1. On the Scholars web site he manages ( www.st911.org ), Jim Fetzer casts aspersions on my research regarding the use of thermates at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 -- which is fine as long as he provides serious technical objections, which he has not done. At the same time, JF is promoting on the web site notions that energy-beams from WTC 7 or from space knocked the Towers down.

I have invited Jim repeatedly to view the video of my talk given 11/11/06 at the University of California at Berkeley which provides the latest physical evidences for thermate use, reinforcing the data in my published paper. He admitted this week that he has not done so. My UC-Berkeley talk is HERE.

In fairness, I list Jim's talk in Tucson (Nov. 13) also, which you may wish to compare.

Here you will find Jim's assertion that energy beams directed from WTC 7, or from space, may be the "fascinating" explanation for what caused the Twin Towers to collapse. He also here discusses "falling grand pianos." My sincere efforts to correct his evident errors/misinformation have been twisted and distorted until I want no more to do with such "tar-baby" discussions.

2. I support this statement made recently by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other (previous) members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which many unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."

(This 'ad hoc' committee has sent out a letter you may have received; I have chosen their "option 1.")

3. On the Scholars' web site, Jim has posted an "Open Letter About Steven Jones" which contains the following:

"He is now planning to take control of the web site from me." "... his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him."

Jim's accusation against me is simply untrue and he provided no evidence for his assertion. I replied:

"What nonsense. As I have written to you privately . Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research .. Your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre."

The uncivil accusations and diatribes remain on the Scholars' web site (actually managed solely by Jim Fetzer) to this day, contrary to the strong objections of many members of the society. You may read my full reply and pleading with Jim to be reasonable, HERE.

I have asked Jim to promptly remove any papers which I authored from this web site, but he has not done so.

Jim Fetzer may keep his web site and whoever wishes to adhere to "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Many of us thought this was going to be a collective effort where members could have a voice, not Jim's "sole proprietorship."

It is most unfortunate that others have been dragged into this situation, and I write out of concern for you to explain what has been going on. Of late, Jim F. refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers. (I and others have written evidence-based rebuttals to these notions.) These two have written caustic ad hominems about me in particular, and it possible that Jim's association with them explains some of his recent behavior.

I hope Jim will view the video of my lecture at UC-Berkeley and then re-evaluate his stance.

4. During Thanksgiving weekend, Jim F unilaterally dismissed me as co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I felt that this action was improper and unfair. Later he hinted that unspecified legal action might be taken against me and/or Alex Floum, a fine researcher. To me, this was the last straw which led to my ending association with Jim F and "his" society.

5. I join Kevin Ryan and many others in withdrawing from the group so that my name will not be attached to the personalized attacks and ray-beams-from-space stuff on www.st911.org.

This I did by simply emailing to joinst911@gmail.com and stating that "I am withdrawing from this society."

(This very email is set up such that if you simply hit "Reply to all" and state "I withdraw from this society", it will send the message to the membership administrator for the society run now by Jim Fetzer.)

6. Some months ago, I initiated and now co-edit with Kevin Ryan the Journal of 9/11 Studies which publishes peer-reviewed papers which adhere to the scientific method. I hope you will take a look at some of the fine papers therein:

www.journalof911studies.com

I believe this is the proper way to proceed, with careful studies followed by peer-reviewed publication.

7. An ad hoc committee of scholars (from the old group) is forming a research society which will focus on use of the scientific method and peer-reviewed papers. Their website will be closely allied with the Journal of 9/11 Studies (which I co-edit) and will be managed by an elected committee, responsive to the group. Two sample websites are already available to give further information:

http://schol.digitalstyledesigns.com/ and http://www.taulbee.us/stj911/

This research group intends to keep in touch with its members and to use the scientific method along with civil and respectful discourse. (We won't spend much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers!) If you wish to join this group, you may write to: stj911.info(at)yahoo.com

A U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30 showed that a record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of last year. Of the total, 2.2 million were in prison or jail.

According to the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London, more people are behind bars in the United States than in any other country. China ranks second with 1.5 million prisoners, followed by Russia with 870,000.

The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people in the highest, followed by 611 in Russia and 547 for St. Kitts and Nevis. In contrast, the incarceration rates in many Western industrial nations range around 100 per 100,000 people.

Groups advocating reform of U.S. sentencing laws seized on the latest U.S. prison population figures showing admissions of inmates have been rising even faster than the numbers of prisoners who have been released.

"The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. We rank first in the world in locking up our fellow citizens," said Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, which supports alternatives in the war on drugs.

"We now imprison more people for drug law violations than all of western Europe, with a much larger population, incarcerates for all offenses."

Ryan King, a policy analyst at The Sentencing Project, a group advocating sentencing reform, said the United States has a more punitive criminal justice system than other countries.

MORE PEOPLE TO PRISON

"We send more people to prison, for more different offenses, for longer periods of time than anybody else," he said.

Drug offenders account for about 2 million of the 7 million in prison, on probation or parole, King said, adding that other countries often stress treatment instead of incarceration.

Commenting on what the prison figures show about U.S. society, King said various social programs, including those dealing with education, poverty, urban development, health care and child care, have failed.

"There are a number of social programs we have failed to deliver. There are systemic failures going on," he said. "A lot of these people then end up in the criminal justice system."

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in California, said the high prison numbers represented a proper response to the crime problem in the United States. Locking up more criminals has contributed to lower crime rates, he said.

"The hand-wringing over the incarceration rate is missing the mark," he said.

Scheidegger said the high prison population reflected cultural differences, with the United States having far higher crimes rates than European nations or Japan. "We have more crime. More crime gets you more prisoners."

Julie Stewart, president of the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, cited the Justice Department report and said drug offenders are clogging the U.S. justice system.

"Why are so many people in prison? Blame mandatory sentencing laws and the record number of nonviolent drug offenders subject to them," she said.

She and others questioned why the Department of Housing and Urban Development would destroy affordable housing in New Orleans, saying it is essential to the city's recovery.

C. Donald Babers, the federally appointed administrator running the Housing Authority of New Orleans, did not respond to that question in tersely approving the demolitions.

Previously, HUD officials have said the old projects should be cleared out to make way for less dense, modern housing. But those new developments, to be constructed in partnership with private investors, would probably include far fewer apartments for low-income residents and would take years to complete. An unresolved lawsuit on behalf of residents charges that the demolition plan is racially discriminatory.

"This is a government-sanctioned diaspora of New Orleans's poorest African American citizens," said Bill Quigley of Loyola University's law school, who is representing the displaced. "They are destroying perfectly habitable apartments when they are more rare than any time since the Civil War."

The divide over public housing may be the most prominent skirmish in the larger battle over the post-Katrina balance of whites and blacks in New Orleans and how decisions on rebuilding shape the city's demographic future.

Before Katrina, the Census Bureau pegged the city's racial breakdown at about 67 percent black and 28 percent white. A more recent study conducted for the Louisiana Recovery Authority estimates that the city, still well under half its pre-storm population, is 47 percent black and 43 percent white.

When Katrina struck, more than 5,000 families, nearly all of them black, were living in New Orleans public housing, and a couple of thousand more units were vacant or uninhabitable. The waiting list for housing had 8,250 names.

Since the storm, most of the complexes have been closed, some surrounded by fences and razor wire. About 1,100 units were occupied as of July, according to HUD figures.

To repair the hurricane damage at the four largest complexes in question would cost $130 million, according to HUD figures. Residents and their attorneys say that those cost estimates are bloated and that many units now unavailable could be reoccupied with a little cleaning or minor renovation.

At Thursday's meeting, attended by about 40 public housing representatives and advocates, Stephanie Mingo, who had been a 43-year resident of the now-closed St. Bernard project, blinked back angry tears as she spoke during her allotted three minutes. "You are hurting people. You are killing people," she said. "I don't know how y'all can sleep at night."

The meeting, the last of a series of required "consultation meetings" with residents, appeared to be a formality. Babers thanked each person for his or her comments but made none himself. Nor did he answer any of the questions put to him. Residents called the process a sham.

HUD spokeswoman Donna White said public comments from the meetings will be reviewed by HUD in Washington, which can accept, reject or change the demolition plan.

The plans for redeveloping public housing in New Orleans resemble efforts in recent years in cities across the country. In response to critics who have said some of the old complexes deteriorated because they concentrated and isolated the poor, the replacement developments are typically less dense and only partly devoted to subsidized housing.

But in post-Katrina New Orleans, the idea of demolishing units that might be rehabilitated, and replacing them with fewer units, infuriates advocates of the poor.

They point to the former St. Thomas project in the city, which was originally designed to house approximately 1,500 families. Its demolition, in 2002, has been followed by the construction of 296 apartments, 122 of them for low-income families. When the project is completed, it is supposed to have 1,100 new residential units, but critics say far too few of the poor displaced by the demolition will ever be able to live there.

State Rep. Cedric Richmond (D) scoffed at the underlying logic of the new developments, saying it is audacious to blame residents' misery on the concentration of poverty in New Orleans. At a similar meeting last month, he said: "It was always concentrated. Because you can't get people to make beds and clean hotels if you educate them well and they expect a decent pay."

Whoriskey reported from Miami.

Once inside the gunman opened fire, wounding three people fatally. He had taken a hostage and chained a door when a police sniper shot down a long hallway, striking the gunman.

"There were at least another 25 to 30 people on the floor and I think the Chicago police officer -- SWAT -- saved those people's lives," said Cline.

He said the gunman may have shot himself as well, but an autopsy would have to show which was the fatal wound.

Not so, Jodie Peterson of NSTA told New Scientist. "Our board of directors has to approve our funding before it is accepted. No one has ever given us money with any stipulations attached; it's just never happened."

NSTA president-elect Jonathan Witsett said during a call-in to National Public Radio that NSTA would have accepted the donated DVDs if it hadn't been for the distribution costs, which he estimated at $250,000.

From issue 2581 of New Scientist magazine, 07 December 2006, page 6

McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.

In the bill, she accused Bush of misleading Congress on the war in Iraq and violating privacy laws with his domestic spying program.

McKinney has made no secret of her frustration with Democratic leaders since voters ousted her from office in the Democratic primary this summer. In a speech Monday at George Washington University, she accused party leaders of kowtowing to Republicans on the war in Iraq and on military mistreatment of prisoners.

McKinney, who has not discussed her future plans, has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.

She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath. She introduced legislation to establish a permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur's recordings at the National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into his killing.

But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not wearing her member lapel pin.

A grand jury in Washington declined to indict McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before the House.

"Generation Y, you are on the cusp. You are the group facing many problems: abject poverty, global warming, genocide, Aids, and suicide bombers to name a few. These problems exist, and the world is silent. We have done very little to solve these problems. Now, we leave it to you. You have to fix it because the situation is intolerable."

There is, however, a motive behind the altruism. In March Douglas publishes his 9th book, a non-fiction work entitled Let's Face It: 90 Years of Living, Loving and Learning. The open letter, more of a press release, has had the desired effect. Anyone who took the actor's advice at the weekend found that Kirk Douglas was the top entry on Google's news section

Douglas has devoted much of his life since the 1980s to good works. Eschewing what one critic described as the "cocky, intense, forceful and egocentric" roles that characterised his best performances, he has been a US state department Goodwill Ambassador, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now he has taken on the role of benevolent grandparent, giving homely advice to the world.

These new "recruits" as reserve officers are La Toya Jackson, Michael's sister, Jack Osbourne, son of Ozzy, and the skateboarder and Jackass star Wee Man. Also taking part are Erik Estrada, star of the television series CHiPs, in which he played a motorcycle cop, and Trish Stratus, a former wrestler . The series is being filmed in Muncie, Indiana (population 66,000), chosen for its quintessential middle-America features. The city's police are doing the training.

The celebrities are shown firing in the gun range and learning how to stop people in their cars and on the streets.

Muncie residents were allowed to view filming recently, during which Estrada joked with the crowd that he might not be recognisable as an officer as he would not be wearing his toupee. Associated Press reported that he wiggled his hairpiece.

Filming continues until mid-January, though a date has yet to be set for the broadcast. A few hiccups have already occurred. Jackson failed her fitness test, the Muncie Star Press revealed, because she was unable to do 25 press-ups.

That alone should tell you quite a bit about the way things are today. When Jews are afraid of Democrats, something has changed.

Of course, many things have changed. The Democrats, out of power and leaderless for years, return to power chastened and convinced they need to do things differently. Just how differently, no one knows, but the buzzword on everyone's lips is economic populism. Since the 1970s, they have allowed themselves to be defined as the party of the outsider, the downtrodden, the oppressed and vulnerable minorities. That has allowed the Republicans to present themselves as the voice of the majority, which is a good way to win elections.

The Democrats seem to be aiming now to push their minority-rights agenda toward the background and emphasize their old New Deal-labor platform of economic egalitarianism, promising a better deal for society's have-nots.

This is a double-whammy for the Jewish community's traditional leadership. For one thing, they've carved out a political space for themselves in the past generation on a platform of defending Jews as a minority. For another, they've built a well-oiled machine that's mostly dependent - though they don't like to discuss it - on the donations of society's haves. Naturally they're nervous.

Then there's the matter of Israel. There's no real difference between Democratic and Republican elected officials on questions of Israeli security, but their grass-roots constituencies are a different story. Public opinion surveys show that self-identified Democrats are markedly less sympathetic to Israel than self-identified Republicans. The Democrats have some noisy constituencies on the left that identify openly with the Palestinians. Most party leaders don't pay much attention to those groups, but some do. Jewish activists have noticed this.

Many Jewish activists, for their part, have responded by rallying behind President Bush. They call him the greatest friend Israel has ever had, a title that's passed to nearly every president on entering the White House. What they really mean, though, is that he's the strongest proponent in memory of a strong-arm approach to extremism in the Muslim world. That's won him strong, vocal support from some very visible elements in the Jewish community, while most of the rest of the country tears its hair out. Democratic leaders don't like to talk about this, but they have noticed.

The Democrats won't abandon Israel. That's inconceivable in a party led by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. But they might be just a little bit less receptive to Israel's main advocates here. Of course those advocates are worried.

There's a gentler, almost banal factor that's been at play, leading the Democrats and the Jewish communal advocates apart. The job of the advocates has been to get into the halls of power and make their case. Those halls of power have been occupied by Republicans - indeed, a special breed of Republicans who have made life difficult for pleaders who tried to remain friends with Democrats. So there hasn't been much communication in a while. The best-known Jewish agencies have narrowed their action agendas in the past few years to items they could hope to achieve - lots of Middle East and counter-terrorism stuff, not so much social gospel.

One could read that as a hijacking of the Jewish communal agenda by the rich and conservative. And indeed, there's something odd in Jewish advocacy agencies and representative bodies acting nervous at the triumph of a party that won the votes of nearly seven out of every eight Jews.

But one could also remember that the big agencies have, for the most part, just been doing their jobs as they understood them, in a time of great fear and uncertainty. Now things are changing, and we all have an opportunity to rethink our roles. We can remember that Jews live in the world - indeed, we're commanded to protect it - and that there's an opportunity now to get serious about saving the planet from the environmental catastrophe threatening it. We can look at the Democrats' economic agenda as an opportunity to make society right and to give back, as the saying goes. That could go a long way toward repairing the social fabric and reducing the hate we so fear. In short, we can start thinking about our values as well as our interests.

As for our representative bodies, they might start by taking time off to do some deep thinking about what it means to represent.

An existing U.S. travel warning says there is a significant security risk in many areas of Algeria, Africa's second largest country which is slowly pulling itself out of 14 years of conflict between Islamist rebels and government forces.

Sunday's attack in the upmarket Bouchaoui district, 10 km (six miles) west of Algiers, killed the Algerian driver and wounded nine people, including four Britons and an American, authorities said.

Some expatriate oil executives said they would step up security as a result of the late afternoon attack.

Residents said the bus was ferrying employees of Brown Root Condor, a joint venture of Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root (KBR) and Condor Engineering, an affiliate of Algerian state energy group Sonatrach.

The authorities were working on two hypotheses.

"If it is terrorism, that would indicate that the affiliate of Halliburton has been targeted for its role in Iraq. It has been seen as a firm that has hoarded Iraqi riches," a security source said.

"If it is criminality, that would mean that the local mafia wants to block the opening of the economy and economic transparency. This mafia wants the status quo and to preserve monopoly situations."

The government is trying to modernize the country's Soviet-style command economy, long dominated by loss-making state banks notorious for mismanagement, graft and inefficiency.

A KBR statement said: "KBR can confirm that a bus carrying employees of Brown & Root Condor (BRC), a joint venture between KBR and Sonatrach, was attacked in Algiers, Algeria, on Sunday, December 10 at approximately 4:45 p.m. local time.

"KBR's top priority remains the safety and security of our employees around the world. For this reason, we will not detail the measures undertaken to safeguard company personnel."

ELABORATE ASSAULT

The bombing took place in a heavily protected neighborhood that is home to some government ministers as well as the Sheraton Hotel, where several foreign firms have their offices.

Some residents spoke of a gunman who got out of a car parked at the curb and opened fire at the bus as it approached.

Sporadic clashes between Islamist guerrillas and security forces normally take place in isolated rural areas.

On October 30, three people were killed and 24 wounded in near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks on two police stations in what witnesses called the most elaborate assault by Islamist rebels in several years.

Islamists began an armed revolt in 1992 after the then military-backed authorities, fearing an Iran-style revolution, scrapped a parliamentary election that an Islamist political party, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), was set to win.

Up to 200,000 people were killed in the ensuing bloodshed. The violence has sharply subsided in the past few years.

The biggest foreign operator is U.S. Anadarko Petroleum Corp and the biggest foreign investor is Britain's BP. Other investors include Royal Dutch Shell BHP Billiton, ENI, Hess Corp and Repsol.

That lipstick or nail polish you may be wearing -- are they a danger to your health? How about your deodorant, toothpaste, body lotion, soap?

Seemingly innocuous personal-care products contain a host of largely unregulated chemicals and toxic ingredients. Some of those chemicals -- phthalates, formaldehyde, petroleum, parabens, benzene and lead -- have been variously linked to breast cancer, endometriosis, reproductive disorders, birth defects and developmental disabilities in children.

Women and girls should be particularly concerned, as our bodies are uniquely susceptible to certain environmental chemicals. Women have a greater percentage of fat in comparison to men, so fat-soluble chemicals such as parabens and toluene tend to be more readily absorbed and fatty breast tissue can be a long-term storage site for some of the more persistent toxic chemicals. Hormones also play a role: Synthetic chemicals such as alkylphenols (found in some detergents) and bisphenol A (found in hard plastics) can mimic natural estrogens in the body -- and excess estrogen can play a role in the development of breast cancer. Childbearing women may also pass toxins to fetuses in utero or to newborns when breastfeeding.

But U.S. consumers are left in the dark about vital safety information: Cosmetic companies are not required to label many of their products' ingredients, and the Food and Drug Administration does not mandate premarket safety testing of those ingredients.

And that's why the California Safe Cosmetics Act is such a landmark achievement.

Signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last October and taking effect in 2007, it requires manufacturers to disclose product ingredients found on state or federal lists of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. The law further authorizes the state to investigate the health impacts of chemicals in cosmetics, and requires manufacturers to supply health-related information about their ingredients. Finally, the act enables the state to regulate products in order to assure the safety of salon workers.

California is the first state in the nation to pass such legislation, thus serving as a model for the other 49. "This is an important disclosure bill, and an important victory for women's health," says Jeanne Rizzo of the Breast Cancer Fund. "California has set the stage for states to assert regulatory authority around toxic chemicals in cosmetics, which the federal government has thus far refused to lead on."

Adds California state Sen. Carole Migden, who championed the legislation, "It is beyond belief that consumers are not being told whether or not they are putting carcinogens on their skin, in their hair or on their face. [The law] represents a triumph of grassroots efforts over money and power. Even in the face of a multinationally funded lobbying machine, common sense and the public good prevailed."

While many known toxic components have been banned in Europe from use in personal care products, similar ingredients remain legal in products marketed to the American public. Currently, the FDA does not review the ingredients in cosmetic and beauty-care products, but instead relies on self-regulation by the cosmetic industry's own Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel. According to the watchdog Environmental Working Group, only 11 percent of the 10,500-plus ingredients that the FDA has documented in personal-care products have been assessed for safety by the CIR panel.

In response to the lack of government oversight, an international Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was initiated in 2002 to pressure the personal-care industry to phase out known toxic ingredients and replace them with safer alternatives. Manufacturers have been encouraged to sign the "Compact for Safe Cosmetics," and to date more than 300 have done so, including The Body Shop, Burt's Bees and Aubrey Organics.

Migden authored the California Safe Cosmetics Act (S.B. 484) in 2004, with co-sponsorship by Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund and the National Environmental Trust. They joined with other public-health, environmental, consumer, Asian Pacific Islander, teen and faith-based groups in a yearlong organizing and lobbying campaign -- which met aggressive opposition from the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. The industry group spent more than $600,000 trying to defeat the bill, even going so far as to host a website to capture searchers looking for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. In contradiction to a growing body of science, the website claims that the personal-care products sold in California are the safest in the world.

Julia Liou, of Oakland-based Asian Health Services, advocated particularly for provisions in the bill designed to protect the safety of nail-salon and cosmetology workers. "We realize that Asian nail-salon workers and owners are not fully aware of the long-term health risks facing their sector," says Liou. Currently, of the more than 83,500 manicurists in California, 80 percent are of Vietnamese descent, more than half of whom are of reproductive age.

Nail-salon and cosmetology workers handle solvents, chemical solutions and glues on a daily basis, yet little research has been conducted on the chronic health effects of such exposures. There is also a dearth of culturally and linguistically appropriate educational materials to build awareness about environmental exposures and help workers and salon owners implement safety precautions.

Most of the Vietnamese salon workers earn less than $15,700 a year, speak limited English and lack health coverage. Their voices went largely unheard in the safe-cosmetics debate, and some salon owners actually came out against the bill -- "based on misinformation and fear about how it might impact small immigrant-owned businesses," says Liou. "So it is important for us to work with salon workers and owners in a way that empowers them to be leaders and advocates themselves." In an effort to do so, the California Healthy Nail Salons Collaborative was formed, and now advocates for greater work- place safety, protective policies, research and community education.

The passage of the California Safe Cosmetics Act sets the stage for further advocacy around cosmetic safety, occupational exposures and chemical policy reform. Those who fought to pass it are now working to ensure its adequate funding and enforcement, and hope to see it replicated in other states.

For more information, visit: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics; California Health Nail Salons Collaborative, jliou@ahschc.org; Skin Deep, a database of the Environmental Working Group providing a safety assessment of personal-care product ingredients. To access the California Safe Cosmetics Act: www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.

Anuja Mendiratta is a senior program officer with the Women's Foundation of California and on the steering committee of the California Health Nail Salons Collaborative; she is also a freelance writer.

A shower of sparks and flames from the shuttle's launch rockets provided a dramatic fireworks display at 8.47pm after the countdown ended on a launch that had been delayed earlier in the day because of low clouds. The shuttle left an arc of light across the horizon as it blasted off. It was the first night launch by Nasa in four years. "It just all came together perfectly," the launch director, Mike Leinbach, said. "Everything was just clicking today. Some days you feel good and you know it's going to come together."

After a day of orbiting Earth yesterday to allow astronauts to inspect their shuttle for any damage, docking with the space station should be completed this morning. Work will begin on rewiring the station and connecting a new power supply.

The American astronaut Sunita Williams will remain in the space station as part of its three-member crew, replacing Germany's Thomas Reiter of the European Space Agency.