Run the Jewels, the hip hop duo consisting of Killer Mike and El-P, announced plans earlier this year to release a cat-themed album. With the help of Kickstarter, they ended up raising over $65,000 to put their dreams in motion.When asked about the album back in January, El-P responded, “I’m not sure how long the whole thing will take because it’s not all in my hands – we’ve got a bunch of people and producers on board to make cat noises and I need to wrangle it all together.”Killer Mike Almost Ran For State Congress, Planning 2016 CampaignNow, Meow the Jewels is a reality, and we have our first taste with debut single “Meowlry.” The track features Boots, best known for his work with Beyonce, and lots of cat sounds. Check it out for yourself.[Via Okayplayer]
by Annette Smith In his May 25 Letter to the Editor(link is external) to the Rutland Herald, Peter Yankowski asked House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor candidate Shap Smith to explain his relationship with renewable energy developer David Blittersdorf, his partner Ritchie Berger’s complaint filed against me with the Vermont Attorney General, and the apparent conflict of interest that has resulted in the refusal of the House under Speaker Smith’s leadership to pass meaningful renewable energy regulation. I met with Speaker Smith in December 2015 and noted that for six years the towns, neighbors and public have been shut out of even having a conversation in the House about the need for standards and a better process for siting renewable energy. The sole purpose of the meeting was to ask how we were going to move forward in addressing the issues with renewable energy in the upcoming session. His response: “We’re not.” I put the letters from an attorney at Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, Shap Smith’s law firm, to towns attempting to get their correspondence with me in front of him, and noted that his firm was intimidating towns that were attempting to participate at the Public Service Board. His response was to push the letters back at me, noting that he saw them already when I posted them on vtdigger.org(link is external). What I posted along with the letters was that the Speaker appeared to have a conflict of interest. Speaker Smith did not to address the conflict of interest issue in our meeting. Most importantly, he did not say that he had a firewall with his law firm, nor did he say that there was no concern over conflict of interest because he had a system in place to address it. Apparently there was no system or firewall. As far as I can tell, as a managing partner and owner Shap Smith makes money on all his firm’s activities, so whatever claims he might make about not being involved in the details of what his partners are doing is ducking rather than responding to the question. Shap Smith’s firm represents David Blittersdorf and as long as Shap Smith has been Speaker of the House, he was in a position to advance his firm’s client’s interests or not. Under Shap Smith’s leadership the renewable industry interests were well served. The people affected by them got stonewalled, ignored, accused of being climate change deniers, anti-renewable, and got nothing. There was no balance. It was a one way street promoting the renewable industrialist’s agenda. What I did not know at the time of that December meeting was that Ritchie Berger, Shap’s law firm partner, had already filed the complaint against me with the Attorney General’s office. I wonder if Shap Smith knew. Fortunately the AG found the complaint was without merit and closed the investigation. What we do know is that despite the Shumlin administration and key legislators’ efforts to assure that nothing about wind energy got into S.230, the “energy siting” bill, a section to address wind turbine noise pollution did get into the legislation. Language that would have required the PSB to do rule-making to establish sound standards passed the House unanimously. Representative Kesha Ram (also running for lieutenant governor), vice-chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, told the Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee that the wind noise piece was the main reason for the unanimous vote in the House. The Senate overwhelmingly supported S.230 with the wind turbine noise rulemaking requirement. In the final days of the session, all of a sudden Representative Tony Klein, who Speaker Smith reappointed year after year to chair the key House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, had problems with the wind turbine noise language in S230. By-passing his own attorney from legislative council, Representative Klein consulted via phone with the same AG William Griffin who chose to act on Ritchie Berger’s complaint against me. No written determination responsive to Representative Klein’s concerns was issued. However, after Representative Klein met with the Shumlin administration, word was that if the wind language in the bill stayed, Governor Shumlin would veto the bill. On the last day of the session, the bill was changed to satisfy the Governor. Again it passed the House unanimously. Now Governor Shumlin has vetoed S230. Speaker Smith says he will call the legislature back to address the veto, with the possibility of “fixing” the bill. The proposed “fix” is being promoted by VPIRG and contains yet more gifts to special interests, with nothing protective for present or future wind turbine neighbors. S230 directs the PSB to adopt temporary rules for wind turbine noise under §844(a) which says, “Where an agency believes that there exists an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare, it may adopt an emergency rule.” The bill does not and never did include anything to help the people living with the noise pollution from existing wind projects. Hundreds more Vermonters are threatened with a real emergency: excessive noise pollution that has already driven people from their homes, made people sick, caused some to sell at a loss, while others are unable to sell at all. S230 does need fixing. The legislature should set a sound standard that is protective of public health and stop passing the buck to the PSB with its record of proven failure to protect public health. The legislature should require sound monitoring for existing and future projects. (What good is a speed limit without enforcement?) And the legislature should give town and regional plans substantial deference before the PSB. Those would be meaningful changes to S.230 that would make a real difference for Vermonters. Instead, we are poised to see Speaker Shap Smith keep his promise that “we’re not” going to see any legislation addressing renewable energy siting standards passed in this session come true. David Blittersdorf will be happy.
Share In an article published in the journal Environment International, researchers from Inserm (Inserm Unit 1085 – IRSET, the Institute of Research in Environmental and Occupational Health, Rennes), in association with the Laboratory for Developmental and Educational Psychology, LPDE (Rennes 2 University), provide new evidence of neurotoxicity in humans from pyrethroid insecticides, which are found in a wide variety of products and uses.An increase in the urinary levels of two pyrethroid metabolites (3-PBA and cis-DBCA) in children is associated with a significant decrease in their cognitive performances , particularly verbal comprehension and working memory. This study was carried out on nearly 300 mother and child pairs from the PELAGIE cohort (Brittany).Pyrethroid exposure Email Share on Facebook LinkedIn Share on Twitter Pinterest Pyrethroids constitute a family of insecticides widely used in a variety of sectors: agriculture (various crops), veterinary (antiparasitics) and domestic (lice shampoo, mosquito products). Their mode of action involves blocking neurotransmission in insects, leading to paralysis. Because of their efficacy and relative safety for humans and mammals, they have replaced older compounds (organochorides, organophosphates, carbamate) considered more toxic.Exposure of children to pyrethroids is common. It is different to adult exposure, due to the closer proximity of children to ground-level dust (which stores pollutants), more frequent hand-to-mouth contact, lice shampoos, etc. In children, pyrethroids are mainly absorbed via the digestive system, but are also absorbed through the skin. They are rapidly metabolised in the liver, and mainly eliminated in the urine as metabolites within 48 hours.Given these elements and the mode of action (neurotoxicity) of pyrethroid insecticides, the researchers proposed the hypothesis of a possible effect of these contaminants on the nervous system and its development in children.Contribution of the PELAGIE mother-child cohortPregnancy is also an important period of life for the future health of the child. For this reason, the researchers studied the PELAGIE mother-child cohort established between 2002 and 2006, which monitors 3,500 mother-child pairs. This cohort simultaneously considers exposure to pyrethroid insecticides during foetal life and childhood.A total of 287 women, randomly selected from the PELAGIE cohort and contacted successfully on their child’s sixth birthday, agreed to participate in this study.Two psychologists visited them at home. One assessed the child’s neurocognitive performances using the WISC scale (verbal comprehension index, VCI, and working memory index, WMI). The other psychologist characterised the family environment and stimuli that might have had a role on the child’s intellectual development, collected a urine sample from the child, and collected dust samples.Exposure to pyrethroid insecticides was estimated by measuring levels of five metabolites (3-PBA, 4-F-3-PBA, cis-DCCA, trans-DCCA and cis-DBCA) in urine from the mother (collected between the 6th and 19th weeks of pregnancy) and from the child (collected on his/her 6th birthday).A decrease observed in child cognitive performancesResults show that an increase in children’s urinary levels of two metabolites (3 PBA and cis-DBCA) was associated with a significant decrease in cognitive performances, whereas no association was observed for the other three metabolites (4-F-3-PBA, cis-DCCA and trans-DCCA). With respect to metabolite concentrations during pregnancy, there was no demonstrable association with neurocognitive scores.“Although these observations must be reproduced in further studies in order to draw definite conclusions, they indicate the potential responsibility of low doses of deltamethrine in particular (since the metabolite cis-DBCA is its main metabolite, and selective for it), and pyrethroid insecticides in general (since the metabolite 3-BPA is a degradation product of some twenty of these insecticides),” explains Cécile Chevrier, Inserm Research Fellow, the main author of this work.“The consequences of a cognitive deficit in children for their learning ability and social development constitute a handicap for the individual and for society. The research effort needs to be pursued in order to identify causes that could be targeted by preventive measures,” emphasises Jean-François Viel, a co-author of this work.
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
By RUSSELL BENNETT BEN ‘Moosha’ Marsh is a man of few words. Everyone knows it. And last Thursday night at…[To read the rest of this story Subscribe or Login to the Gazette Access Pass] Thanks for reading the Pakenham Berwick Gazette. Subscribe or Login to read the rest of this content with the Gazette Digital Access Pass subscription.
AROUND THE GROUNDS VICTORIAN PREMIER CRICKET ROUND 1 The new look Casey-South Melbourne – featuring four debutants – had an…[To read the rest of this story Subscribe or Login to the Gazette Access Pass] Thanks for reading the Pakenham Berwick Gazette. Subscribe or Login to read the rest of this content with the Gazette Digital Access Pass subscription. By Nick Creely
The Green Men, the two super fans known as Force and Sully who root for the Vancouver Canucks, aim to spice up Hockey Night in Canada’s Monday broadcast with their antics (5 p.m.). Saturday at a fan rally in downtown Vancouver, the Green Men announced they will be making the trip to Boston to watch their beloved Canucks play the Boston Bruins for Games three and four of the Stanley Cup finals — thanks to Travelzoo Inc, a global Internet media company. “In Vancouver and across Canada this spring the Canucks are the big story,” said Sully. “We’re going to help make Vancouver’s hockey story a little bigger in Boston next week. Our goal is to get some rings on the Canucks fingers and we’re not going to sleep until that happens.” The Green Men have caught the nation’s attention for their fun antics at Canucks games and have even spawned a whole group of imitators.“I don’t think we’ll be honoured with a Key to the City, but we’re thrilled to be traveling to Boston for both games and look forward to visiting — as only Green Men can,” said Force. In honour of the Vancouver Green Men, Travelzoo Canada will be giving out a phenomenal trip for two to anyone who is a member or signs up to be a member at Travelzoo.ca.
Hodgson nearly brought the crowd to its feet when he split the D in the first period before being stoned by LaBarbera. Hodgson is showing improvement almost every time out. Virtually no Canucks stood out today. Booth was the most noticeable and was named the game’s first star. The Canucks continued their physical play, outhitting Phoenix 28-20. The power play again looked better, but finished 0 for 3, including an almost four minute man-advantage in the first period. The Canucks weren’t credited with many shots in that stretch, but did create a few chances. Leigh Ramsden lives in Vancouver and is an avid Canucks fan, having been a partial season ticket holder for over 10 years. He’s old enough to have witnessed all three Stanley Cup losses, as such, his prime goal is to remove those scars by seeing a Cup brought to Vancouver. Leigh is Fighting For Stanley’s (www.fightingforstanley.ca/vancouver) west coast correspondent, and will also blog after all Canuck games for The Nelson Daily.The Phoenix Coyotes came to Vancouver on Monday night hoping to increase their slim lead in the race for the final Western Conference playoff spot. They were able to do so after earning a single point in a listless, dull affair eventually won by the Canucks in a shootout by the score of 2-1.The game tonight was one of the worst examples of NHL hockey I have ever had to lay eyes on. Dull, boring, and tight-checking, the two teams almost choked the life out of each other before the Canucks finally won in the sixth round of the shootout. The Canucks had goals from Cody Hodgson, Alex Edler, David Booth, and Ryan Kesler in the skills competition, while Phoenix saw success from Ray Whitney, Gilbert Brule, and Mikkel Boedker. Canuck netminder Roberto Luongo stoned Coyote shooter Boyd Gordon to seal the win.The Canucks only goal in regulation came off a nice play by David Booth, who took the puck around Keith Yandle after a deflected dump-in and was able to deke Phoenix goalie Jason LaBarbera and slide the puck home midway through the second period. Phoenix pressed a bit in the third period, and after a series of gaffes in the Canucks’ end, Yandle atoned for his mistake by surprising Luongo with a weak wrist shot that should never have found its way into the net. The overtime was as uneventful as the rest of the game.It’s easy to blame Luongo for this one – he let in a horrible goal with only a couple of minutes left. But even with this fact, he’s relatively blameless tonight. It was like the entire team was put to sleep, and certainly you’d expect your offense to provide more than one goal.Perhaps the most telling statistic was the Canucks’ shot count: four in the first period, a reasonable 13 in the second, and a farcical two in the third. Neither team was able to generate much in the way of offense, as they continually broke up each other’s passes and plugged up the neutral zone. While the ice generally isn’t too bad in Vancouver, the puck was continually bouncing around and being swatted at by both teams, it reminded me of my high-school intramural lunchtime floor hockey (i.e. no talent). It was downright ugly hockey to watch. If you missed this game, do not feel bad about it. IT’S NO WONDER NOBODY SUPPORTS HOCKEY IN PHOENIXThe most overriding thought I kept having was that it was no mystery why hockey isn’t surviving in the desert if this is the product that gets trotted out on the ice in a night to night basis. Phoenix coach Dave Tippett is the new-age Jacques Lemaire, his defensive teachings imperative if his talent-challenged lineup is to have a chance to win games.The Canucks had decent stretches in the game and were able to sustain pressure on the Coyotes at various times – early in the first period, and throughout a good portion of the second. However, in the third, they completely got lulled to sleep by their opponents. It became a game of “chip the puck off the boards and out”, only to have it hammered back in deep. Eventually, the Coyotes’ “strategy” (if you use the term loosely) worked out, with a couple bad plays in the Canucks end led to the tying goal.There were large stretches where the Canucks struggled to mount any offense, especially in the third period. The Coyotes outshot the Canucks 7-2 in the final period. It’s very common for the losing team to outshoot and outchance the frontrunner in the third period in the NHL, and tonight’s game was an example of this. That said, the lack of quality scoring chances by the Coyotes was astounding – for a team that was “pressing” to tie the game, their offense was almost nonexistent.Hockey is a tremendous sport and when played at its highest level, it can be a treat to watch. Teams like the Coyotes are the antithesis to this, dumbing the game down to its basest levels. They had reportedly been scoring more goals of late, especially during their recent five-game winning streak. There was no evidence of this tonight. CANUCKS STRUGGLE TO CREATE OFFENSE – IS THIS MEANINGFUL?Vancouver struggled to mount much offense for large stretches of the game, and my immediate concern was “what would happen if we had to play them in the playoffs”? It seemed like a potential recipe for disaster.However, there are reasons why a team like this would post a minimal threat to any of the top teams in the playoffs. While Phoenix excels at stifling the opposition, eventually the talent disparity would prove too much to overcome, especially over a seven game series. All the top teams in the league can shut down and play stifling defense as well, when required – tonight’s game was evidence of that.Phoenix saw success on the penalty kill tonight by employing an extremely aggressive approach, not giving the Canucks any time to make plays. Clearly this worked in a one-game situation, but I am comforted knowing that as soon as the twins figured this out, it would be very easy for them to find the weak spots and pick them apart. I’m pretty sure that over a longer series, that style of PK would not be successful against the Canucks.The Canucks were only able to score once tonight, but I have a hard time believing they would be kept down for an entire series against a team like this. For that reason – I just don’t see how a team like this would pose much of a threat. PARTING SHOTSQuick comments: The most entertaining moment of the game occurred when late in the third period, after an icing call, Bieksa attempted to shoot the puck off the boards and catch it behind his back to give to the linesman. I’m not kidding, that was the most entertaining play of the game. Coach Vigneault had Cinderella story Byron Bitz on the ice in the final couple minutes (good), but his was the final error that led to the Phoenix goal (bad) – tough luck for the big guy.Broadcast Observation of the Day: One of John Shorthouse’s most annoying traits is his misuse of the phrase “throwing it up the middle”. Every time someone makes a play in their own zone to the middle of the ice, he refers to it as “throwing it up the middle”. Risky passes from deep in your own zone, up the middle, should be referred to as that. However, making a good play from the side boards to a forward with speed in the middle of the ice is a staple of a great breakout, which the Canucks have. They are very different things, and referring to each of them as the same thing (and insinuating that a good play is one fraught with unnecessary risk) is misleading to the viewer, and I wish he’d cut it out.Looking ahead: Vancouver hosts the Colorado Avalanche on Wednesday night in the Canucks’ third consecutive game against a team vying for the eighth and final playoff spot. Luongo played solid all the way through until the last goal.