Whitehead M, editors. Inequalities in

Health: the Black Report and the Health Divide. New York: Penguin;

1992.

 

27. Tarlov A. Social determinants of health: The sociobiological

translation. In: Blane D, Brunner E, Wilkinson R, editors. Health and

Social Organization: Towards a Health Policy for the 21st Century.

London UK: Routledge; 1996.

 

28. Mackenbach J, Bakker M. Tackling socioeconomic inequalities in

health: Analysis of European experiences. Lancet 2003;362:1409-1414.

 

29. Scarth T, editor. Hell and High Water: An Assessment of Paul

Martin's Record and Implications for the Future. Ottawa: Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives; 2004.

 

30. Madanipour A, Cars G, Allen J. Social Exclusion in European

Cities. London: Jessica Kingsley; 1998.

 

31. Lurie N. What the Federal Government can do About the Nonmedical

Determinants of Health. Health Affairs 2002;21(2):94-106.

 

32. McGinnis JM, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The Case for More

Active Policy Attention to Health Promotion. Health Affairs

2002;21(2):78.

 

33. Nettleton S. Surveillance, health promotion and the formation of a

risk identity. In: Sidell M, Jones L, Katz J, Peberdy A, editors.

Debates and Dilemmas in Promoting Health. London, UK: Open University

Press; 1997. p. 314-324.

 

34. Rainwater L, Smeeding T. Doing Poorly: The Real Income of American

Children in a Comparative Perspective. In: Luxembourg Income Study;

1995.

 

35. Rainwater L, Smeeding TM. Poor Kids in a Rich Country: America's

Children in Comparative Perspective. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation; 2003.

 

36. Smeeding T. Poor People in Rich Nations:The United States in

Comparative Perspective. Syracuse: Luxembourg Income Study Working

Paper #419. Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York; 2005.

 

37. Hofrichter R, editor. Health and Social Justice: A Reader on

Politics, Ideology, and Inequity in the Distribution of Disease. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2003.

 

38. Alesina A, Glaeser EL. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A

world of difference. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 2004.

 

39. Rank MR. One Nation, Underprivileged: Why American Poverty Affects

Us All. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.

 

40. Kawachi I, Kennedy B. The Health of Nations: Why Inequality Is

Harmful to Your Health. New York: New Press; 2002.

 

41. Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Britto PR. Are SES Gradients for

Children Similar to Those for Adults? Achievement and Health of

Children in the United States. In: Keating DP, Hertzman C, editors.

Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological and

Educational Dynamics. New York: Guilford Press; 1998.

 

42. Auerbach JA, Krimgold B, editors. Income, Socioeconomic Status,

and Health: Exploring the Relationships. Washington, DC: National

Policy Association; 2001.

 

43. Collins C, Hartman C, Sklar H. Divided Decade: Economic Disparity

at the Century's Turn. Boston: United for a Fair Economy; 1999.

 

44. Association of Community Organizations for Reform. ACORN'S Living

Wage Web Site. In; 2003.

 

45. Bernstein J, Brocht C, Spade-Aguilar M. How much is enough: Basic

family budgets for working families. Washington DC: Economic Policy

Institute; 2000.

 

46. Mishel L, Bernstein J, Boushey B. The State of Working America

2002/2003. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2003.

 

47. Heymann J. The Work, Family, and Equity Index: Where does the

United States Stand Globally? Boston: The Project on Global Working

Families; 2004.

 

48. Brink S, Zeeman A. Measuring Social Well-Being: An Index of Social

Health for Canada: Human Resources Development Canada, Applied

Research Branch,; 1997. Report No.: Report R-97-9E.

 

49. Deaton A, Paxson C. Mortality, Income, and Income Inequality Over

Time in Britain and the United States: National Bureau of Economic

Research; 2001 October. Report No.: NBER Working Paper No.w8534.

 

50. World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.

In. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization European Office;

1986.

 

51. Raphael D, Macdonald J, Labonte R, Colman R, Hayward K, Torgerson

R. Researching income and income distribution as a determinant of

health in Canada: Gaps between theoretical knowledge, research

practice, and policy implementation. Health Policy 2004;72:217-232.

 

52. Mackenbach J, Bakker M, editors. Reducing Inequalities in Health:

A European Perspective. London UK: Routledge; 2002.

 

53. Diderichsen F, Evans T, Whitehead M. The Social Basis of

Disparities in Health. In: Evans T, Whitehead M, Diderichsen F, Bhuiya

A, Wirth M, editors. Challenging Inequalities in Health: From Ethics

to Action. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

 

54. Muntaner C, Borrell C, Kunst A, Chung H, Benach J, Ibrahim S.

Social class inequalities in health: Does welfare state regime matter?

In: Raphael D, Bryant T, Rioux M, editors. Staying Alive: Critical

perspectives on Health, Illness, and Care. Toronto: Canadian Scholars

Press; 2006.

 

55. Muntaner C. Commentary: Social Capital, Social Class, and the Slow

Progress of Psychosocial Epidemiology. International Journal of

Epidemiology 2004;33(4):1-7.

 

56. Navarro V. The politics of health inequlities research in the

United States. International Journal of Health Services

2004;34(1):87-99.

 

57. Oliver MN, Muntaner C. Researching health inequities among African

Americans: The imperative to understand social class. International

Journal of Health Services 2005;35(3):485-498.

 

58. Innocenti Research Centre. A league table of child deaths by

injury in rich nations. 2001.

 

59. Innocenti Research Centre. A League Table of Child Maltreatment

Deaths in Rich Nations. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre; 2003.

 

60. Esping-Andersen G. A child-centred social investment strategy. In:

Esping-Andersen G, editor. Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford UK:

Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 26-67.

 

61. Esping-Andersen G. Towards the good society, once again? In:

Esping-Andersen G, editor. Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford UK:

Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 1-25.

 

62. Percy-Smith J, editor. Policy Responses to Social Exclusion:

Towards Inclusion? Buckingham UK: Open University Press; 2000.

 

63. Galabuzi GE. Social exclusion. In: Raphael D, editor. Social

determinants of health: Canadian perspectives. Toronto: Canadian

Scholars Press.; 2004.

 

64. Innocenti Research Centre. A league table of child poverty in rich

nations. Florence Italy: Innocenti Research Centre; 2000.

 

65. Navarro V, Borrell C, Benach J, Muntaner C, Quiroga A, Rodrigues-

Sanz M, et al. The importance of the political and the social in

explaining mortality differentials among the countries of the OECD,

1950-1998. In: Navarro V, editor. The Political and Social Contexts of

Health. Amityville NY: Baywood Press; 2004.

 

66. Coburn D. Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: Globalization,

neo-liberalism, and health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine

2004;58:41-56.

 

67. Coburn D. Health and Health Care: A Political Economy Perspective.

In: Raphael D, Bryant T, Rioux M, editors. Staying Alive: Critical

Perspectives on Health, Illness, and Health Care. Toronto: Canadian

Scholars Press; 2006. p. 59-84.

 

68. Navarro V, editor. The Political Economy of Social Inequalities:

Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. Amityville, NY: Baywood

Press; 2002.

 

69. Navarro V, Muntaner C, editors. Political and Economic

Determinants of Population Health and Well-being: Controversies and

Developments. Amityville NY: Baywood Press; 2004.

 

70. Bambra C. The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind? Social

Policy and Society 2004;3(3):201-211.

 

71. Bambra C, Fox D, Scott-Samuel A. Towards a politics of health.

Health Promot. Int. 2005;20(2):187-193.

 

72. Saint-Arnaud S, Bernard P. Convergence or resilience? A

hierarchial cluster analysis of the welfare regimes in advanced

countries. Current Sociology 2003;51(5):499-527.

 

73. Brady D. The politics of poverty: Left political institutions, the

welfare state, and poverty. Social Forces 2003;82:557-588.

 

74. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Society at

a Glance: OECD Social Indicators 2002 Edition. Paris, France; 2003.

 

75. Navarro V, Schmitt J. Economic efficiency versus social equality?

The U.S. liberal model versus the European social model.

2005;35(4):613-630.

 

76. American Public Health Association. Leave no one behind:

Elimimating racial and ethnic disparities in health and life

expectancy. Washington DC: American Public Health Association; 2004.

 

77. American Public Health Association. Disparities in Health Fact

Sheets. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2004.

 

78. United Health Foundation. America's Health: State Health Rankings.

Minnetonka, MN: United Health Foundation; 2004.

 

79. Public Health Association of New York City. Agenda for Public

Health. In: Public Health Association of New York City; 2005.

 

80. Bryant T. Politics, public policy and population health. In:

Raphael D, Bryant T, Rioux M, editors. Staying Alive: Critical

Perspectives on Health, Illness, and Health Care. Toronto: Canadian

Scholars Press; 2006. p. 193-216.

 

81. Navarro V. The Politics of Health Policy: The US Reforms

1980-1994. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers; 1994.

 

82. Auerbach JA, Krimgold B, Lefkowitz B. Improving Health: It Doesn't

Take a Revolution. Washington, DC: National Policy Association; 2000.

Report No.: NPA report # 298.

 

83. Raphael D. Social justice is good for our hearts: why societal

factors -- not lifestyles -- are major causes of heart disease in

Canada and elsewhere. In. Toronto, Canada: Centre for Social Justice

Foundation for Research and Education (CSJ); 2002.

 

84. Raphael D, Anstice S, Raine K. The social determinants of the

incidence and management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are we prepared

to rethink our questions and redirect our research activities?

Leadership in Health Services 2003;16:10-20.

 

85. Popay J, Williams GH, editors. Researching the People's Health,

Routledge. London UK: Routledge; 1994.

 

86. Bryant T. Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion

policy change. Health Promotion International 2002;17(1):89-98.

 

87. Park P. What is participatory research? A theoretical and

methodological perspective. In: Park P, Brydon-Miller M, Hall B,

Jackson T, editors. Voices of change: Participatory research in the

United States and Canada. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education Press; 1993. p. 1-19.

 

88. Minkler M, Wallerstein N, Hall B. Community Based Participatory

Research for Health. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2002.

 

89. Minkler M. Community-Based Research Partnerships: Challenges and

Opportunities. Journal of Urban Health 2005;82(Supplement 2):ii3-

ii12.

 

90. Lipset M. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the

United States and Canada. New York: Routledge; 1990.

 

91. Lipset M, Marks G. It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in

the United States. New York: W. W. Norton; 2000.

 

92. Navarro V, Shi L. The Political Context of Social Inequalities and

Health. In: Navarro V, editor. The Political Economy of Social

Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. Amityville,

NY: Baywood; 2002.

 

93. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD

Employment Outlook 2004. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development; 2004.

 

94. Zweig M. The working class majority: America's best kept secret.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2000.

 

95. Zweig M, editor. What's Class Got to Do with It?: American Society

in the Twenty-First Century. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press;

2004.

 

96. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Tackling

health inequities through public health practice: A handbook for

action. Washington DC: National Association of County and City Health

Officials; 2006.

 

97. Minnesota Department of Health. Healthy Minnesotans: Public Health

Improvement Goals 2004. Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Health,;

1998.

 

98. Office of Minority Health M. Populations of Color in Minnesota:

Health Status Report. Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Health;

1997.

 

99. Hayward K, Colman R. The Tides of Change: Addressing Inequity and

Chronic Disease in Atlantic Canada. Halifax NS: Atlantic Regional

Office, Health Canada; 2003.

 

100. Public Health Agency of Canada. Turning the Tide: Why Acting on

Inequity Can Help Reduce Chronic Disease. 2005. Halifax, NS: Public

Health Agency of Canada; 2006.

 

101. European Committee for Health Promotion Development. Reducing

Inequalities in Health: Proposals for Health Promotion Policy and

Action. In: World Health Organization; 2000.

 

102. Phillips K. Wealth and Democracy. New York: Broadway Books; 2002.

 

103. Rifkin J. The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future

is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. New York: Tarcher; 2004.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Too Much, Sept. 25, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

OUR BILLIONAIRE BUNCH

 

The only official arm of the United States government that

systematically tracks the wealth of America's wealthy, the Federal

Reserve, does not -- for privacy reasons -- count the wealth of

America's very wealthiest. Thank goodness we have Forbes.

 

Every year, ever since 1982, this business magazine has assembled a

research team that dives deep into the nation's business records to

count the dollars of both exhibitionists eager to flaunt their wealth

and the shy anxious to hide it.

 

The resulting annual list of America's richest 400 may not be

absolutely accurate. But few people on the Forbes list, or left off

it, ever end up complaining. In a world of imperfect information, the

annual Forbes 400 numbers give us a reasonably accurate -- and

intensely sobering -- look at our grotesquely unequal nation.

 

How grotesquely unequal?

 

Back in 1982, the year Forbes started publishing an annual list of

America's 400 richest, the magazine could find only 13 billionaires in

the entire United States. The nation's entire billionaire population

could stand, quite comfortably, in a living room.

 

Not anymore. The just-released Forbes 400 list for 2006 includes,

for the first time ever, only billionaires.

 

Together, these 400 billionaires own $1.25 trillion in total

net worth.

 

Let's put this total in a more comprehensible context. In 2004, the

most current year with stats available, the 56 million American

families who make up the poorer half of America's wealth distribution

had a total combined net worth of just $1.29 trillion.

 

In other words, our nation's richest 400 households own just about as

much of our nation's treasure as our poorest 56 million.

 

That treasure appears to be concentrating at economic warp speed. In

1982, a deep-pocket in the United States needed a mere $90 million to

enter the lofty ranks of the Forbes 400. In 2004, the price of

admission stood at $750 million. On last year's Forbes list, the cut-

off jumped to $900 million. This year's entry fee: a straight $1

billion.

 

Let's put that number in context, too. An average American could win,

three times over, the biggest lottery jackpot ever -- the $315 million

payout recorded in California last November -- and still need over $50

million more to knock on the Forbes 400 door.

 

This year's fastest-growing Forbes 400 fortune belongs, somewhat

fittingly, to Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands, the

global gambling industry giant. Worth $20.5 billion, this casino

magnate holds the nation's third-largest fortune. Adelson's fortune,

over the past two years, has grown at the rate of nearly $1 million an

hour.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Reuters, Sept. 7, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

INTERSEX FISH RAISES POLLUTION CONCERNS IN U.S

 

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

 

Washington -- The discovery of intersex fish -- males with some female

characteristics, including some carrying eggs -- in Washington's

Potomac River is raising concerns about pollution from chemicals that

can affect hormones.

 

A preliminary investigation by the U.S. Geological Survey found a high

incidence of intersex among smallmouth bass in the South Branch of the

Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, both near Washington.

 

" We ended up identifying a problem that is typical of endocrine

disruption, that is, seeing eggs in the testes of sexually mature

fish, " Chris Ottinger, an immunologist at the Geological Survey's

National Fish Health Research Laboratory, said on Thursday. " It was

something that warranted further investigation. "

 

These so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals are used widely in

industry and in consumer products including pharmaceuticals,

cosmetics, perfumes, plastics and even materials used to keep

barnacles from clinging to boat bottoms.

 

Theo Colburn, an environmental health analyst who has specialized in

studying the effects of endocrine disruptors, said they work during

gestation, and have been linked to feminization of male fish in the

Great Lakes, smaller penises in alligators and polar bears, and

hermaphroditic whales -- with genitalia of both sexes -- in the St.

Lawrence River.

 

Safe To Drink

 

Laboratory studies have shown developmental effects from very low

doses of hormone disruptors, but it would be technically impossible at

present to remove such low concentrations of these compounds from

drinking water, Colburn said by telephone from her office in Colorado.

 

The manager of the water utility that covers a large swath of the

Washington area stressed that drinking water is safe.

 

" As water plant manager, what I know is that there is no evidence

pointing to any concentrations of these substances in the water that

are having human effects, " said Thomas Jacobus, manager of the

Washington Aqueduct. " The water is safe to drink. "

 

Jacobus said the water was tested for some endocrine disrupting

chemicals, but noted that there are potentially 20,000 of these

compounds in existence.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that the

exact amounts of these chemicals, especially at extremely low doses,

in the environment are difficult to determine.

 

" Little is known about the potential harm posed by trace amounts of

PPCPs (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) in drinking water, "

the agency said in a statement. " Current water treatment processes may

remove some PPCPs, but more research is needed to determine how

efficiently these compounds are removed by various treatment

technologies. "

 

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

THE ASCENT OF WIND POWER

 

By Keith Bradsher

 

KHORI, India -- Dilip Pantosh Patil uses an ox-drawn wooden plow to

till the same land as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

But now he has a new neighbor: a shiny white wind turbine taller than

a 20-story building, generating electricity at the edge of his bean

field.

 

Wind power may still have an image as something of a plaything of

environmentalists more concerned with clean energy than saving money.

But it is quickly emerging as a serious alternative not just in

affluent areas of the world but in fast-growing countries like India

and China that are avidly seeking new energy sources. And leading the

charge here in west-central India and elsewhere is an unlikely

champion, Suzlon Energy, a homegrown Indian company.

 

Suzlon already dominates the Indian market and is now expanding

rapidly abroad, having erected factories in locations as far away as

Pipestone, Minn., and Tianjin, China. Four-fifths of the orders in

Suzlon's packed book now come from outside India.

 

Not even on the list of the world's top 10 wind-turbine manufacturers

as recently as 2002, Suzlon passed Siemens of Germany last year to

become the fifth-largest producer by installed megawatts of capacity.

It still trails the market leader, Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark, as

well as General Electric, Enercon of Germany and Gamesa Tecnologica of

Spain.

 

Suzlon's past shows how a company can prosper by tackling the special

needs of a developing country. Its present suggests a way of serving

expanding energy needs without relying quite so much on coal, the

fastest-growth fossil fuel now but also the most polluting.

 

And Suzlon's future is likely to be a case study of how a manufacturer

copes with China, both in capturing sales there and in confronting

competition from Chinese companies.

 

Suzlon is an outgrowth in many ways of India's dysfunctional power-

distribution system. Electricity boards owned by state governments

charge industrial users more than twice as much for each kilowatt-hour

as such customers pay in the United States -- and they still suffer

blackouts almost every day, especially in northern India.

 

Subject to political pressures, the boards are often slow to collect

payments from residential consumers and well-connected businesses,

especially before elections. As a result, they often lack the money to

invest in new equipment.

 

To stay open and prevent crucial industrial or computer processes from

stopping, a wide range of businesses -- including auto parts factories

and outsourcing giants -- rely on still more costly diesel generators.

 

With natural gas prices climbing as well, wind turbines have become

attractive to Indian business. The Essar Group of Mumbai, a big

industrial conglomerate active in shipping, steel and construction, is

now working on plans for a wind farm near Chennai, formerly Madras,

after concluding that regulatory changes in India have made it

financially attractive.

 

" The mechanisms didn't used to be there; now they are, " said Jose

Numpeli, vice president for operations at Essar Power. The electricity

boards " know how to cost it, they know how to pay for it. "

 

Roughly 70 percent of the demand for wind turbines in India comes from

industrial users seeking alternatives to relying on the grid, said

Tulsi R. Tanti, Suzlon's managing director. The rest of the purchases

are made by a small group of wealthy families in India, for whom the

tax breaks for wind turbines are attractive.

 

Wind will remain competitive as long as the price of crude oil remains

above $40 a barrel, Mr. Tanti estimated. To remain cost-effective

below $40 a barrel, wind energy may require subsidies, or possibly

carbon-based taxes on oil and other fossil fuels.

 

Mr. Tanti and his three younger brothers were running a textile

business in Gujarat, in northwestern India, when they purchased a

German wind turbine -- only to find that they could not keep it

running. So they decided to build and maintain turbines themselves,

starting Suzlon in 1995 and later leaving the textile business.

 

To minimize land costs, wind farms are typically in rural areas,

chosen for the strength of the wind there as well as low prices for

land. But that can mean culture shock.

 

" There were no big changes until the turbines came, " Mr. Patil said,

pausing from plowing here with his father in this remote, hilly,

tribal area 200 miles northeast of Mumbai, where oxen remain at the

center of farm life and motorized vehicles are uncommon.

 

Doing business in rural areas of the developing world carries special

challenges. The new Suzlon Energy wind farm in Khori is a subject of

national pride. More than 300 giant wind turbines, with 110-foot

blades, snatch electricity from the air. But it has also struggled

with the sporadic lawlessness that bedevils India.

 

S. Mohammed Farook, the installation's manager, was far from happy one

recent afternoon. At least 63 new turbines, worth $1.3 million apiece

and each capable of lighting several thousand homes when the wind

blows, could not be put into service because thieves had stolen their

copper power cables and aluminum service ladders for sale as scrap.

 

The copper or aluminum fetches as little as $1 from black-market scrap

dealers. But each repair costs thousands of dollars in parts and staff

time, in a country that is desperately short of electricity and

technicians.

 

" I am crying inside, " Mr. Farook said.

 

Despite such problems, Suzlon has expanded rapidly as global demand

for wind energy has taken off. Its sales and earnings tripled in the

quarter ended June 30, as the company earned the equivalent of $41.6

million on sales of $202.4 million.

 

The demand for wind turbines has particularly accelerated in India,

where installations rose nearly 48 percent last year, and in China,

where they rose 65 percent, although from a lower base. Wind farms are

starting to dot the coastline of east-central China and the southern

tip of India, as well as scattered mesas and hills across central

India and even Inner Mongolia.

 

Coal is the main alternative in the two countries, and is causing acid

rain and respiratory ailments while contributing to global warming.

China accounted for 79 percent of the world's growth in coal

consumption last year and India used 7 percent more, according to

statistics from BP.

 

Worried by its reliance on coal, China has imposed a requirement that

power companies generate a fifth of their electricity from renewable

sources by 2020. This target calls for expanding wind power almost as

much as nuclear energy over the next 15 years. India already leads

China in wind power and is quickly building more wind turbines.

 

Chinese and Indian officials are optimistic about relying much more

heavily on wind.

 

" I believe we may break through these targets -- if not, we should at

least have no problem reaching them, " said Zhang Yuan, vice general

manager of the China Longyuan Electric Power Group, the renewable-

energy arm of one of China's five state-owned electric utilities,

China Guodian.

 

Kamal Nath, India's minister of commerce and industry, was even more

enthusiastic. " India is ideally suited for wind energy, " he said. " The

cost of it works well and we have the manufacturing capability. "

 

International experts are more skeptical that wind will displace coal

to a considerable extent, saying that while electricity production

from wind is likely to increase rapidly, the sheer scale of energy

demands suggests that coal burning will expand even more.

 

Suzlon still sees plenty of opportunity in China and has decided to

build some of its latest designs in China for the market there,

despite the risk of having them copied by Chinese manufacturers.

 

" Being an Asian leader, " Mr. Tanti said, " we cannot afford to ignore

China. "

 

A dozen Chinese manufacturers have jumped into wind-turbine

manufacturing as well. They have struggled with quality problems and

have limited production capacity so far, resulting in long delivery

delays.

 

But the Chinese producers already have an edge on price over imported

equipment, according to Meiya Power of Hong Kong, which owns and

operates power plants in China and across Asia, and is considering a

wind farm in windswept Inner Mongolia.

 

Mr. Tanti said that rapid innovation and design changes would allow

Suzlon to stay ahead of copycats. " It's a time-consuming process, " he

said, estimating that it would take two to three years for rivals to

clone Suzlon turbines because they use unique or proprietary parts.

 

Suzlon manufactures its turbines at two factories in India, but has

begun test production at a just-completed turbine-blade factory in

Minnesota, where it already supplies turbines for a wind farm operated

by the Edison Mission Group and Deere & Company. It has also begun

test production at a Chinese factory that will make both turbines and

blades.

 

To reach the Suzlon wind farm here, the huge rotors travel by night on

special trucks for a 300-mile journey from northwestern India on a

succession of paved and dirt roads.

 

Squatter huts have had to be removed along the way to allow the long

trucks to turn; Suzlon is not required to pay compensation but often

makes donations in these cases, Mr. Farook said.

 

The truck crews also carry wooden poles to prop up electricity wires

across the road and pass underneath. The trucks sometimes attract

gawkers, and live wires occasionally burn bystanders.

 

" With human error, it may touch human flesh, " Mr. Farook said. " In

that case, we have to pay compensation. "

 

Villagers in Khori said that thievery and even robberies by rock-

throwing gangs were nothing new, and were a problem long before Suzlon

began setting up wind turbines. The company's response -- stepping up

patrols by security guards -- has reduced everyday crime. That has

made villagers more willing to rent land at the edge of their fields

for the turbines.

 

At first, " we were really confused about what was going on, " Mr. Patil

said. " But now we're O.K. on it. "

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

 

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

 

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

 

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

 

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::