<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dirty Hippies &#187; Industry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dirtyhippies.org/category/industry/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dirtyhippies.org</link>
	<description>Democracy. Unwashed.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>175 Chickens in 1 Minute?!</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>James Boyce</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deregulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Drink]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agriculture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicken]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicken industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food inspection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pink slime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poultry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USDA has decided in its infinite wisdom, despite pink slime and a few other debacles of the food industry, to test a program allowing chicken companies to check their own livestock and decide whether or not the chickens are safe to eat. The USDA claims this will save them tens of millions of dollars. Well, USDA, I can save you even more. If you're going to let the chicken companies inspect their own chickens, just trash the whole program.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;d think the USDA would see the flaw of logic in letting the people who make the food <i>inspect</i> the food and decide if it is actually safe to eat.</p>
<p>The USDA has decided in its infinite wisdom, despite pink slime and a few other debacles of the food industry, to test a program <a href="http://handpickednation.com/watch/let-them-eat-chicken/">allowing chicken companies to check their own livestock</a> and decide whether or not the chickens are safe to eat.</p>
<p>The USDA claims this will save them tens of millions of dollars.</p>
<p>Well, USDA, I can save you even more. If you&#8217;re going to let the chicken companies inspect their own chickens, just trash the whole program, because I guarantee you they will decide &#8220;ALL of our chickens are safe!&#8221;</p>
<p>At some point, you would hope someone at the USDA (and I looked it up, there are over 100,000 employees there) would have raised their hand and pointed out the glaringly obvious: &#8220;Uh, since these guys are selling us chicken/beef/fish/whatever, don&#8217;t you think they are going to say that <em>everything</em> they&#8217;re selling is safe?&#8221;</p>
<p>Ideally, another person (we&#8217;re up to 2 out of 100,000 &#8211; a push perhaps, but I woke up optimistic this morning) would have seconded the first person&#8217;s statement and then, just maybe, we could have our food actually inspected before we eat it.</p>
<p>Which, I will point out to the USDA and its 100,000 employees, is generally considered to be their core job.</p>
<p>And it gets worse.<span id="more-2120"></span></p>
<p>Right now, the USDA inspectors (who are independent, don&#8217;t work for the chicken companies, and aren&#8217;t driven by chicken company profits for holiday bonuses) inspect 35 chickens a minute for lovely things like bile, feces and random spare parts that got through processing.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a chicken every two seconds.</p>
<p>Should you so desire, take two seconds to inspect the next chicken you see at the store. It&#8217;s really not a lot of time, but with some practice you could get pretty good at it &#8211; which is a nice thought because you are essentially performing the task that stands between me eating a relatively clean chicken or a feces- and bile-covered chicken. (There is a difference, Mr. USDA, trust me on this one.)</p>
<p>Well, under this new program, the chicken companies will rubber stamp &#8211; er, I mean inspect 175 chickens a minute. 175! That&#8217;s just under three chickens a second.</p>
<p>Are you thinking, &#8220;Wait a minute, 175 chickens a minute? That&#8217;s <em>impossible!&#8221;</em> Well congratulations &#8211; you are now ahead of 100,000 USDA employees in the class on food safety.</p>
<p>I have a little test for you and the USDA: if you can even count to 175 in sixty seconds, I might reconsider my opposition.</p>
<p>If you can&#8217;t, you need to <a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/united-states-department-of-agriculture-usda-please-don-t-let-the-foxes-guard-the-hen-house" target="_hplink">sign this petition</a>, share it with the world, put it up on Facebook.</p>
<p>Even better, if you know anyone at the USDA, send it to them and ask them to see what they can do for you, for me, and for everyone who prefers their chickens to be properly inspected, let alone inspected at all.</p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.handpickednation.com">HandPicked Nation</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/04/11/175-chickens-in-1-minute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In the End, Fukushima a Gift to the Nuclear Energy Industry?</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/21/in-the-end-fukushima-a-gift-to-the-nuclear-energy-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/21/in-the-end-fukushima-a-gift-to-the-nuclear-energy-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Russ Wellen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fukushima]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fukushima nuclear reactor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan nuclear crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Fukushima reactors' survival of both an earthquake and tsunami with minimal radiation release can be a powerful selling point for nuclear power plants.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">Pro Publica</a>, in an article titled <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/even-in-worst-case-japans-nuclear-disaster-will-have-limited-reach">Even In Worst Case, Japan&#8217;s Nuclear Disaster Will Have Limited Reach</a> Abrahm Lustgarten<br />
<blockquote>. . . spoke with seven top nuclear engineers and scientists to at least establish some boundaries for the disaster’s potential health and environmental impacts. The rough consensus: The long-term and most severe effects from radiation at the plant, where four of six reactors are in crisis and hundreds of tons of spent fuel is a risk, will be largely contained to the area around the plant, affect a relatively limited population and will likely not spread outside Japan.</p></blockquote>
<p>So what, as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/japan-idUSL3E7EJ08F20110319">Reuters</a> reports, if the<br />
<blockquote>. . . unprecedented multiple crisis will cost the world&#8217;s third largest economy nearly $200 billion and require Japan&#8217;s biggest reconstruction push since post-World War II.</p></blockquote>
<p>Uncovered by insurance because it was an act of God (however Old Testament)? No problem.<br />
<blockquote>The highly specialized German Nuclear Reactor Insurance Association (DKVG) partially insured Japan&#8217;s Fukushima nuclear plant to the tune of tens of millions of euros. But the Cologne-based insurer won&#8217;t be paying anything.</p>
<p>&#8220;We do have a stake in the risks in Japan, generally speaking. But the property insurance and liability insurance policies exclude damages from earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions,&#8221; DKVG chief executive Dirk Harbrücker told <a href="http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14917361,00.html">Deutsche Welle</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Never mind that when it comes to building new reactors, the <em><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/margareta-pagano/margareta-pagano-is-the-nuclear-industry-dead-and-buried-2247038.html">Independent</a></em> reports that &#8220;some estimates suggest extra safety will add at least another 10 per cent.&#8221; </p>
<p>The case will be made that the Fukushima reactors, despite how old they were, survived both an earthquake and tsunami with attendant explosions, fires, and loss of water to spent fuel rods with minimal (by some standards, anyway) leakage of radiation into the atmosphere. Fukushima could turn into the gift that keeps on giving for nuclear energy advocates.</p>
<p>Except for one small stumbling block: because neither Fukushima&#8217;s nor any other reactors have been attacked by terrorists, it remains to be seen how one would stand up to subversion from within, assault by ground troops, or a plane loaded with explosives crashing into it.</p>
<p><em>First posted at the Foreign Policy in Focus blog <a href="http://www.fpif.org/blog">Focal Points</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/03/21/in-the-end-fukushima-a-gift-to-the-nuclear-energy-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
