Podcasts about toxic substances control act

About this episode: Conversations about fluoride in the water supply are revving up but a key factor in the debate is the legal framework. In this episode: a discussion about the relevant law for assessing fluoride added to drinking water known as the Toxic Substances Control Act—a law limited to a focus on risk, not benefit—and what that means for emerging science and policy discussions around fluoridating water. Guest: Dr. Lynn Goldman is a pediatrician, the dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University, and an expert in environmental health. Host: Dr. Josh Sharfstein is vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a faculty member in health policy, a pediatrician, and former secretary of Maryland's Health Department. Show links and related content: EPA ‘in a really tough spot' after landmark fluoride ruling—E&E News, Politico The Benefits and Risks of Fluoride, Explained—New York Times Fluoride's PR Nightmare—Unbiased Science Fluoride Face-Off: Court Ruling Challenges, But Science Stands Firm—Unbiased Science Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on X @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed

Animal aquaculture, the farming of fish, has outpaced the amount of wild-caught fish by tens of millions of metric tons each year, bringing with it negative environmental impacts and enabling abuse, says Carl Safina, an ecologist and author. On this episode of Mongabay's podcast, Safina speaks with co-host Rachel Donald about his recent Science Advances essay describing the “moral reckoning” that's required for the industry, pointing to environmental laws in the United States, which put hard limits on pollution, as examples to follow. “In the 1970s in the U.S., we had this enormous burst of environmental legislation. We got the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act … all of these things were not because somebody invented something new. It's because we felt differently about what was important,” he says. The global fishing industry also contributes to forced labor and other worker abuses, as revealed by whistleblowers and media outlets, including Mongabay. Read our award-winning 2022 investigation, which revealed systemic abuse of foreign workers by China's offshore tuna fleet. Like this podcast? Share it with a friend, and please leave a review. Subscribe to or follow the Mongabay Newscast wherever you listen to podcasts, from Apple to Spotify, and you can also listen to all episodes here on the Mongabay website or download our free app for Apple and Android devices to gain instant access to our latest episodes and all of our previous ones. Image caption: An Atlantic salmon. In the U.S., the Washington state legislature banned farming of Atlantic salmon in 2018. A state official banned all commercial finfish aquaculture. Alaska and California have similar bans. Image by Hans-Petter Fjeld via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.5). --- Timecodes (00:00) Aquaculture and its impacts (15:32) How values shape environmental policy (32:56) The tragedy of the commons (35:52) Ecological empathy (45:07) Credits

In this episode, Tee dives into a profound and enlightening conversation with Dr. Tom O'Bryan, a distinguished expert in food sensitivities, autoimmune diseases, and environmental toxins. Dr. O'Bryan shares his remarkable journey from a natural foods baker to a globally recognized figure in functional medicine. Together, they explore the critical role of chronic inflammation in various diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular issues, and Alzheimer's. Dr. O'Bryan introduces modern diagnostic tools like the NeuroZoomer Plus and the Wheat Zoomer, essential in pinpointing inflammation triggers. In addition, he offers practical advice on reducing exposure to toxins and refining dietary habits to combat inflammation. The episode also examines regulatory gaps, such as those in the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, and highlights groundbreaking research, including Dr. Dale Bredesen's work on Alzheimer's disease. Connect With Dr. Tom: Website LinkedIn Facebook Instagram X Free Resources: The Inflammation Equation Cook Book Follow Therese "Tee" Forton-Barnes and The Green Living Gurus: Tee's Organics - Therese's Healthy Products for You and Your Home: Check out these incredible products made only with purified water, seven essential oils, and vinegar. Once you clean with them, you will be addicted! No more spraying chemicals in your home. Use the code Healthyliving for a 15% discount on my products at Shop Tee's Organics Austin Air Purifiers: For Podcast listeners, take 15% off any Austin Air product; please email Tee@thegreenlivinggurus.com and mention that you want to buy a product and would like the discount. See all products here: Austin Air The Green Living Gurus Website  Instagram YouTube Facebook Healthy Living Group on Facebook Tip the podcaster! Support Tee and the endless information that she provides: Patreon Venmo: @Therese-Forton-Barnes last four digits of her cell are 8868 For further info contact Tee: Email: Tee@thegreenlivinggurus.com Cell: 716-868-8868 DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED HERE IS GENERAL GUIDANCE AND NOT MEANT TO BE USED FOR INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROVIDER OR DOCTOR FOR MEDICAL ADVICE. Produced By: Social Chameleon

If you've ever questioned the safety of fluoride in drinking water, this episode is for you. The recent court ruling against the EPA on fluoride regulation is a game-changer, and we're breaking it down in simple terms.Today, I'm diving into the complicated issue of fluoride and making it accessible for everyone. From a brief history of fluoride use to the timeline of events leading to the EPA's court loss, we're covering it all. You'll learn why this chemical has been controversial for decades and how recent scientific evidence is changing the conversation.And let me tell you, this court case is monumental. It not only challenges long-held beliefs about fluoride safety but also opens the door for regulating other toxins in the future. I'll explain why this legal precedent is so exciting for those of us fighting for cleaner, safer environments.Check out my recommended fluoride-free toothpaste and water filtration systems on my Toxin Free Shopping Guide.In this episode, we're chatting about:A quick history of fluoride and its known health impactsThe myth of fluoride's effectiveness in preventing cavities when ingestedThe timeline of events leading to the EPA's court lossWhy the 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act was crucialThe recent studies linking fluoride to neurodevelopmental effects and lower IQ in childrenHow the National Toxicology Program's report became the nail in the coffinWhy this court case is so significant for future toxin regulationTwo simple ways you can protect your family from fluoride exposure right nowWhether you're a long-time fluoride skeptic or just starting to question its safety, this episode will give you the information you need to make informed decisions for your family's health.If you enjoyed this week's episode, please: Leave a positive review or rating wherever you listen Shop toxin free products on my Toxin Free Shopping Guide Download your free 25 Toxins to Avoid Post a screenshot, share what you loved, and tag me on Instagram @wendy_toxinfreeish Want to ask me a question to get answered on the podcast? Leave me a voice message here.

This Day in Legal History: John Jay Commissioned as first Chief JusticeOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. Nominated by President George Washington and confirmed by the Senate, Jay's appointment came just months after the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the framework for the federal judiciary. As the leader of the newly formed Supreme Court, Jay faced the monumental task of defining the role of the judiciary in the young republic. He served from 1789 to 1795, during which time the Court heard few cases but laid foundational principles for its future authority.Jay's influence extended beyond the bench. He played a key role in shaping foreign policy, including negotiating the 1794 Jay Treaty with Great Britain. His tenure helped establish the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government, though the Court's full power would only be realized in later decades. Jay resigned from the Court in 1795 to become Governor of New York, but his legacy as the first Chief Justice remains integral to the evolution of the U.S. judiciary. His commission set a precedent for the development of a robust and coequal judiciary, a cornerstone of the American system of checks and balances.New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted following a federal corruption probe, raising questions about his political future. The investigation, which began after an FBI raid on a campaign fundraiser's home, has expanded in recent months. Key members of Adams' administration, including his chief counsel and police commissioner, have resigned amid the scrutiny. The charges remain unclear, as the indictment is sealed. Investigations reportedly involve allegations that Adams' campaign accepted illegal donations tied to the Turkish government and pressured officials to approve permits despite safety concerns. Federal agents recently searched the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion.Adams, who has denied any wrongdoing, vows to remain in office and fight the charges. Calls for his resignation are growing, including from prominent figures like U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and mayoral challengers. The probes come as Adams seeks re-election and amid challenges like rising crime rates, absenteeism in schools, and the ongoing migrant crisis in New York City.NYC Mayor Eric Adams Indicted After Federal Corruption ProbeNew York Mayor Adams faces criminal indictment, vows to fight charges | ReutersDonald Trump's legal team is appealing a nearly $500 million civil fraud judgment related to his real estate dealings. The case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, resulted in a February 2024 ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron, who found Trump guilty of inflating his net worth to secure better loan terms. Trump was ordered to pay $454.2 million, which has since increased to $478.3 million due to interest. His lawyers argue that the financial statements submitted to banks understated his wealth and claim the case is politically motivated.James' office countered that the lawsuit's goal was to maintain the integrity of New York's commercial markets, and proof of financial losses by the banks was not required under the law. The judgment threatens Trump's business empire and includes a ban on him leading New York companies or seeking loans from state-registered banks. Trump has denied wrongdoing and posted a $175 million bond to prevent asset seizures while his appeal is pending. This case is one of several legal challenges he faces as he campaigns for the 2024 presidential election.Trump to ask New York appeals court to toss nearly $500 mln civil fraud judgment | ReutersCalifornia has filed a landmark lawsuit against ExxonMobil, accusing the company of misleading the public by promoting plastics as recyclable when few are. Filed on September 23, 2024, the case argues that ExxonMobil's actions fueled increased consumption of single-use plastics, worsening the global plastic pollution crisis. This case stands out by targeting the root of the problem—plastic producers—rather than downstream companies. It seeks a multibillion-dollar abatement fund for recycling education and other penalties. The lawsuit is part of a broader push for "extended producer responsibility," which holds manufacturers accountable for the environmental impacts of their products.Experts suggest the false advertising and unfair competition claims in the case have strong backing, but public nuisance claims could be tougher to prove. ExxonMobil is expected to argue that it didn't mislead consumers and that California's own recycling policies are at fault. This lawsuit may inspire other states, such as New York and Massachusetts, to file similar cases, depending on how California's case progresses. The case reflects a growing trend of states using the courts to address environmental concerns amid weakening federal regulations.California's ExxonMobil Suit Marks New Front in Plastics FightA federal court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take action to address the risk that fluoride in drinking water poses to children's IQ. The case, decided by Judge Edward M. Chen in the Northern District of California, found that adding fluoride to water at the currently recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) could lower children's IQ, creating an "unreasonable risk" that requires a regulatory response. While the court did not conclude definitively that fluoridated water is harmful, it mandated that the EPA assess the risk and determine appropriate measures under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.The ruling follows a lawsuit from groups like Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network, who argued that fluoride's neurotoxic effects pose a public health danger. Scientific studies have shown a significant association between higher fluoride levels and decreased IQ in children. Judge Chen noted that the population exposed to fluoride in the U.S. is vast, including two million pregnant women and 300,000 formula-fed infants. Despite past recommendations to lower the maximum contaminant limit, the EPA has not yet revised its standards.The court's decision, which bypasses the EPA's earlier denials of citizen petitions, marks a historic moment in the long-standing debate over water fluoridation.EPA Must Reduce Fluoride's IQ Risks to Children, Court Says (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Nancy (she/her) is Breast Cancer Prevention Partners' (BCPP) Director of Program and Policy and works at the state and federal levels to advance public policy to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals. Before joining BCPP, Nancy spent over 20 years in Washington DC advocating for numerous causes, including civil rights for women and the GLBTQ+ community. She graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a Bachelor of Science in Biology and earned a Masters degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Connecticut. Nancy is an avid outdoors person, spending her spare time hiking and birding in Northern California and beyond. In the 13 years Nancy has worked for BCPP, she has focused on several issues related to breast cancer prevention including strengthening the country's broadest law governing synthetic chemicals – the Toxic Substances Control Act; implementation of the ban on several phthalates in toys and childcare articles; and advocating for federal resources to support the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and environmental health programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including the biomonitoring and health tracking programs. Her more recent experience has focused specifically on state legislative work, including BCPP's co-sponsorship of legislation to remove toxic chemicals from plastic products, require the disclosure of ingredients in cleaning, and banning forever per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from firefighting foams, paper-based food packaging, and textiles. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is a science-based national organization working to eliminate toxic chemicals and other environmental exposures linked to breast cancer. You can learn more about Nancy, BCPP, and ways to get involved at www.bcpp.org. Find us on our various socials: Instagram: www.instagram.com/bcppartners X: twitter.com/BCPPartners YouTube: www.youtube.com/c/BreastCancerPreventionPartners TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@bcppartners LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breast-cancer-prevention-partners

Can you trust the government to give you helpful health advice? How closely does the FDA actually monitor what goes into our food? The truth might surprise you...LINKS:Justin Mare's Blog: https://justinmares.substack.com/p/our-insane-approach-to-regulating Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976: https://sph.umich.edu/news/2021posts/toxic-substances-control-act-chemical-regulation.html#:~:text=The%20Toxic%20Substances%20Control%20Act%20of%201976%20governed%20chemicals%20in,accessed%20the%20lucrative%20U.S.%20market UBI Study: https://reason.com/2024/07/25/bad-news-for-universal-basic-income/Tobacco Ad: https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/throwback-thursday-when-doctors-prescribed-healthy-cigarette-brands-165404/ CHAPTERS:(0:00:00 - START)(0:00:14 - WELCOME) (0:01:30 - HOW THE FDA REGULATES CHEMICALS)(0:05:48 - WHAT IS TEFLON?)(0:06:51 - HOW ARE 'SAFE LEVELS' OF CHEMICALS DETERMINED?)(0:11:21 - BIOACCUMULATION EXPLAINED) (0:16:34 - FUTURE PROSPECTS LOOK BLEAK)(0:17:10 - HOW COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE USA REGULATE CHEMICALS)(0:19:06 - THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF CIGARETTES) (0:20:24- DO THE OPPOSITE)(0:22:52- RDA: RECOMMENDED DIETARY ALLOWANCE)(0:29:42- RDA AND PROTEIN)(0:33:41 - DESSERT)Disclaimer: The Clean Kitchen Podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice, and no doctor/patient relationship is formed. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content of this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their health care professionals for any such conditions.

Skeptical of all those “natural” ingredients? So are we. This week, we're joined by Jessica Iclisoy as she defines those words on the back of the ingredients label. Listen in as she discusses greenwashing, cleanwashing, and the real reason preservatives are in everything. Each Thursday, join Dr. Raja and Dr. Hadar, board-certified dermatologists, as they share the latest evidence-based research in integrative dermatology. For access to CE/CME courses, become a member at LearnSkin.com. Jessica Iclisoy, CEO & Founder of California Baby®. Over 30 years ago, Jessica Iclisoy embarked on a journey to create a non-toxic environment for her family. In 1995, launching in her kitchen with ingredients she had sourced, Jessica began to create the beloved formulas for what is today, the industry standard in natural plant-based skincare, California Baby. Since then, Jessica has built California Baby into a globally recognized brand, with more than 200 products available at retailers nationwide and through a global distribution network. California Baby is a recognized Women Owned Business, with its own certified organic and FDA registered manufacturing operation and certified organic farm. A nationally recognized business leader and entrepreneur, Jessica has been featured in NBC's Today Show, Forbes, Fortune, the New York Times, Fast Company, Inc., and Entrepreneur, among many others. Recognized by Forbes magazine for her achievements in building California Baby, Jessica was recognized on the magazine's annual Self-Made Women list from 2017 to 2022. Jessica is the host of the California Natural Living Podcast which breaks down healthy living challenges to apply problem-solving tactics and tips for living a healthy vibrant lifestyle.   She is a member of the Fast Company Impact Council which is an invitation-only collective of innovative leaders and the most creative people in business. Jessica is the chair of Female Arts Initiative, which is a nonprofit to support women in the arts. She is a Board member of UCLA – Santa Monica Hospital and serves as the Committee Chair for their Integrated Medicine Initiative.   Jessica believes that her mission extends far beyond creating products that are safe for children and healthy for the environment. In 2016, she launched The Natural Advisory Council (NAC) to form a coalition of natural, organic, and “green” product manufacturers, retailers, and non-profit consumer protection organizations to advocate, collaborate and educate (ACE) on the definition and use of the term, “natural” in all consumer products. She also collaborates with leading groups and companies to initiate congressional action to establish federal legislation demanding safe cosmetics and has participated in lobbying activities to help shape the Toxic Substances Control Act and Personal Care Product Safety reform.     Sponsored by California Baby®   Visit California Baby® website for more information. 

James (Jim) Jones joined the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2023 as the agency's first Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods. In this position, he leads the charge in setting and advancing priorities for a proposed, unified Human Foods Program, which includes food safety, chemical safety, and nutrition activities. He currently oversees the leadership of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Office of Food Policy and Response (OFPR), until the proposed Human Foods Program reorganization is implemented. Jones came to FDA with intimate knowledge of the Human Foods program, having served on the Reagan-Udall Foundation's Independent Expert Panel that evaluated the program in 2022. He has decades of leadership experience and a track record of forging partnerships among diverse stakeholders and achieving dynamic results to improve public health. He previously served as a federal regulator of pesticides, toxic substances, chemical safety, and pollution prevention at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and made public health-based decisions grounded in sound science, public policy, and law. He was also a principal architect of the 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act and led several national-level sustainability programs, including the Environmental Preferable Purchasing Program and the Presidential Green Chemistry Awards Challenge. From 2017–2020, Jones worked for the Household and Commercial Products Association as Executive Vice President for Strategic Alliances and Industry Relations. He then ran his own company advising clients on issues related to chemical safety and sustainability. He holds a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Maryland and a master's degree in economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara. In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we speak with Jim [23:20] about: How his past experiences reviewing FDA's Human Foods Program with the Reagan-Udall Foundation and working at EPA prepared him for his new role at FDA The importance of stakeholder engagement from the very beginning of decision-making processes The value and takeaways of the field tours that Jim has been making at industry and agency sites across the country How the work being conducting at FDA laboratories ties into FDA's broader Human Foods Program goals The role of public interest entities in keeping the system honest and ensuring transparency, and the need for all stakeholder groups to collaborate with FDA to represent their interests Jim and FDA's collaboration with the FDA Foods Coalition, which was formed in October 2023 by a diverse group of stakeholders to advocate for an effective Human Foods Program The emerging patchwork of state regulations on food additives, and FDA's desire to get ahead of state regulations with a more ambitious chemical safety agenda How the proposed Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation will handle chemical safety assessments in the future Recent public health events caused by the contamination of certain foods for infants and young children, and FDA's work with manufacturers of these foods to ensure food safety and maintain supply volumes FDA's Closer to Zero initiative to reduce heavy metals in baby foods and recent state bills that would require routine testing of baby foods by manufacturers, and how these legislative moves could be helpful to FDA The Food Safety Summit Town Hall on May 9, 2024, in Rosemont, Illinois, where Jim will participate as part of a panel of top food safety regulators and advisors including USDA, CDC, and AFDO. News and Resources Missouri, Washington Introduce Bills to Ban Same Food Additives as California Food Safety Act [5:11]California Bill Looks to Ban Artificial Dyes, Titanium Dioxide From Foods Served in Public Schools [5:52]Pennsylvania is Latest State to Introduce Food Additives Legislation, While Kentucky Urges FDA to Take Control [6:14]USDA Scientists Working on Method to Give Hens Ability to Pass on Salmonella Immunity to Chicks [10:50]Researchers Develop Hygienic Coating for Produce Storage Containers That Repels Bacteria, Fungi, Dirt [14:57]FDA to Engage With Stakeholders on Direction of New Era of Smarter Food Safety via Day-Long Virtual Event [17:49] Ep. 162. Brian Sylvester: How the California Food Safety Act is Shaping U.S. Food Additives Regulation Register for the 2024 Food Safety Summit! Taking place May 6–9, 2024 in Rosemont, Illinois. Register with promo code “FSMatters15” for 15% off registration. Sponsored by: Michigan State University Online Food Safety Program We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com

The EPA revealed that it would begin the process of prioritizing toxic chemicals used to manufacture and process plastics under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The statutory process will last a year, during which the agency could designate the chemicals as high-priority substances. If they receive the designation, it would spark risk evaluations that could result in restrictions or outright bans.Download and listen to the audio version below and click here to subscribe to the Today in Manufacturing podcast.

This week, we're bringing you a panel discussion from the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy's annual CDR conference. Our policy panelist, Wil Burns, hosted the conference and led this panel discussion on the role of mandates in growing CDR in the US. The US government has stepped forward into the role of subsidizing and encouraging CDR in recent years, offering a ‘carrot' to promote the new industry, in the form of large grants and tax incentives. But what could the government do to present a ‘stick'- requiring CDR using existing regulations? That's the topic of this policy panel featuring Dan Galpern, the Executive Director of the Climate Protection and Restoration Initiative, and Stephanie Arcusa, a researcher at the Arizona State University Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.  Dan spoke about using the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate carbon emissions, including the possibility of mandating carbon dioxide removal as a condition for allowing ongoing emissions. He argues that the TSCA provides clear authority for such regulation, citing past precedents and legal interpretations. Stephanie discusses the concept of a Carbon Take Back Obligation, which would require fossil fuel producers to sequester a ton of carbon for every ton they extract. This policy aims to gradually transition to net-zero emissions by creating a demand for carbon removal and applying the policy upstream in the fossil fuel supply chain. Both approaches aim to address the challenges of scaling up carbon removal and mitigating climate change, but they also raise questions about political feasibility, environmental justice, and the impact on consumers, particularly those in lower-income households. We hope you enjoy this high-level look at the policy levers that may one day lead to the scaling up of CDR.   On This Episode Wil Burns Dan Galpern Stephanie Arcusa Resources Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy UN Production Gap Report Toxic Substances Control Act EU Industrial Net-Zero Act CA's CDR Market Development Act CBTO in the news Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter Nori's other podcast Reversing Climate Change Nori's CDR meme twitter account   --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

On June 29, 2023, B&C, along with the Environmental Law Institute and the George Washington  University Milken Institute of Public Health, sponsored the all-day virtual conference, TSCA Reform -- Seven Years Later. The conference was hugely successful and over 700 people registered for it. The quality of the discussion, the caliber of the participants, and the timeliness of the content motivated us to repurpose the substantive sessions to enable our podcast audience to listen to the sessions in this venue. Our topic in this podcast is the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) application to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of Lautenberg has influenced EPA's regulatory actions. Our experts address a range of subjects, including EPA's evolving definition of PFAS under TSCA, EPA's TSCA PFAS testing strategy, the PFAS reporting rule under TSCA Section 8(a)(7), and much, much more. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Tom, Matt, and EHS&S Practice Leader Jackie Baxley are breaking down the Toxic Substances Control Act rule just published in the Federal Register for PFAS reporting for manufacturers and importers.Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Want to make a difference on policy and governance? Become an expert in something specific and boring, published by ASB on August 31, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I sometimes get a vibe that many people trying to ambitiously do good in the world (including EAs) are misguided about what doing successful policy/governance work looks like. An exaggerated caricature would be activities like: dreaming up novel UN structures, spending time in abstract game theory and 'strategy spirals', and sweeping analysis of historical case studies. Instead, people that want to make the world safer with policy/governance should become experts on very specific and boring topics. One of the most successful people I've met in biosecurity got their start by getting really good at analyzing obscure government budgets. Here are some crowdsourced example areas I would love to see more people become experts in: Legal liability - obviously relevant to biosecurity and AI safety, and I'm especially interested in how liability law would handle spreading infohazards (e.g. if a bio lab publishes a virus sequence that is then used for bioterrorism, or if an LLM is used maliciously in a similar way). Privacy / data protection laws - could be an important lever for regulating dangerous technologies. Executive powers for regulation - what can and can't the executive actually do to get AI labs to adhere to voluntary security standards, or get DNA synthesis appropriately monitored? Large, regularly reauthorized bills (e.g., NDAA, PAHPA, IAA) and ways in which they could be bolstered for biosecurity and AI safety (both in terms of content and process). How companies validate customers, e.g., for export control or FSAP reasons (know-your-customer), and the statutes and technologies around this. How are legal restrictions on possessing or creating certain materials justified/implemented e.g. Chemical Weapons Convention, narcotics, Toxic Substances Control Act? The efficacy of tamper-proof and tamper-evident technology (e.g. in voting machines, anti-counterfeiting printers) Biochemical supply chains - which countries make which reagents, and how are they affected by export controls and other trade policies? Consumer protection laws and their application to emerging tech risks (e.g. how do product recalls work? Could they apply to benchtop DNA synthesizers or LLMs?) Patent law - can companies patent dangerous technology in order to prevent others from developing or misusing it? How do regulations on 3d-printed firearms work? The specifics of congressional appropriations, federal funding, and procurement: what sorts of things does the government purchase, how does this relate to biotech or AI (software)? Related to this, becoming an expert on the Strategic National Stockpile and understanding the mechanisms of how a vendor managed inventory could work. A few caveats. First, I spent like 30 minutes writing this list (and crowdsourced heavily from others). Some of these topics are going to be dead ends. Still, I'd be more excited about somebody pursuing one of these concrete, specific dead ends and getting real feedback from the world (and then pivoting), rather than trying to do broad strategy work and risk ending up in a never-ending strategy spiral. Moreover, the most impactful topics are probably not on this list and will be discovered by somebody who got deep into the weeds of something obscure. For those of you that are trying to do good with an EA mindset, this also means getting out of the EA bubble and spending lots of time with established experts in these relevant fields. Every so often, I'll get the chance to collect biosecurity ideas and send them to interested people in DC. In order to be helpful, these ideas need to be super specific, e.g. this specific agency needs to task this other subag...

Today we are going to wrap up our series on the fluoride today with learning  effective strategies to reduce fluoride toxicity, and how to remove the industrial chemical fluoride from our tap water. Because the industrial fluoride additive is not only in 75 percent of the US water supply but also contaminates air, soil, food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, and dental products, we'll also be learning how to eliminate avoidable sources of fluoride. My guest Joining me is Richard Sauerheber, research scientist and former National Institutes of Health principal investigator and has a Ph.D., Chemistry. He has published 65 papers and books, including six on fluoride toxicology, and  2 on the Covid pandemic Richard has done extensive research on the chemistry of fluoride and best practices for reducing toxicity, minimizing exposure, and removing it from tap water. He's also petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban fluoridation, which ended up being a book-long size petition done over an 8 year period 2007-2015 Upon receiving his petition the agency ruled that the water fluoridation program in the US is the responsibility of the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act and did nothing. How mineral content and solubility and Ph level affect fluoride toxicity. What role calcium and other minerals play in the toxicity of fluoride 3. How hard water vs soft water affect fluoride toxicity 4. The best ways to filter fluoride out of our tap water 5. Foods that have a substantial amount of fluoride and which ones to avoid or minimize in our diets 6. Pharmaceuticals -a source of the chemical fluoride. What we need to know about fluorides in pharmaceuticals and which ones we should avoid 7. What we need to know about fluoridated dental products and alternatives to a fluoridated toothpastes 8. Richard Sauerheber's newest studies on Infant Mortality in Fluoridated Soft Water U.S. States    PLEASE SUPPORT our work. It takes time and effort to make these videos. Every little bit helps!    **To donate/tip our channel, below through our Paypal. Paypal Donation Link: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6YECDNX33L4KQ   Richard Sauerheber's Studies on Fluoride:  https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4429662   Stay In Touch with Us! Instagram:   @DiscoveringTrueHealth Twitter:        @DTrueHealth  Facebook:   @discoveringtruhealth Rumble:      Discoveringtruehealth   Listen On:  Apple Podcast Spotify   Watch On: YouTube   www.discoveringtruehealth.com   Links:   https://fluoridealert.org/search-results/?q=fsa%20spills%20    1. Sauerheber, R.D., On the Nature of Light and Relativity, Physics Essays 2013, p. 116 http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/147-12-richard-d-sauerheber-on-the-nature-of-light-and-relativity.html http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1174-25-richard-sauerheber-erratum-on-the-nature-of-light-and-relativity-phys-essays-27-116-2014.html   2.      2. Sauerheber, R. Espinoza E. Characteristics of Light: Velocity, Massless Energy, and Special Relativity, Optik, International Journal of Light and Electron Optics 168:974-986, 2018. .     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402618305631 https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0030402618305631/1-s2.0-S0030402618305631-main.pdf?_tid=476efa36-7e8d-4cbc-8cb1-0426d436ad3e&acdnat=1528838094_c207d3791568d1ec0dec3123859fd3f2   3.       Sauerheber, R., Clarifying Special Relativity, Chapter on relativity, IntechOpen, London, 2019 at: https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/clarifying-special-relativity    4.       Sauerheber, R. and McCallum, K., On the Velocity and Acceleration of Light, International Journal of Optics and Photonic Engineering, 2020.             https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijope/fulltext.php?aid=ijope-5-022    5.       Sauerheber, R., Intrinsic Properties of the Photon, International Journal of Optics and Photonic Engineering, 2021        https://vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijope/fulltext.php?aid=ijope-6-034   6. Sauerheber, R., Structural Dynamics of Light Propagation, International Journal of Optics and Photonic Engineering, 2022. https://vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijope/fulltext.php?aid=ijope-7-050    7.       Sauerheber, R., Photon propagation during source/target shifts falsifies special theory time dilation, Optik (Elsevier) 268:169773, 2022. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Optik.268p9773S/abstract 8. Sauerheber, R., Scientific measurements and the influence of mechanical and perceptual error in special relativity, Physics Astronomy International Journal 6(3):101-103, 2022         https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PAIJ....6..101S/abstract   9. Sauerheber, R., Electron-Photon Interactions in Atomic Hydrogen; Significance of High (near zero) Energy States, International Journal of Optics and Photonic Engineering, 2022.       https://vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijope/fulltext.php?aid=ijope-7-051 and        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361474582_hydrogensubmission7_2   10. Sauerheber, R., Light Total Velocity and Speed; Aspects of Special Relativity Through Four Centuries, Optik 272, 2023:170243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.170243.     11. Sauerheber, R., The Material Universe as an Ordered System in Dynamic Equilibrium,          researchgate, 2023.     Medical disclaimer: Discovering True Health LLC does not provide medical advice. Discovering True Health and the content available on Discovering True Health's properties (discoveringtruehealth.com, YouTube, and other channels) do not provide a diagnosis or other recommendation for treatment and are not a substitute for the professional judgment of a healthcare professional in diagnosis and treatment of any person or animal. The determination of the need for medical services and the types of healthcare to be provided to a patient are decisions that should be made only by a physician or other licensed health care provider. Always seek the advice of a physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you have regarding a medical condition.

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where we will cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology.  In our first episode, we will spotlight the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which addresses the manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of commercial and industrial chemicals. Host Craig Williams is joined by Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C, Lynn L. Bergeson who will give us an overview of the Toxic Substances Control Act, its history, impact, and the forecast for U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy.

Daily exposure to potentially harmful chemicals is virtually unavoidable. Most 85,000 chemicals registered for production under the Toxic Substances Control Act were grandfathered in with little or no health and safety testing.Medical conditions linked to toxic chemicals include obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancers, and multisystem complaints such as fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivity, as well as autoimmune disease.Toxins are inevitable in your everyday life, putting your detoxification pathways under pressure. Your liver, kidneys, large intestine, lymphatic system, and sweat glands work together to reduce the buildup of these chemicals through detoxification. Of these organ systems, the liver plays one of the largest roles. The liver performs hundreds of functions and is needed to process nutrients and hormones, as well as remove waste products created as the result of normal body functions.However,  there are ways that you can reduce your toxic exposure to lessen the burden on your system.In today's Friday 5, I would like to share with you five ways to reduce your exposure to harmful chemicals.Highlight's from today's episode include:Ways to reduce toxicity in the food you eat.  The best non-toxic cookware.The effect of plastics on your hormones. Ways to improve the air you breathe. What chemicals to look out for in your personal care products? How to purify your water and reduce plastic exposure.  Tune in today and be sure to share any of your thoughts about the show on my Instagram page: @theautoimmunitynutritionistYou can also download a free copy of The Autoimmunity Recovery Plan here.Book your free discovery call with me here.And if you would like to join my community of strong-willed people thriving with autoimmune disease, join The Autoimmunity Community. Thanks for listening! You can join The Autoimmunity Community on Facebook or find me on Instagram @theautoimmunitynutritionist.

This year, we have created a new Environmental Law series on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, where we will cover cradle to grave treatment of chemicals and our laws on environmental biology.  In our first episode, we will spotlight the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which addresses the manufacturing, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of commercial and industrial chemicals. Host Craig Williams is joined by Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C, Lynn L. Bergeson who will give us an overview of the Toxic Substances Control Act, its history, impact, and the forecast for U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy.

November was a big month for climate litigation! The first-ever climate RICO was filed on behalf of 16 Puerto Rican municipalities, plus a cohort of scientists and researchers, including NASA scientist James Hansen, sued the EPA to compel them to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Podcast Intro: We are now experiencing extreme weather events and conditions predicted for 30 years or more. And this is just the beginning. This is the hour when Mother Nature gets rolling.  The important thing for people to realize is that the EPA has many levers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. For example, they can regulate the industry with a fee and dividend so that they charge taxes on the fossil fuel industry. And those taxes are 100% refunded to the public, based on the public's financial needs.  Dr. Lise Van Susteren is an expert on climate change's physical and psychological impacts and was behind implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act. Today, Cate and Lise Van Susteren will talk about the power of the Toxic Substances Control Act and its effect on large industries, how politics is hugely involved in protecting the environment, and the emotional effect on every individual. What you'll get out of tuning in: How does Toxic Substance Control Act work? How large can the Toxic Substances Control Act affects industries? How the Politics block things, not the public? How do environmental problems affect an individual's emotional state? Links/CTA: Sign the petition here >>> CPR Initiative All the FAQs about the petition >>> FAQs Read what Wash Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote Leonardo DiCaprio With Elon Musk Deciding that carbon dioxide is a toxic substance defined by law would only be the first step. The EPA would have to formulate and implement rules that could, for example, impose a fee on carbon emissions and require companies to remove carbon from the atmosphere they have already expelled. But it's all there in black and white in the Toxic Substances Control Act, which passed and was amended with bipartisan support. Textualists will have to tie themselves in knots to explain why the law's words don't mean what they clearly say. Highlights: Cate tells her story when she is at Carleton College in the year 1995. Cate tells her story about when she was in the Massachusetts high schools Cate tells her insights about Elon Musk's Electric Cars Timestamps: [3:08] Toxic Substance Control Act [8:34] Scale of Industry [14:42] The Political World that blocks things [20:11] Growing Problem in emotional toll on individuals and community [22:46] Organization Cate started in Highschool [30:11]  Can the next administration reverse the Toxic Substances Control Act [31:16] What can people do [33:19] Elon Musk's Electric Cars Quotes: Frankly, it's not the public so much anymore. It's the political world that is blocking things. And it's just a few people.  You get the people who care the most, are the most sensitive, and they'll become the most depressed and despondent on not wanting to reproduce.  If we want to change society, it's by connecting with the people that were connected to. So that's one of the key elements that people don't always realize.  We have the power to design the future the way we want, the way we know, and we should, ethically.  We're spending about $150 billion a year on cleanup. And suppose you take the national average inflation-adjusted. In that case, that's about three times the amount in the 40 years before the last five years and three times the annual amount we used to need to clean up after extreme weather. Guest Bio: Lise Van Susteren Dr. Lise Van Susteren is a general and forensic psychiatrist in Washington, DC, and an expert on the physical and psychological impacts of climate change. In 2011 she co-authored “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the U.S. – Why the US Mental Health System Is Not Prepared”. Van Susteren is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at George Washington University and has been a consultant to the Executive Branch of the US government profiling world leaders. After receiving her medical degree from the University of Paris she practiced medicine in West Africa, at community health centers and homeless shelters in metropolitan Washington DC. In addition to community organizing on climate issues, Van Susteren serves on the Boards of Earth Day Network, and Physicians for Social Responsibility and is a co-founder of “Climate Psychiatry Alliance,” and “Climate Psychology Alliance – North America “, professional groups dedicated to promoting awareness and action on climate from a mental health perspective. Van Susteren is the expert witness on the psychological damages to young people from inaction on climate in Juliana v US Government, in Held v Montana and in the European Court of Human Rights.  She is a frequent contributor to television, radio, and print media. In 2006 Dr. Van Susteren sought the Democratic nomination to the US Senate from Maryland. Her book, “Emotional Inflammation – Discover Your Triggers and Reclaim Your Equilibrium During Anxious Times” was published in April 2020.

As we wait to hear whether the Supreme Court will toss WV v EPA altogether or apply the major questions doctrine to broadly rule against the EPA regulating greenhouse gases, period, a group of climate scientists and advocates are filing a petition this morning demanding that the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions—not under the Clean Air Act, the legislation in question in West Virginia v EPA, but under a law no one has yet applied to climate change, the Toxic Substances Control Act.

We can easily be consumed by the dietary changes that we need to make when following a therapeutic diet like the Autoimmune Protocol or the Wahls Protocol. There are a lot of foods to eliminate and add in, there's supplements and then we want to prioritize sleep, movement and stress management.  So by the time we get to addressing our toxic load, we can feel like WE'RE on overload with recommendations.  Yet, this is not a step that we can overlook.  If this is a new topic for you, let me share some eye-opening facts about chemicals and our exposure to them.  In the United States alone there are approximately 86,000 chemicals registered for use.  This includes 62,000 chemicals that were grandfathered in when the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed.  This means 62,000 chemicals were given a free pass and an automatic presumption of safety without any requirement to actually test to see if they were indeed safe. 
 Most people believe that very small amounts of exposure to harmful chemicals are totally safe and are too small to have any kind of health effect. While this is true for many chemicals, or exposures, it's not 100% true for every kind of chemical. 
 Chemicals that mimic our natural hormones can in fact be even more harmful at extremely low doses simply because our endocrine system responds to natural hormones in the body at similarly low levels. In fact, there are over 1,500 chemicals identified as endocrine disrupting. 
 Among many other things, fertility rates around the world are dropping; one key factor is likely the chronic exposures we are getting to reproductive toxins in our environment. We don't have to do a complete overhaul, but it's important that we're aware of our exposure to toxins and start to reduce it.  For some people, this could be the missing link in their healing plan and why they haven't experienced the symptom relief that they had hoped for.

For this episode, I spoke with Jacqueline Warren, who worked as an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) from 1973 to 1991. She was one of the leading toxics advocates in Washington DC when most of the major federal toxics laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Superfund and the Toxic Substances Control Act, were enacted. During her years at EDF and NRDC, Jackie was involved in the development, implementation and enforcement of laws related to drinking water, pesticides and toxic chemicals in products. She was a triple threat to the chemical industry, working to pass strong legislation, pressing EPA to adopt protective health standards, and litigating against EPA and the industry when they failed to follow the law.  Among her many accomplishments was a successful lawsuit overturning EPA's attempt to exempt most uses of toxic PCBs from a ban enacted by Congress, and halting the use of several widely used pesticides that were dangerous to public health. Our conversation traced the path which led to her starting a career in environmental law, looked at some of the key areas of her work, and discussed what it takes to win meaningful protections from toxic chemicals. One technical note, there were some connectivity problems during our interview that had an occasional minor effect on the audio quality of the recording. https://www.c-span.org/video/?4543-1/toxic-substance-control-act (Here is a clip) of Jackie testifying at a hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1988, in which she discusses PCBs, asbestos, and the need for more toxicity testing of chemicals, and a more protective health standard in the law, starting at 21:53 on the recording. You can read a recent story by Pro Publica on the ongoing health risks posed by PCBs https://www.propublica.org/article/toxic-pcbs-festered-at-this-public-school-for-eight-years-as-students-and-teachers-grew-sicker (here). For ongoing issues with inadequate regulation of pesticides by the EPA, you can read an article by recent Toxic Avengers guest Sharon Lerner https://theintercept.com/2021/06/30/epa-pesticides-exposure-opp/ (here).

When the Toxic Substances Control Act was updated in 2016, EPA gained authority to require chemical manufacturers and industries to submit reporting, record-keeping, and testing requirements. Since this changed the way chemicals are developed, produced, and distributed, understanding TSCA is a must to remain compliant. Victoria Meyer explores this topic further with a certified TSCA expert, Lynn L. Bergeson. She is Managing Partner at Bergerson & Campbell PC and Host of All Things Chemical®. She explains how this act challenges chemical innovation and affects the global regulations of US-based businesses today. Lynn also discusses the rise of PFAS and what it actually means for chemical companies out there. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! http://www.thechemicalshow.com/

Final Days Report: Cover how 82,000 chemicals approved in 1976 ⁣Toxic Substances Control Act. Some of the chemicals are now known to be toxic. Plus we'll discuss some solutions. Watch Vaccine Madness as well and look for Vaccine Madness 2.0.. Visit us on GAB ⁣https://gab.com/sjwellfire

Tune in for analysis from Greenberg Traurig shareholders Bernadette Rappold and Christopher Torres on some of the most significant environmental enforcement, litigation, and agency decisions and actions in 2020. They review the EPA’s National Compliance Initiatives and outline key takeaways from notable civil and criminal cases and settlements involving the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. They also break down two notable environmental Supreme Court rulings and what those decisions mean to the legal practitioner.

“I think that when the animal protection movement really started gaining hold in the seventies... in the United States at least, I think there was a lot of harm done in the ways that we messaged the connections between humans in marginalized communities and animals. And I think that there's also a dynamic where… communities of color are often struggling for basic rights, basic needs to be met. And so, fighting for others is kind of a nice to have.” - Aryenish Birdie Aryenish Birdie is founder and Executive Director of Encompass, an organization that is fighting to increase effectiveness in the animal protection movement by fostering greater racial diversity, equity, and inclusion while empowering advocates of color. Before founding Encompass, Aryenish was a federal lobbyist at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. She was part of a four-woman team instrumental in reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that animal protection language was integrated into the law. Thank you, Elizabeth Novogratz

In this HCI "Inc. Insights" Podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover explores Jessica Iclisoy's recent Inc. video, "Work-Life Balance Is Impossible. Aim for This Instead." See the video and details here: https://youtu.be/hORlzGv4WxE.     Video Overview: "In the early days of California Baby, Jessica Iclisoy had two toddlers and a company to run--so they hit the road."       Jessica Iclisoy (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-iclisoy-bb8ba041/) is Founder/CEO of California Baby. More than 20 years ago, Jessica Iclisoy embarked on a journey to create a non-toxic environment for her family. Launching in her kitchen with ingredients she had sourced, Jessica began to create the beloved formulas for what is today, the industry standard in natural skincare, California Baby. Since then, Jessica has built California Baby into a globally recognized brand, with more than 90 products available at major retailers nationwide and through a global distribution network. California Baby is a recognized Women Owned Business, with its own certified organic and FDA registered manufacturing operation and a certified organic farm. Recognized by Forbes magazine for her achievements in building California Baby, Jessica debuted as a highlighted newcomer on the magazine's annual Richest Self-Made Women list in 2017. A nationally-recognized business leader and entrepreneur, Jessica has been featured in Fortune, the New York Times, Fast Company, Inc., and Entrepreneur, among many others and spoken at events including the CNBC/Inc. iCONIC Summit and Vanity Fair's Founders Fair. Jessica believes that her mission extends far beyond creating products that are safe for children and healthy for the environment. In 2016, she launched The Natural Advisory Council (NAC) to form a coalition of natural, organic and “green” product manufacturers, retailers, and non-profit consumer protection organizations to advocate, collaborate and educate (ACE) on the definition and use of the term, “natural” in all consumer products. She also collaborates with leading groups and companies to initiate congressional action to establish federal legislation demanding safe cosmetics and has participated in lobbying activities to help shape the Toxic Substances Control Act and Personal Care Product Safety reform. Ranked in the Top 10 Performance Management Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/performance_management_podcasts/ ; Ranked in the Top 10 Workplace Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/workplace_podcasts/ ; Ranked in the Top 15 HR Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/hr_podcasts/ ; Ranked in the Top 15 Talent Management Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/talent_management_podcasts/ ; Ranked in the Top 15 Personal Development and Self-Improvement Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/personal_development_podcasts/ ; Ranked in the Top 30 Leadership Podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/leadership_podcasts/

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2020.10.02.322917v1?rss=1 Authors: Green, A. J., Mohlenkamp, M. J., Das, J., Chaudhari, M., Truong, L., Tanguay, R. L., Reif, D. M. Abstract: There are currently 85,000 chemicals registered with the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but only a small fraction (~5%) have any measured toxicological data. To address this data gap, high-throughput screening (HTS) methods are vital. As part of one such HTS effort, embryonic zebrafish were used to examine a suite of morphological and mortality endpoints at six concentrations from over 1,000 unique chemicals found in the ToxCast library (phase 1 and 2). We hypothesized that by using a conditional Generative Adversarial Network (cGAN) and leveraging this large set of toxicity data, plus chemical structure information, we could efficiently predict toxic outcomes of untested chemicals. CAS numbers for each chemical were used to generate textual files containing three-dimensional structural information for each chemical in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) file format. Utilizing a novel method in this space, we converted the 3D structural information into a weighted set of points while retaining all information about the structure. The in vivo toxicity and chemical data were used to train two neural network generators. The first used regression to train a generator (Go-ZT) to produce toxicity data while the second utilized cGAN architecture to train a generator (GAN-ZT). Our results showed that both Go-ZT and GAN-ZT models produce similar results, but the cGAN achieved higher sensitivity (SE) value of 85.7% vs 71.4%. Conversely, Go-ZT attained a higher specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and Kappa results of 67.3%, 23.4%, and 0.21 compared to 24.5%, 14.0%, and 0.03 for the cGAN, respectively. By combining both Go-ZT and GAN-ZT, our consensus model improved the SP, PPV, and Kappa, to 75.5%, 25.0%, and 0.211, respectively, resulting in an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.663. Considering their potential use as efficient prescreening tools, these new models can provide in vivo toxicity predictions and insight into as-yet untested areas of chemical space to prioritize compounds for HT testing. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info

Hana Vizcarra speaks with Kevin McClean, former Associate General Counsel for EPA’s Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office, about chemical substances regulation and implementation of the 2016 revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Transcript here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/CleanLaw-45-Hana-and-Kevin-McLean-TSCA-Lautenberg.pdf Kevin's paper on TSCA after the Lautenberg Act here https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2020/02/three-years-after-where-does-implementation-of-the-lautenberg-act-stand/ eelp.law.harvard.edu

In this episode of Talking Under Water, One Water, One Podcast, hosts Lauren Del Ciello, Katie Johns and Bob Crossen share an interview with Lisa Brand, CTO for LG Sonic. Brand touches on the importance of water quality monitoring in developing long-term, sustainable surface water treatment solutions, the impact algal blooms have on the U.S. economy and the role smart, sustainable solutions may play in water management moving forward. The hosts also discuss a new U.S. EPA action under the Toxic Substances Control Act prohibiting long-chain PFAS, a new report covering groundwater depletion on the west coast and a new 20-year clean water plan in Northeast Ohio.

In this episode of the Chemical Watch Podcast, global managing editor Kate Lowe is joined by North America managing editor Terry Hyland, Asia desk reporter Ellen Daliday and emerging markets reporter Ginger Hervey. First, we catch up on the progress of a raft of expected developments concerning the first risk evaluations to be carried out in the US under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Second, we catch up with progress on Thailand’s draft new chemical law and plans for a national inventory - and in particular the views of the chemical industry there about the developments. And finally, we hear some of the highlights and insights from a Chemical Watch conference this week on Latin America where chemicals regimes are in transition.

This month marks 4 years since the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, was revised to boost confidence in chemical safety in the US by strengthening regulations. The updated law gave the Environmental Protection Agency sweeping new authority to ensure that the tens of thousands of chemicals in everyday products do not pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. In this bonus episode of Stereo Chemistry, host Kerri Jansen and C&EN senior reporter Britt Erickson examine how the EPA is using that authority to evaluate new chemicals before they hit the market and to assess the risks of chemicals that have been in use for decades. Is the EPA protecting public health by sufficiently evaluating the risks of chemicals, or is it giving industry a free pass to market chemicals with little toxicity data? A script of this episode is available at bit.ly/2UTlD8F. Image credit: Barry Barnes/Shutterstock

This week, I sat down with Jim Jones, Executive Vice President Strategic Alliances & Industry Relations at the HCPA, or Household & Commercial Products Association. Before moving into the private sector, as many of our listeners know, Jim served a long and very distinguished career with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. Jim began his career in the toxics office, specifically in pesticides, and eventually served as Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in the Obama Administration. We talk about Jim’s extraordinary background and how it prepared him for the task of helping to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act in passing the Lautenberg Act amending TSCA in 2016. Jim takes us back to the summer of 2016 and paints a picture of what it felt like to watch with anticipation as the political proceedings surrounding the amendment unfolded. In addition to talking about TSCA’s recent history and EPA’s implementation of it, Jim shares career advice, tips for other industry groups, and first-hand experiences about the difference between the private and public sectors of this industry. Jim has a wealth of knowledge and experience, and I am excited to share my conversation with him with you. So, here is my discussion with Jim Jones about his experiences leading up to passage of the Lautenberg Act… ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW.

This week, I sat down with Lynn R. Goldman, M.D., M.S., M.P.H., Michael and Lori Milken Dean, Milken Institute School of Public Health; Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health. Dr. Goldman is widely regarded as one of the most influential public health physicians of our time and served as Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 through 1998 under President Bill Clinton.  During her tenure, Dr. Goldman and her team are credited with implementing the 1996 amendments to our nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA, known as the Food Quality Protection Act.  This ground-breaking law modernized the legal framework for regulating pesticide residues on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. In our conversation about our industrial chemical law, Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA, especially under her watch as Toxics Assistant Administrator in the ‘90s, we delve into Dean Goldman’s background as a pediatrician and how that came to influence her decisions in office.  We talk about new TSCA’s roots as the “Kids Safe Chemicals Act,” as well as about how Dr. Goldman and others built upon Senator Lautenberg’s interest in TSCA reform legislation, the parallels with implementing new TSCA, and Dr. Goldman’s experience implementing what was then considered the “new FIFRA.”  We also talk about some of the truly fascinating research that Dean Goldman has pursued at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, including the publication of the 2018 study evaluating the fatality account in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria. It was great speaking with Dean Goldman about her work, past and present, and to get some insight into the historical development of TSCA from someone who was involved in its shaping.  So, here is my discussion with Dr. Lynn Goldman, Michael and Lori Milken Dean at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University…. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW.

In this episode, I am so excited to have spoken to Debbi Mack. Debbi Mack is the New York Times bestselling author of IDENTITY CRISIS, the first book in the Sam McRae mystery series, featuring Maryland lawyer-sleuth Stephanie Ann "Sam" McRae. She has also written and published a young adult novel, INVISIBLE ME, a thriller called THE PLANCK FACTOR, and several short stories, including a Derringer nominee. Debbi's currently working on a new mystery and preparing to re-launch her Sam McRae series. She has her own podcast called The Crime Cafe, where she interviews other crime, suspense, and thriller authors. Debbi has also written two feature film screenplays, including an adaptation of her first novel, an original TV pilot and a short film script. A native of Queens, NY, Debbi currently lives in Columbia, MD, with her husband and cats. Topics Covered Her diverse background which led her from law, to working with the EPA, and ultimately how it played a crucial role in her current writing works today. The "superiority" lawyers can feel that can hinder and alienate them from others, and how to combat this with a healthy perception of self and their career. She dives into the writing process; how she puts pen to paper, who she writes for, and how her writing is an expression of her self in a way. She also talks on the "creative sprint," and how it can help spark creativity in those that don't feel they are creative. You can learn more about Debbi and her work at: Website Twitter Youtube   Questions? Comments? Email Jeena! hello@jeenacho.com. You can also connect with Jeena on Twitter: @Jeena_Cho For more information, visit: jeenacho.com Order The Anxious Lawyer book — Available in hardcover, Kindle and Audible Find Your Ease: Retreat for Lawyers I'm creating a retreat that will provide a perfect gift of relaxation and rejuvenation with an intimate group of lawyers. Interested? Please complete this form: https://jeena3.typeform.com/to/VXfIXq MINDFUL PAUSE: Bite-Sized Practices for Cultivating More Joy and Focus 31-day program. Spend just 6 minutes every day to practice mindfulness and meditation. Decrease stress/anxiety, increase focus and concentration. Interested? http://jeenacho.com/mindful-pause/ Sponsor: Spotlight Branding provides internet marketing services exclusively for solo & small law firms. Unlike most internet marketing firms, they do NOT focus on SEO. Instead, they specialize in branding their clients as trusted, credible experts, increasing referrals, and ultimately driving growth. For our listeners, Spotlight Branding is offering a complimentary website review. Go to: SpotlightBranding.com/trl Transcript Intro: [00:00:02] Today's show is sponsored by Spotlight Branding. Spotlight Branding works exclusively with solo and small law firms to brand them as trusted, credible experts and help them stand out in a crowded marketplace. Their services include web design, social media, video marketing and more. Debbi Mack: [00:00:28] Being able to effectively balance your work with your life. And that sounds a bit trite, but your work should fold in neatly with what you want to do in your life. Intro: [00:00:44] Welcome to The Resilient Lawyer podcast. In this podcast, we have meaningful, in-depth conversations with lawyers, entrepreneurs, and change agents. We offer tools and strategies for creating a more joyful and satisfying life. And now your host, Jeena Cho. Jeena Cho: [00:01:08] Hello my friends, thanks for being with us today. In this episode, I am so delighted to have Debbi Mack, who is a New York Times best-selling author of "Identity Crisis." She has also written and published a young-adult novel, "Invisible Me," and a thriller called "The Planck Factor." Debbi's currently working on a new mystery and preparing to relaunch her Sam McRae series. She has her own podcast called Crime Cafe, where she interviews other crime, suspense, and thriller authors. [00:01:38] Before we get into the interview, if you haven't listened to the last bonus episode, please go back and check it out. I shared a short, six-minute guided meditation to help you let go of stress and anxiety. It's a preview for my new course Mindful Pause, and all of the components of Mindful Pause is designed to be done in six minutes. For obvious reasons for the lawyers out there, and it's really designed to fit into your very busy schedule. So head on over to jeenacho.com to learn more. And with that, here is Debbi. Debbi welcome to The Resilient Lawyer podcast, I am so happy to have you here. Debbi Mack: [00:02:14] Well I'm thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for having me on Jeena. Jeena Cho: [00:02:17] So let's just start by having you give us a short 30-second introduction, I know you've done so much with your life. I want to dive into all of that, but just give us a little overview of who you are and what you do. Debbi Mack: [00:02:32] Who I am and what I do. My gosh, I do so much these days that I guess I'll just say that I am an author and a screenwriter; that seems to be the best definition for what I am and what I do. I blog. I have a podcast, and what I'm working on now is a few things actually; I'm going to relaunch my Sam McRae mystery series, which is four books actually, only two of them are out right now. One of them in print, but it's with a small press and I have made a decision actually to go out again as an indie author with that series. It's not that I did not like the publisher; it's more about trying to get the product out faster. I think these days you really have to be kind of attuned to that. [00:03:36] Unfortunately there's kind of a pressure on authors these days to publish fast, and I don't write particularly fast. And so I'm working on this other series that I started before I got into these discussions with the publisher. They're a really great publisher in terms of supporting their own authors, but again I just felt like you know, this is the time for me to take all the content that I have that's already been out there and get it out there again. So, but at the same time I'm also working on screen screenwriting; I have a feature-length screenplay that made the semifinals in the Scriptapalooza contest last year. Jeena Cho: [00:04:26] Oh wow. Debbi Mack: [00:04:26] Yeah that was, that felt like a real honor. I also have a TV pilot that I'm working on, and I have a short film script that I would possibly like to produce myself, with help from others who are more familiar with the techniques I guess is the right term. I mean I'm getting familiar with the industry for sure, but I have always written kind of with visuals in mind (let's put it that way), and with adaptation to the screen in mind. But screenwriting strips it down to its very essentials..storytelling. And it's caused me to exercise a whole nother set of skills, in terms of writing and editing. And looking at my work and saying okay, what can I cut here? What do I really need to tell this story and to tell you about these people? Jeena Cho: [00:05:32] Yeah, and you know it's so funny because I was kind of struck by the fact that of all the descriptors that you used to describe yourself, one of them was not an attorney. And it's so interesting because I think so many lawyers sort of identify so much of who they are with what they do. But maybe that's a good place to kind of start your journey and kind of unpack it a little bit. So you were an attorney? Debbi Mack: [00:06:00] Yes, I was. I practiced law for nine years and I was with different federal agencies. I started off with the Social Security Administration, actually. I was doing appeals to federal court. I actually got to appear before the 8th Circuit on one case, and it was like my first year practicing as a lawyer and I got to go before the 8th Circuit. [00:06:24] I was like, oh my god. And I tried not to be really nervous about it but I'll never forget; I was there and there was this water pitcher, and I poured myself a little water and somehow or other some of it was splashing all over the table. Jeena Cho: [00:06:41] Of course it did. Debbi Mack: [00:06:41] I was like, okay this is not happening. I heard somebody snickering behind me and I was just like, ahem, I'm playing it cool. I'm taking a piece of pad paper and putting it down there and going, yeah yeah okay, that didn't happen. Pay no attention to me. But it was really a unique experience. And but it kind of a grind, to do these briefs. It was during the Reagan administration. And well, what can I say? I mean Social Security during the Reagan administration. Let's just say there were a lot of appeals. [00:07:26] So I thought, I've got to do something else. I need something that I can do other than just crank out these briefs. And I went to work at a law firm. It was a local law firm in Prince George's County, Maryland. And started off in litigation and ended up going into land use. And when I was in land use I became interested in environmental law, so I thought, you know what I really want to do? I want to become an environmental lawyer. I made a decision at that point, okay let's focus on a specific niche, and I made it environmental Law. So I was looking and looking for a job, and happened to know somebody who knew someone else at EPA. And I got the job, but it was not as an attorney. It was as an Environmental Protection Specialist, which is basically fancy language for like, project manager or something. I was supposed to manage groups that were doing like rule-making, or thinking about rule-making. And I worked in the Office of Toxic Substances, where they effectuated the Toxic Substances Control Act. I don't know if you've ever heard of TOSCA. [00:08:51] Most people have not heard of TOSCA. You see, it's one of those little known environmental statutes that I always think kind of gets overlooked in the grand scheme of things. Along with FIFRA, The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; that covers pesticides. And it used to be enabled by the Department of Agriculture. [00:09:17] So they used to do the reg-making for FIFRA, but now it's with the EPA. And so TOSCA is, well any environmental lawyer will tell you that it's a problematic statute in many ways, and difficult to write regs for. The whole area is difficult to regulate, and there was a whole nother set of issues with FIFRA. But it fascinated me because I had studied science at one point, so I was really intrigued with working with scientists while I was at the EPA. I enjoyed doing that. [00:09:56] But I will tell you, I live in Columbia, Maryland, and of course I was commuting into D.C. I was getting up at like 4:30 in the morning every single day, getting on a train, and it was taking me more than an hour to get to work every day. Also, EPA had some sick-building issues at that time, and I was just coming home exhausted at the end of the day; it was a long day. And as much as I enjoyed working at EPA and the people I worked with, I just said you know, I need a life; I need something other than being on this train, going to work every day. I hadn't imagined doing this for the rest of my life. So that's how I ended up actually opening my own office. Jeena Cho: [00:10:51] Oh okay, yeah. Debbi Mack: [00:10:56] From there I went toward opening my own office, I took a lot of Marilyn's continuing legal education courses to try to prepare me for that. I had a lot of material that really helped out, in terms of forms, and I met people; I ended up meeting two women who ended up sharing office space with. So they were there as kind-of mentors in a way, because they had started their offices right out of law school. [00:11:29] And I just thought that was the most admirable thing to be able to do, to just launch themselves out there like that. But those first couple of years that I did that were so rough financially, I was just like I can't believe I'm doing this. I wonder if I will ever make any money doing this. And it was a general practice, I was doing basically whatever came in the door; your wills, your DWI's, this that and the other. And at some point I somehow got in contact with, I think she was a lawyer and accountant who had decided to go into freelance writing. And that's when I started doing work for Matthew Bender, and at the same time I'd always been interested in writing fiction, always. There was always a part of me, like when I was doing something like making copies or faxing something, or doing something very administrative, where I would say, you know while I'm standing here doing this, I could be writing my novel. Jeena Cho: [00:12:44] Oh how interesting. Debbi Mack: [00:12:46] I mean, I kept thinking about that. I kept thinking about the time that I wasn't writing while I was doing other things. And it just spurred me at some point to say okay, I am going to sit down and I'm going to start writing something. And whether it's any good or not, we'll see. And of course, the first things I wrote were just terrible. I mean, my husband doesn't hold back when it comes to criticism; he basically said, this is just not working, it sucks, it's boring, it's not going anywhere. I said I know that, I'm just not sure how to take it anywhere else. So I mean, I took a class on mystery writing and horror writing. I started reading a lot of mysteries, and what I did is I would really read critically. I would look at what people were doing in the books that made me interested, and I thought okay, this is how it works. Jeena Cho: [00:13:56] Like I want to actually pause for a moment and just ask you, like when you wrote that first draft and it sucked and your husband told you it sucked, I feel like for so many lawyers, they would be like oh my gosh I clearly suck at this. I should just give up. Was there any part of you that thought that? Or was it just like no, this is my first draft and I'll get better through practice. What was your mindset? Debbi Mack: [00:14:20] My mindset was, I knew I could get better with practice. I just knew it, because I think it's that way with everything. I mean, when I started law school I didn't think I was going to make it as a law student. There were times when I thought I would just say, oh the hell with this I'm going to drop out because this is just so dull. briefing these cases over and over and over and over and over again. But then I thought, the subject is so interesting, every time I read a case I'm so interested in what I read. And at the same time, I also thought it was very special knowledge. [00:15:06] Now you know, it's funny that you mentioned that I didn't say I was an attorney. Because at this point I'm not practicing, so technically I'm a lawyer. And it's funny how I don't self-identify that way, because I actually feel very much like a lawyer. I mean, I still think like a lawyer. But at the same time, it's as if I want people to feel like I'm not just defined as a lawyer. Or I'm a lawyer who happens to write, or I'm a writer who happens to be a lawyer or something like that. Sometimes people are put off by that whole lawyer aura, if you know what I'm saying. Jeena Cho: [00:15:52] Oh totally, right. When you were a lawyer though, did you strongly identify yourself as a lawyer? Or did you just think, I'm a person and what I do for a living is law? Debbi Mack: [00:16:04] Well it's funny, I did actually identify very strongly as a lawyer. And this is interesting, I mean your own self-perceptions do have to change a little bit when you get into a new field. You have to stop thinking of yourself as "better" or, I don't know what the right word is without being a little insulting..I tended to notice with some attorneys there was this kind of air of, well I'm better than that person because I have a law degree. You have to kind of get away from that feeling, you know. It's kind of like being in this club or organization, where you're all members of the club and you all know the language. [00:17:05] And I mean I like that part of it, I like the part of it where you could just talk to people and they would totally get what you were saying. In fact, I recently went to my law school reunion not knowing how it was going to be, and I had a great time. I had an absolutely great time. It was so great to talk to other lawyers. Jeena Cho: [00:17:31] Yeah. Debbi Mack: [00:17:32] I don't get to have those conversations very much. And it was good to be able to tell them about what I'm doing, and they were excited by it. And I recognized people, it was just great to be there. Jeena Cho: [00:17:47] Do you not have that sense when you're hanging out with other writers? Is it different than hanging out with other lawyers? Debbi Mack: [00:17:57] It's, it's different. Hanging out with writers, you have different commonalities; you have different subjects that you share. It's a different club, so to speak; it's a different group, a different universe or something. When you're talking to other writers, we all know what a struggle it is to write and to publish and to find our readership, that sort of thing. [00:18:30] With lawyers, there's the struggle I guess to market without violating any professional responsibility rules, to handle cases properly, all of those things. I mean, I know all of those pressures. I know what all of those pressures are like. And I can appreciate them. So when anybody says something mean or wrong about lawyers, it's like I want to set them right. In fact, the Sam McRae mystery series was inspired by my desire to present a lawyer in a good light, somebody who really cared about her clients, almost to her detriment. And that to me was a challenge. It was like, okay you know a lot of times in detective fiction, detectives will lie to find things out about themselves. [00:19:44] And I thought, Sam isn't like that. Sam is not going to misrepresent herself. She will always be very above-board and ethical. Although, she has had those moments where she's had to kind of agonize over whether she was crossing the line. And that's part of the inner conflict of that character in the story, you know? So yeah, I do identify as a lawyer, but I don't do it to the exclusion of all else. It's not like being a lawyer is the be-all and end-all for me anymore. [00:20:21] I mean, at one time I felt a distinct kind of sense of loss about not being in the profession. Because I was no longer in the profession, I was no longer practicing. And it was like, gosh I'm not with them anymore. I'm just me. But then it was okay, you know it was like you know what you're getting in exchange? That's the way I had to think of it. You're getting something in exchange for letting go of that. And it's that letting go that really felt good. Jeena Cho: [00:20:57] Yeah, and so much of life is like that, right? It's a series of surrendering one thing to gain something different, or making room for something different. And it's not really clear exactly what you're giving it up for even. Debbi Mack: [00:21:14] Yeah, oh I know. And believe me, I didn't get into this with the expectation of becoming a best-selling anything. All I wanted to do was to write and make a living at it. And it's still a continuing process. Jeena Cho: [00:21:35] Yeah, yeah. So I've heard authors or writers talk about this in different ways, and I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on it. When you write, who are you writing for? Are you writing for yourself and this is something that you do because it's a way that you're expressing yourself? Or are you writing it for your potential readers? Like when you're writing, do you have an avatar of your ideal reader in mind that you're writing for? Debbi Mack: [00:22:10] I don't think I'm writing for an avatar, but I do think I'm marketing to an avatar. When I write, I think it's really more of an expression of the things that I want to say. I know that there's an audience for this particular type of work, because I see it all the time. So, writing within a certain genre's conventions will lead you to that audience, or at some point that audience will grow interested in your work. I chose mystery because I heard somewhere (I love mysteries, I've loved them all my life) that if you can write a mystery, you can write anything. That's what I've heard anyway. Jeena Cho: [00:23:05] I think it's because you have to get everything, all those clues and everything in there and have the plot makes sense in the end; have everything tied up. And there's a lot to that, for me it's a lot of plotting. That's a tough thing. But when it comes to actually writing, I think a lot of it has to be inspired by your own desire to express something. That's what I hear from other writers too. It's like, well you know, I grew up in Brooklyn and these are the kinds of things that I experienced. Or I grew up in such and such a place, and you can hear it in what they say. [00:23:50] The things that they express, a lot of it is the kind of stories that you would like to see, that you wish you could see. For me it's like, when I was a kid there weren't very many strong female characters on TV (and I was just a compulsive TV watcher as a kid) and in the movies either. So my desire was to write strong women. And so Sam is a strong woman I think, and a lot of it is really inspired by that; the desire to see something that isn't there. [00:24:38] Or is there but it is my own take on it. It's there now more because a lot of authors started doing strong women before I got involved. But now it's my own take on that. Jeena Cho: [00:24:52] Yeah, and to me it sounds like there's some level of actually validating your life experience by sharing and saying, this is my story. And even though it's in a fictional form, it's an expression of who you are and what you want to say. And I would imagine that's really just comforting to be able to tell your story. Debbi Mack: [00:25:21] It is in a sense. But I like to make sure that people know that I'm not Sam, because Sam is so different from me. Sometimes I actually look to other attorneys that I knew who were strong women, and thought what would she do in this circumstance? Because I found I had to get outside myself a little bit, you know? I had to come up with a snappier, more sarcastic answer than even I would even do to somebody, or a thought. You know it's like, I can't just write about me, I have to write about this person Sam. She's different, she's stronger, she's better. I like to think of her as a stronger, better version of myself. The person I would be if I were a stronger attorney, or a stronger person and wanted to be an attorney. Jeena Cho: [00:26:16] So did writing that book and having to imagine a better, stronger version of you, did that change you in some way? Debbi Mack: [00:26:31] Gosh I don't know. I hadn't really thought about that. I think that if anything, exploring the relationships between Sam and the various people who end up becoming recurring characters have spurred the additional ideas I've gotten for more books and sequels. Because I've always wanted to make it a series, I've wanted to make it the Sam McRae mystery series. And I had ideas for at least three books. And actually, the first book in the series, the one that made the New York Times bestseller list, was the second book that I wrote. The first book that I wrote, which needed a lot of work, ended up becoming the fourth book. [00:27:25] And there is a reader of mine and a friend, who is very honest (he wouldn't hold back if he didn't like it), he said, I think this fourth one might be the best one in the series. And I was like, oh my god it's come a long way from those first drafts. So you see, there's hope. Jeena Cho: [00:27:49] Yeah, yeah. So you wrote the first book and you showed it to your husband and he said it was terrible. How long did it take you before you felt like it was better? Debbi Mack: [00:28:06] You know, I don't remember exactly how long it took, but I know that it didn't take long for me to make the decisions that needed to be made to turn it around. Let's put it that way. You see, when I was writing it I knew in the back of my mind this is not going anywhere, but I showed it to him anyway. And he said, this is not doing it. And so it's as if I had a sixth sense about it. It's like, okay I know I'm not doing this right, I know I can do something to fix it. It's just a matter of doing it, of sitting down and figuring out the problem and getting it fixed. And I think anybody who practices law, I know attorneys who practice law who write extremely well, who are doing wonderful work and are getting published. And I've had them on my own show, I mean think of John Grisham or Scott Turow. Look at these people, Lisa Scottoline. These are lawyers who write fiction. Jeena Cho: [00:29:19] Yeah and I think you know, there is a certain mindset that has to shift to say I am more than just a lawyer, that I can do these things and that I can have interests outside of the office. Debbi Mack: [00:29:33] Oh you can, yes yes yes. Jeena Cho: [00:29:35] But you know, I don't think it comes naturally for most lawyers. We're kind of taught or trained to have this very singular focus. And also, it seems like the messaging is that if you divert your attention and do anything different, then that's going to end up hindering your ability to be an excellent lawyer. Debbi Mack: [00:29:59] I hear completely what you're saying. And it's funny how this starts in law school, it's a terrible thing. But I think a lot of it is old type thinking, because when I went back to the law school, I've been doing moot court, I've been doing these mock trials actually, regional mock trials. I'll show up and be a judge. So, it's interesting to see the kinds of posters that I see now around the law school. I see posters for mindfulness and all this kind of stuff. I remember when I was at, my first year in law school was at GW and I couldn't afford it. So I ended up transferring to the University of Maryland. [00:30:49] But while I was at GW, I remember distinctly somebody coming by and talking about if you ever need stress relief, we do art therapy. And there were these two guys sitting nearby, and they were in front of me and they looked at each other and just sort of snickered. And I was like, hello! I mean, this person is trying to help you, and you're snickering. Don't be snickering at art therapy, dude. [00:31:23] I think what lawyers are afraid of is that feeling of letting go, that feeling of just allowing their minds to wander a bit off of the logic path. Now, you're not going to stop being logical simply because you do this. Seriously. Especially if you write something like crime fiction, because you have to have the story make sense. I mean, if you're writing something along the lines of, who is that guy, Burroughs? Or some of these beat poets or whatever. Okay that's wild stuff, okay if you do something that's really far out, out there. Yeah, sure. I mean you get a little crazy, but that's not going to change your ability to think. Even if you do that, it's all about what you want to express. And a lot of times that expression can come out of the very thing that you're doing. Let's say your own day-to-day frustrations as a lawyer. I certainly see my own frustrations as a lawyer expressed in Sam. I mean, there were times when I would just shake my head at some of the things that I saw. Where I said, this is unjust, this is wrong. And I see lots of things in the news now where I just say, oh my god I know Sam would be appalled. [00:33:00] I see so many ideas out there that I can't begin to write all the stories that I could write about them. And it's a matter of queuing them up, like planes waiting to take off, you know? They're just there, waiting to be written about. Jeena Cho: [00:33:28] Getting a new website design can be a huge pain. But what if I told you that building a new website for your law firm didn't have to suck? My friends at Spotlight Branding pride themselves on their responsiveness, on great communication, and on delivering results for their clients. And Spotlight Branding doesn't lock their clients into long-term contracts. In fact, they offer a no risk, money-back guarantee on their work, so that you can have total peace of mind while you work with them. Spotlight Branding will help you stand out from the competition, drive more referrals, and ultimately achieve the growth you're looking for. Their team is currently offering a special, complimentary website review for our listeners. Visit spotlightbranding.com/trl to learn more. Jeena Cho: [00:34:23] Yeah I love that, that you gave yourself the permission to explore and do things. I felt this way at certain points in my life, like I remember being younger and loving to draw. But then I graduated from law school and I felt like, well I don't have the permission to do that. Like no one gave me permission so I can write fiction or draw or paint or sew, or do all of these things. And I don't know where that idea came from, but it was just so strong inside of me. Debbi Mack: [00:35:01] Oh my gosh, well I have a recommendation for anybody such as yourself. It's called "the creative sprint," and it's something that I have taken up actually. Noah Scalin, and his last name is spelled "S-C-A-L-I-N," Noah is the first name. And there's a book called "Creative Sprint." [00:35:24] And the thing is, if you sign up for the emails, every now and then they do this thing called "creative sprint," where if you want to participate, you make something based on a prompt that they give you every day for a month or so, and then you post it on social media somewhere. Jeena Cho: [00:35:48] I love this. Debbi Mack: [00:35:50] It's great, it's fantastic. And, so I've been doing it every now and then. In fact, I want to put together a video of what I did. Jeena Cho: [00:35:59] Oh, that'd be so awesome. Debbi Mack: [00:36:02] I'm going to have to do that, because some of the stuff I did was pretty wild. I did a video of me singing the lyrics to the Star Trek theme as William Shatner would do it. I was using a William Shatner style, you know. Have you ever heard him do "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?" Jeena Cho: [00:36:26] No, I'm going to have to look this up. Debbi Mack: [00:36:28] Oh my god. You haven't lived until you've heard William Shatner singing "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Jeena Cho: [00:36:35] Okay, I'm going to look this up. Debbi Mack: [00:36:39] Look it up on YouTube, William Shatner singing "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." You will die. So I decided to do the lyrics to the Star Trek original theme as William Shatner would do it. Jeena Cho: [00:36:54] That's awesome. Debbi Mack: [00:36:56] Give yourself permission to do things like that, and you'll be on your way toward doing fun stuff. Jeena Cho: [00:37:04] It's okay to do it. Yeah. So I want to shift gears a little bit, so think you have sort of hit that benchmark that I think every writer aspires to, which is to hit the New York Times Best Sellers List. So I'm curious, how did that happen? And tips or suggestions do you have for other aspiring authors? Debbi Mack: [00:37:30] Get in a time machine, go back to 2009. Self-publish your book and offer it for 99 cents on Kindle and Nook. And oh, and have five blogs while you're at it. Jeena Cho: [00:37:49] Wow. Debbi Mack: [00:37:49] At the time, I had five blogs. I was reviewing books; I was doing reviews for Mystery Scene magazine. I was blogging like crazy, like I said. I was tweeting like crazy. I had these 99 cent books, and I was making more money with 99 cent books than I was making pricing them at $2.99 or higher, with the higher royalty rate, because of the sheer volume. So I thought, why would I want to raise the price and have this income drop? And then of course, when Nook came along, that was another platform. So I was on Kindle and Nook, and being on Kindle and Nook qualified me for consideration on the list. And then I made enough sales, simply by sheer volume. I think there was some kind of promotion that Nook did at one time, and I was just picked out. It was not even something I asked for, me and another author's book were featured, and I think that must have boosted my Nook sales. And the combination of great Kindle sales and Nook sales together caused my book to peak in late March early April. So I made the list twice. And I was like, wow, oh my god. Jeena Cho: [00:39:22] So you didn't write the book thinking, this is going to be a New York Times Bestseller and have some grand scheme for making it there? Debbi Mack: [00:39:28] No, I had no grand scheme whatsoever. I had no idea what I was doing half the time. I was just essentially, I was blogging about my life as a writer. In fact, my blog at that time was called "My Life on the Midlist." "Debbi Mack, My Life on the Midlist," something like that. It was kind of a take-off of "Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List" because I always felt like I was pretty much a nobody. And I still feel like nobody, which is good. I don't want to be a famous writer or anything, that would be like.. no, no, no. Jeena Cho: [00:40:10] I don't know, I feel like once you make The New York Times Bestseller's List it's hard to say that you're not a famous writer. Debbi Mack: [00:40:15] But I'm not! That's the funny part. Unless you're in stores, you know what I mean? Unless you're in stores, if you're on the New York Times List as an e-book writer, it's very different than being on the New York Times List as a print book author. So I don't know, I don't think I'm famous so much as I've had some financial success, and I have had some marketing success. I think that's really the thing, I'm still in the process of what I would call "putting my tribe together." You know, my real big fans. Jeena Cho: [00:41:01] What does that process look like to you, put your tribe together? What does that look like sort of on a day-to-day basis? And let's say a month-to-month and year-to-year basis? Debbi Mack: [00:41:14] I would say on the day-to-day basis, what I like to do is try to blog on my author blog at least once a week. And that doesn't count my Crime Cafe posts, I like to have something up there that's mine. And often it's a book review, or I've started something I call "Myths About the Law." And I try to dispel what people think about lawyers. Like for instance, I had one post that said, I had read this book by a comedy writer. I won't say his name, but he's a wonderful comedy writer. But he said something about the movie "Liar Liar." And he said, "This guy can't lie because his kid wishes for it. How's he going to do his job, because he's a lawyer. He has to lie, right? And I'm like, ahem no. [00:42:17] So I said, no this is wrong. This is not what lawyers do for a living. In fact, if you watch the movie you'll see that he learns how to become a better lawyer by not lying. That's actually the message in the movie. And it's also an extremely funny movie. It's a great movie. Jeena Cho: [00:42:37] Yeah, yeah. And I think that's the thing that's hard. You have to put in that persistent and consistent effort and that building or finding your tribe doesn't happen overnight, obviously. Debbi Mack: [00:42:54] I kind of like the idea of joint efforts, of joint marketing efforts, because the more we can help each other the better off we are. And that's something about the legal profession that people don't appreciate either. They don't realize how collegial it is. I mean, there's of course conflict between people when there is litigation or a situation where there's something that needs to be negotiated. There can be a degree of conflict of course. But at the same time, the legal profession I have always found was very collegial. [00:43:34] I've worked in remarkably collegial circumstances, I guess. I've been very fortunate to work with people who work together well and share advice, that kind of thing. I know that there are probably law firms and things out there, places where people aren't like that. But I would say if that's the kind of place where you're working, maybe it's not the best place to be if it's causing you stress. Because you should be able to be happy with what you're doing with your life, not doing something that stresses you out. Jeena Cho: [00:44:17] Yeah. And also it seems like there are attorneys who just don't see an alternative. They are at a law firm, they're making a great salary. They have a mortgage or they have kids in college and this just feels like, yeah yeah. And I think it's kind of hard to make space for a different possibility. And that's just a possibility that you are not aware of in this moment. But it doesn't mean that those possibilities don't exist. Debbi Mack: [00:44:50] I think that's absolutely true. And I think if you want something badly enough, you can make it happen. It's just a matter of learning how to make it happen, and preparing for that. And I feel like right now I'm at the point in my life where I'm still learning all the different ways that I can make the things that I want to make happen. Jeena Cho: [00:45:17] Yeah, although it's really weird for me to hear you say that, because when I look at you and all that you've accomplished. I feel like, wow, she checked off all the boxes and she's there. Wherever that there might be, but yeah. Debbi Mack: [00:45:37] That's the thing, even the successful authors who are kind of famous, you'll always hear them say you're never quite there. Writing is a profession where you're always an apprentice. It's not just the writing process itself, there's also the unfortunately or fortunately, I don't know, it's easy to get yourself out there in the sense of, we have the Internet. We have blogs, we have social media. But knowing which thing to use and how to use it, these are all tools. Social media is a tool, you have to think of it that way. And how do you use it most wisely to get the most out of it, that's the trick. And like I say, I'm honestly still in the process of learning these things. [00:46:29] I'm always in the process of trying to hone my skills at various different levels. I am teaching courses on Yudami now, and I'm actually uploading some of those courses to Teachable, if people do online courses and they're writing oriented. I'm thinking about adding some more courses on other life topics, because I have a condition called dystonia. It developed secondary to a stroke I had several years ago. I mean this was in the early 00's. It's more of an annoying condition than anything, it is constant and there's no cure for it. But the thing of it is, in or to deal with it you have to do things like exercise and make time for yourself. [00:47:30] And so I'm thinking, there's a whole community of people out there who have chronic illnesses of various types. And I think there's a lot of advice I could give people on how to how to deal with that. Because I have had to deal with it out of necessity if I wanted to keep writing. I think if anything, this has really helped me to empathize more with people, and even just sympathize with them because some of them have the same problem I do. All I can say is, it's amazing what you can do even when you have a problem like this one. So I hope in that sense, I can serve as some sort of inspiration not only to lawyers, but to people who are struggling with chronic conditions. Jeena Cho: [00:48:22] Yeah, and it almost sounds like you've sort of had to learn to treat yourself more kindly and say you know what, I'm tired, I need rest. And not feel like you should feel guilty for taking a nap because you're really tired. Debbi Mack: [00:48:41] Exactly, right. It's kind of like learning to, there's a kind of a Buddhist concept to this sort of forgiving yourself and accepting, kind of all goes together. Jeena Cho: [00:48:55] Yeah. And it sounds like it's a little bit of room just for you to digest and see what comes of it. Debbi Mack: [00:49:04] Exactly right. Jeena Cho: [00:49:06] Yeah. Debbi, it's just been so wonderful talking to you. One final question before I let you go. So the name of this podcast is called The Resilient Lawyer. What does it mean to be a resilient lawyer to you? Debbi Mack: [00:49:25] Being able to effectively balance your work with your life. And that sounds a bit trite, but when I say that I mean your work should fold in neatly with what you want to do in your life. The kind of work you do, is in a sense a byproduct of yourself. It's like, you do the things that you do because you care about them. And if you don't care about what it is you're doing, you should be doing something else. Don't be afraid to make a change. [00:50:13] The way I see it, if you're going down the wrong road, you need to turn around at some point. And continuing down the wrong road will not take you to where you want to go. So it just doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to think about what you can do to change your situation to make it better and more in touch with your inner needs, your desires. Jeena Cho: [00:50:46] And I think it takes courage to make space for that voice that's longing to be expressed in the world. Debbi Mack: [00:50:56] Well thank you. Jeena Cho: [00:51:00] Debbi, for the listeners out there that want to learn more about you or your work, what are some places where they can find out? Debbi Mack: [00:51:09] Well you can find me at my website, which is debbimack.com. And you can find a link there for The Crime Cafe podcast, it's right there on my website. You can also find my Twitter link, my Facebook link, and my Google Plus link. I'm pretty sure they're all on there. [00:51:38] I'm also on YouTube. I do a lot of book reviews on YouTube I've become something of a "booktuber." I'll put in a plug for two writers whose books I just finished reading, who I absolutely love. Robert Crais and Terry Pratchett. Jeena Cho: [00:52:03] Alright, so I will put all of those in the show notes. Debbi, thank you so much for joining me today. I certainly enjoyed our conversation. Debbi Mack: [00:52:12] It was a pleasure. I'm very happy that you invited me on. Thank you so much. Closing: [00:52:23] Thanks for joining us on The Resilient Lawyer podcast. If you've enjoyed the show, please tell a friend. It's really the best way to grow the show. To leave us a review on iTunes, search for The Resilient Lawyer and give us your honest feedback. It goes a long way to help with our visibility when you do that, so we really appreciate it. As always, we'd love to hear from you. E-mail us at smile@theanxiouslawyer.com. Thanks and we look forward to seeing you next week.    

Our guest this week is Sophia Gushee, a mother of three. She has collected several books to guide her in taking care of her babies. One day she read that there are some cancer causing and hormone disrupting chemicals in some baby bottle nipples. She researched further and found legitimate concerns but was disappointed when she couldn’t find any alternative options for the baby bottles. She became really passionate about spreading awareness and informing others so that they can make healthier choices. She ended up organizing all her 8 years of research into the book A to Z of D-Toxing: The Ultimate Guide to Reducing Our Toxic Exposures. "There is a lot I do individually as a mother but there's even more we can do collectively as a community." Sophia Gushee This is a great interview especially if you're trying to conceive or you have young children. We talk about: 1.       Chemical explosion. 84,000 chemicals have been introduced into American commerce and less than 1% have been tested for safety. By Oct. 2015, only 5 chemicals could be regulated by the EPA. These show up in our lives as really useful products like shower curtains, toys and so many things and they create value and benefit. 2.       Regulation of chemicals, the EPA, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, which went into effect in 1976. It was sufficiently protecting public health and was just updated a few months ago. 3.       Sources of chemicals in our daily lives 4.       Endocrine disrupting chemicals 5.       Effects of toxic exposure -  these may not be seen immediately 6.       Products to avoid due to toxicity and which ones to use 7.       Chemical filtration options 8.       Diet and organic food eating – the dirty dozen and the clean 15 Sophia recently started a podcast series where she shares her continued discoveries about how to live a practical non-toxic life. To learn more about Sophia Gushee, you can find her on her website and on social media: Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube channel Thanks for listening. Bridgit Danner, Founder of Women's Wellness Collaborative.

Guest Randi Abrams-Caras, Senior Campaign Director of Washington Toxics Coalition, speaks with Diane Horn about passage of the Toxic Free Kids and Families Act in Washington State, the federal 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act, and current Washington Toxics Coalition campaigns.

On this Episode of EHS on Tap, we parse through the significant and recent legislative reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, better known as TSCA, and what Congress's action will mean for the future of chemical regulation.

There was a time, back in the 1970s, when the United States was at the cutting edge of protecting human health and the environment. We passed the "Clean Water Act," the "Clean Air Act," and something called the "Toxic Substances Control Act," also known as "TSCA," which was intended to regulate chemicals for safety. But TSCA failed to live up to its promise. Of the over 84,000 chemicals in commercial use today, only nine are banned or regulated. The rest? They're in household products, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and toys—many without adequate study about their health effects. What happened, and what can we do to protect ourselves from the toxins that surround us? H2O Radio investigates.

Producer/Host: Amy Browne Engineer: John Greenman Today we're doing a sort of “where are they now” show with some of the 13 Mainers –from all across the state and different walks of life– who volunteered back in 2006 to have themselves tested for the presence of 71 chemicals in their bodies. As we reported in 2007 when the results were published in the “Body of Evidence” report, toxic industrial chemicals were found in every person tested. The group behind the project was the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine, which included the Environmental Health Strategy Center, the Learning Disabilities Association of Maine, the Maine Labor Group on Health, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the Maine People's Resource Center, the Maine Public Health Association, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Physicians for Social Responsibility/Maine Chapter. All project protocols were approved by the University of Southern Maine Office of Research Compliance and Institutional Review Board. Doctors Vincent Markowski and Richard Donahue, the project's Principal Investigators, provided oversight of the study methodology, data collection, laboratory testing, and data analyses. 46 different toxic chemicals were found in the bodies of the 13 Mainers. The average body burden was 36 toxic chemicals detected in the blood, urine and hair of each participant. Guests: Emma Halas-O’Connor, Environmental Health Campaign Manager, Environmental Health Strategy Center/ Prevent Harm Hannah Pingree, former State Representative and study participant. After learning that PBDE flame retardants were being found in breast milk, she sponsored a bill that successfully phased out two of them back in 2004. In 2008 she was a sponsor of Maine's “Kid-Safe Products Act”. In 2012 she testified at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, advocating for updating and strengthening the federal 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. In 2013 she was featured in the HBO documentary “Toxic Hot Seat”. Steve Taylor, Project Manager for the Body of Evidence Report Regina Creeley, study participant FMI: www.cleanandhealthyme.org/bodyofevidencereport/tabid/55/default.aspx The post Maine Currents 10/14/15 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

(Originally aired November 2010) According to Scientific American, "Experts guesstimate that about 50,000 chemicals are used in U.S. consumer products and industrial processes. Why the uncertainty? The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act does not require chemicals to be registered or proven safe before use. Because the Environmental Protection Agency must show, after the fact, that a substance is dangerous, it has managed to require testing of only about 300 substances that have been in circulation for decades. It has restricted applications of five." The harmful side effects of chemicals have long been tolerated in the US as a price of progress and profits. But in the early 1990s a small group of scientists began to think differently. Why, they asked, do we rely on hazardous substances for so many manufacturing processes? After all, chemical reactions happen continuously in nature, thousands of them within our own bodies, without any nasty by-products. Maybe, these scientists concluded, the problem was that chemists are not trained to think about the impacts of their inventions. Perhaps chemistry was toxic simply because no one had tried to make it otherwise. They called this new philosophy "green chemistry." J0HN WARNER and Paul Anastas are the founders of green chemistry and co-authors of Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice. In the book, they establish 12 guiding principles for chemists, concepts like preventing waste by incorporating as much of the materials used into the final product, and choosing the least complicated reaction. Warner left a lucrative job at Polaroid to found the nation's first doctoral program in green chemistry. In 2007, to go beyond teaching, he founded Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, an innovation incubator, in Wilmington, Mass. Green chemists use all the tools and training of traditional chemistry, but instead of ending up with toxins that must be treated and contained after the fact, they aim to create industrial processes that avert hazard problems altogether. The catch phrase is "benign by design".

In early February, the House passed a package of eight bills that are supposed to appeal to hunters and fisherman. For this episode, Jen is joined by Cody Herman, host of Day One Outdoors and owner of Day One Outdoors adventure tour company, who helps Jen understand the bills and discusses whether or not the changes are good. HR 3590: "SHARE Act" "Sportsman Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act" Passed the House of Representatives on February 5, 2014 by 268-154. H.R. 3590 is a collection of eight bills, two of which never went through the committee process. The bill in its entirely also never went through committee. TITLE I: Prevents the EPA from regulating the chemicals in bullets, shot, projectiles, propellents, and primers. Written by Jeff Miller (R-FL) In 2012, a group of 100 environmental organizations asked the EPA to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle as a toxic substance because of the risk lead poisoning poses to animals and humans who eat animals killed by lead bullets and tackle. Lead poisoning has been found in California condors, turkey vultures, ravens, and a mountain lion. Livestock that graze on land contaminated with lead shot often ingest the metal, leading to lead-contaminated meat and dairy products. In October of 2013, California became the first state to ban lead ammunition. The law will be effective July 2019. EPA doesn't currently have the authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate the manufacture or sales of ammunition or tackle containing lead. This title would explicitly prohibit EPA from doing so. TITLE II: Creates public shooting ranges Taxpayers currently pay 75% of the construction, operation, and maintenance of public shooting ranges. This bill increases taxpayer obligation to 90% of construction costs and we'll pay 90% of the cost for buying land for public shooting ranges. Also, the United States can't be sued in civil court or in any case demanding money for injury, property loss or damage, or "death caused by an activity occurring" at the public shooting range. TITLE III: Public Lands Filming for Groups of 5 or Fewer This title will require a permit and a $200 annual fee for commercial filming activities; if you have a permit, you can't be assessed "any additional fee" for commercial activities that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours. Also, the government can't prohibit the use of motor vehicles from being used for filming on Federal lands and waterways. TITLE IV: Polar Bear bill The polar bear was added to the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008. On that day, it became illegal for US big-game hunters to bring back polar bear body parts to the United States. This title allows 41 polar bear killers to bring home their dead polar bear body parts - or trophies. The bears were hunted in early 2008, but their killers didn't import their body parts in time so the parts are now stuck in Canada. The bill would let them bring their hides, claws, teeth, and bear penises into the United States to show off to their friends. This title is being pushed by Don Young of Alaska, who pushed for it last Congress too. Don Young proudly proclaims to be the only US Congressman to hunt a polar bear. Many of the 41 hunters are members of Safari Club International, which has given at least $57,897 to Don Young of Alaska, with the largest chunk of that cash coming in for the 2012 election, after he introduced this favor to the Safari Club International members the first time. TITLE V: Electronic Duck Stamps States will be allowed to issue electronic duck stamps- a hunting license/collectors item that serves as an entrance pass to wildlife refuges-  which will be valid for 45 days. 98 cents of every dollar for them goes towards conservation. TITLE VI: Weapons Should be Allowed at Water Resource Facilities Overturns current law that prohibits weapons at water resource projects. TITLE VII: Establishes an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior The committee will direct the Secretary of the Interior on how to expand hunting and fishing, promote hunting and fishing, create programs to recruit and retain new hunters and shooters, create programs to "increase public awareness of ...the benefits of recreational hunting and shooting", and programs for conservation. TITLE VIII: Open Most Federal Land to Hunting and Fishing Actions to open up land - including land in National Monuments - will not count as "major actions" and will not be subject to environmental impact analysis Lands can be closed for public safety, resource extraction, or compliance with other laws. Orders the government to open more shooting ranges and exempts the government from any liability for injuries, damages, or deaths that occur on those shooting ranges National Parks will not be affected Prohibits any further restriction of motorized vessels in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, which is a battle being waged by freshman Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri's 8th district.  The problem is that people are running ATV's that damage the vegetation, motorboats are threatening the safety of people on canoes and the motors pollute the river water, and people are pulling trucks into the river and having parties on the gravel bars. Also, horse owners have created 65 miles of unapproved trails and their horse droppings have created an ecoli problem in the area. This overturns a Forest Service decision that prohibits deer hunting with dogs in the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. The decision was made in late 2012 and took effect last year because of safety complaints made by private landowners adjacent to the forest and from people using the land for recreation. Kisatchie National Forest was the only public land where deer hunting with dogs was allowed. Additional Information Wolf Blitzer makes $ 3 million per year. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) East River by Paul Sachs (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cold War Kids by Jonnie Horden (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Of the 80,000 known man-made chemicals in our food, air, water, cars, homes and everything else, only a handful are regulated for human safety. This is not OK. Join us as we welcome survivor/journalist Emily Cousins (National Resource Defense Council) Linsday Dahl (Deputy Director, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families) and Nancy Buermeyer (Senior Policy Strategist, Breast Cancer Fund), for a "healthy" debate about the challenges faced in updating this law. Also, Andy Koontz in the survivor spotlight.

Of the 80,000 known man-made chemicals in our food, air, water, cars, homes and everything else, only a handful are regulated for human safety. This is not OK. Join us as we welcome survivor/journalist Emily Cousins (National Resource Defense Council) Linsday Dahl (Deputy Director, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families) and Nancy Buermeyer (Senior Policy Strategist, Breast Cancer Fund), for a "healthy" debate about the challenges faced in updating this law. Also, Andy Koontz in the survivor spotlight. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Stephen E. O’Day is the Partner in charge of the Environmental Law and the Sustainability Practices at Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. The Environmental Practice Group handles all aspects of traditional environmental legal issues. SGR’s Sustainability Practice Group provides focused legal advice and representation to companies and entities regarding sustainability initiatives, sustainable businesses and business practices, renewable energy, business issues, planning and litigation. Mr. O’Day has handled environmental litigation, consultation and negotiations for over 32 years. He advises clients in connection with the full range of environmental issues, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Clean Water Act compliance, Clean Air Act permits and compliance, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting and compliance including solid and hazardous waste treatment, disposal and cleanups, Superfund cleanups, toxic tort claims, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act permitting and compliance, Toxic Substances Control Act compliance, right to know legislation under OSHA and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, water law and other environmental matters. He handles administrative proceedings on state and federal levels in connection with issues ranging from usage of real property to compliance with federal and state environmental laws. He represents clients in litigation across the country involving environmental matters such as toxic tort litigation, nuisance litigation, hazardous waste cleanups, including sites both on and off the NPL, Clean Water Act citizen suits and compliance litigation, facilities compliance with the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, mold litigation and landfill issues.

Mr. O’Day has been heavily involved in environmental litigation, consultation and negotiations during his more than 30 years of practice. He has advised clients in connection with the full range of environmental issues, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Clean Water Act compliance, Clean Air Act permits and compliance, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act permitting and compliance, Toxic Substances Control Act compliance, right to know legislation under OSHA and the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting and compliance including solid and hazardous waste treatment, disposal and cleanups, Superfund cleanups, toxic tort claims, water law and other environmental matters. He has handled administrative proceedings on state and federal levels in connection with issues ranging from usage of real property to compliance with federal and state environmental laws. He has represented clients in litigation across the country involving environmental matters such as toxic tort litigation, nuisance litigation, hazardous waste cleanups, including sites both on and off the NPL, Clean Water Act citizen suits and compliance litigation, facilities compliance with the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, mold litigation, and landfill issues. Finally, he has assisted clients in environmental issues in real property acquisition and development and the acquisition and sale of operating manufacturing entities. Mr. O’Day also is a frequent speaker at seminars concerning sustainability, environmental liability and compliance, and risk management. Mr. O’Day has achieved recent trial and appellate court victories in mold, Clean Water Act, solid waste (landfill) and toxic torts litigation, including three state Supreme Court cases of first impression.