Saturday, January 26, 2008

Universal Karma: If The Falling US Spy Satellite Hits George W. or Dick Cheney.

LOOK OUT BELOW!!!

Apparently A US Spy Satellite... A Large One is Coming Soon... February or March... and by that I don't mean it's on its way up into space... This one, Brothers and Sisters, is Coming Down...

From Space.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk

Photobucket

A space satellite (image: Nasa)
No details of the satellite were given


Satellite could plummet to Earth


A "large" US spy satellite has gone out of control and is expected to crash to Earth some time in late February or March, government sources say.

Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the satellite had lost power and propulsion, and could contain hazardous materials.

The White House said it was monitoring the situation.

(Ooh! "The White House is monitoring the sitch..." Like they were monitoring Iraq? Like they were monitoring North Korea? Like they were monitoring the 9/11 hijackers who were listed in the phone book?... Well, I feel Safer... Don't You? - L.)

A spokesman said "numerous" satellites had come out of orbit and fallen back to Earth harmlessly over the years.

(So... someone's about due for a whack, huh?
Can we vote for a Candidate? I vote for George W. - in this instance ONLY. - L.)

"We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause," said Gordon Johndroe, who speaks for the US National Security Council.

Questioned by The Associated Press, he would not be drawn on whether the US would try to destroy the satellite, perhaps with a missile.

An unnamed official quoted by AP said the US government was keeping lawmakers and other countries abreast of the situation.

(Since When? How long have they known about it? It's expected to splash or crash down within 2 months... That's not a lot of notice. - L.)

Fuel hazard

The satellite contains the rocket fuel hydrazine, a government official told AP on condition of anonymity.

A colourless liquid with an ammonia-like odour, the fuel is a toxic chemical and can cause harm to anyone who comes in contact with it.

John Pike, director of the defense research group GlobalSecurity.org, said an uncontrolled re-entry could risk exposure of US secrets.

(Yippee! More Transparency! - L.)

Spy satellites typically are disposed of through a controlled re-entry into the ocean so that no one else can access the spacecraft, he was quoted by AP as saying.

The military expert believes that shooting the satellite down would create debris that would then re-enter the atmosphere and burn up or hit the ground.

In his estimate, the satellite weighs about 20,000 pounds (9,072kg) and is the size of a small bus.

It is possible, he adds, that this one died as long as a year ago and is just now getting ready to re-enter the atmosphere.

Another expert, Jeffrey Richelson of the National Security Archive, said the satellite is probably a photo reconnaissance satellite.

Into the ocean

AP notes that the largest uncontrolled re-entry by a US space agency (Nasa) craft was Skylab.

The 78-tonne abandoned space station fell from orbit in 1979.

Its debris dropped harmlessly into the Indian Ocean and across a remote section of western Australia, the US news agency says.

In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound (3,175-kg) science satellite hit the Earth's atmosphere.

It rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would crash.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

False Pretenses, Misinformation and The Mushroom Cloud...Or, Lies My President Told Me

Winter Greetings!
I hope you all are keeping warm and staying healthy.


Upon hearing about the Center for Public Integrity's Project "War Card" - which thoroughly examined the actual words spoken by all of the major players in the 'orchestrated deception on the path to war' in Iraq...
My immediate thoughts were two little words that I can still hear reverberating in my brain... as spoken by George W., himself: "Mushroom Cloud",
Well, perhaps they aren't so little, when you take into account what enormous horrors they are referring to.
So, I took the time to look up when these words were spoken, so that I may give criminal credit where criminal credit is due. Much to my surprise, I discovered that it was actually Condi Rice who Spewed the phrase out first, only a couple of months prior to George...
Perhaps to gauge public response to the use of such an incendiary and visual phrase?
Needless to say...
If the We The People were too busy, lazy or apathetic to fill the streets across this Nation... in Protest over (Obscene)Supreme Court's Florida Decision and the summary Unlawful Occupation of the White House...
Well, then they probably weren't too worried about it.

If you Love to research the Whacked and Wacky Words of the W. Regime and have the actual quotes to present to any remaining Bush-Backers...
Check out the massive and fully-searchable database at CPI's website.
It includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources and secondary sources, over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also WISELY interlaces relevant records/information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

On September 8, 2002, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer,
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice boiled the administration's case down to a single line that evoked both the uncertainty and the risk associated with Iraq: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

From: The Nation's Calvin Trillin:
On the Confirmation of Condoleezza

The mushroom-shaped cloud Condi spun
As being the next smoking gun
Was hooey invented to show
Attacking Iraq's apropos.

Then, two months later...

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center
October 7, 2002
"...America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
(The Truly Funny and Ironic Thing I Noted About the Above Statement, in light of the release of the results of the Misinformation Study...
Is The Title of the Press Release For the Speech...
It is Titled: "Iraq... Denial and Deception")
*Hmm... Maybe they didn't specify who was doing the denying and deceiving for a reason?

Also from The Nation's Calvin Trillin:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld And, Alas, Powell Talk To the American People

They pushed the CIA to say
That nukes could quickly come our way--
Saddam might, with a finger snap,
Remove Chicago from the map.
They took a lack of proof in stride.
They simply lied.

Intelligence? The Pentagon's
Came straight from dorkish neocons
Employed to find Iraq in back
Of every terrorist attack.
With facts that failed to serve their side,
They simply lied.

By the By...

American Military Deaths in Iraq Confirmed By The DoD To Date: 3929.
Total Wounded in Iraq Confirmed By The DoD To Date: 28938
(*There are unofficial estimates that would increase this number by three.)

Let There Soon Be Peace... In Spite of W. & Co. and their B.S.
L.


From: The Center for Public Integrity

False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

Photobucket

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Mobile Phone Radiation Wrecks Your Sleep

Feeling Like You're In A Fog? (and you don't live in S.F. or London?)...
Not Sleeping Well?...
Headaches Harassing You?...
It Might Not Be Your Mate, Job or Schedule...
It Might Just Be Caused By Your Cell Phone...

Mobile Phone Radiation Wrecks Your Sleep

Phone makers' own scientists discover that bedtime use can lead to headaches, confusion and depression

From: The Independent (Apparently, the U.S. Media hasn't bothered to report this YET.)
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 20 January 2008

Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.

The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less time in them, interfering with the body's ability to repair damage suffered during the day.

The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers, most of whom – surveys suggest – use their phones late at night and who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of concentration and poor academic performance.

The study – carried out by scientists from the blue-chip Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Michigan, USA – is thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind.

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now "more than sufficient evidence" to show that the radiation "affects deep sleep".

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected."

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting – at apparent variance with this published conclusion – that its "results were inconclusive" and that "the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance".

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: "We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain."

He believes that the radiation may activate the brain's stress system, "making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing their ability to wind down and fall asleep".

About half of the people studied believed themselves to be "electrosensitive", reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.

This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has no measurable effects.

A series of them – most notably a recent highly publicised study at Essex University – have similarly found that people claiming to be electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.

Critics have attacked the studies' methodology, but the new findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were exposed.

It also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times – and those who used them more often more than five times – as likely to be "very tired".

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: "There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep."

Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added: "Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity and behaviour problems."

David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to conduct "a formal public inquiry" into the effects of mobile phones.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

This Particular "W" Doesn't Stand For WHALES

As if the world needed any more evidence of GWB's Utter Contempt for The Law and Disrespect for anyone but himself, his Skull & Bones butthead buddies... and, maybe Bandar Bush...
Apparently, lil' Georgie is channeling Cheney and is making up the whole Executive Powers and Privilege thing as he ambles along... Damn the Law! Damn the Marine Mammals! After all... its a National Security Issue (isn't EVERYTHING?)

George, May Your Karma Run You Over and then Throw Itself into Reverse and Do It Again.

Peace, Brothers and Sisters.
L.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council

Bush Attempts Illegal Override of Court Order Protecting Whales from Sonar

Unprecedented Waiver Imperils Marine Mammals; White House Snubs California, Federal Courts and Congress

LOS ANGELES (January 16, 2008) – The Bush administration yesterday attempted to override a federal court order requiring the U.S. Navy to minimize harm to whales and dolphins during upcoming sonar exercises off Southern California. In an effort to nullify measures established to protect marine mammals from potentially lethal sound blasts, President Bush gave the Navy an unprecedented waiver under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and allowed the Navy a second “emergency” waiver under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Those statutes are the basis of a January 3 injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, requiring the Navy to monitor for and avoid marine mammals while operating high-intensity, mid-frequency sonar during the “SOCAL” naval exercises, now underway.

“There is absolutely no justification for this,” said California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan. “Both the court and the Coastal Commission have said that the Navy can carry out its mission as well as protect the whales. This is a slap in the face to Californians who care about the oceans.”

Judge Cooper ruled that the Navy’s scheme to mitigate harm had been “grossly inadequate to protect marine mammals from debilitating levels of sonar exposure” in Southern California’s rich biological waters. Her injunction required the Navy to maintain a 12 nautical mile no-sonar buffer zone along the California coastline; to shut down sonar when marine mammals were spotted within 2,000 meters; and to monitor for marine mammals using various methods, among other measures.

The waivers would eliminate all of the court-ordered mitigations under the pretext of “emergency.” In fact, no emergency conditions exist: The SOCAL exercises are routine training drills planned long in advance, but without meeting legal standards. Indeed the exercises were challenged by the California Coastal Commission and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) a year ago.

Moreover, the court did not issue a blanket injunction, but instead produced a carefully tailored order that enables the Navy to conduct sonar training using the common-sense mitigations, many of which the Navy had already employed in previous exercises.

“The President’s action is an attack on the rule of law,” said Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at NRDC, which obtained the injunction against the Navy. “By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the President is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission, and a ruling by the federal court.”

Both waivers must survive court review for the Navy to legally ignore the injunction. However, the waiver under NEPA is illegal, according to NRDC, because that statute does not include an escape clause for the executive branch, as some statutes do.

“This is not a national security issue. The Navy doesn’t need to harm whales to train effectively with sonar. It simply chooses to for the sake of convenience,” said Mr. Reynolds. “By following the carefully crafted measures ordered by the court, the Navy could conduct its exercises without imperiling marine mammals. Instead, it is attempting to circumvent the court and our environmental laws through presidential fiat. These waivers are unnecessary and we doubt they will both survive judicial review.”

For more information about the effect of sonar on marine mammals, see “Sounding the Depths II: The Rising Toll of Sonar, Shipping and Industrial Ocean Noise on Marine Life".

Monday, January 14, 2008

Hello Luvlies!

In Case You Haven't Heard...
The Latest Scare... No, Not a Terror Threat...
A Serious Public Health Threat is...
That old standby... MRSA... But, Now... It's a New and Pissed Off MRSA.
If You Thought Using All of Those Antibacterial Products Was a GOOD IDEA...
Well... You Were Wrong!
From NPR *(A Trustworthy Source of Information.)
Q&A: Drug-Resistant Staph Infections

by Joe Neel and Richard Knox

NPR.org
January 14, 2008

MSRA infections have garnered much news coverage recently because of the release of the first nationwide study of the bacterium published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study, conducted in 2005, showed a surprisingly high number of MRSA infections, which are a type of staph infection. This type of infection was found to be three times more prevalent than previously believed.

Recent studies are also showing that the germ is continuing to evolve into strains that are resistant to even more antibiotics.

Here are some answers about MRSA:

What is MRSA?

MRSA stands for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Staph is a common bacterium, present on the skin or in the noses of about 20 percent to 30 percent of the population. It's usually nothing to worry about. MRSA is a strain of staph that has become resistant to treatment with antibiotics, including penicillin, amoxicillin, oxacillin, methicillin and others. That makes MRSA harder to treat than regular staph infections.

What do staph and MRSA look like?

Both often start out as mild infections on the skin, showing up as pimples or boils. Infections with garden-variety staph are easily treated in most cases. Both staph and MRSA can cause more serious skin infections or they can lead to pneumonia or infections of the bloodstream, urinary tract or the lining of the brain. Surgical wounds are often prime targets for these germs.

How do you catch MRSA?

MRSA is nearly always connected to health care facilities. Most people who have MRSA have been hospitalized within the past year, or they've gotten treatment in an outpatient facility or nursing home. People can acquire MRSA in health care facilities but not show any signs of infection for weeks or months.

But in recent years, MRSA has spread beyond these facilities into places where people are in close contact, such as athletic facilities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 15 percent of MRSA cases in the United States occur outside health care settings.

Skin-to-skin contact with a person who carries MRSA is believed to be the most common way people get MRSA in the community. In this situation, people who are otherwise healthy may get a skin infection with MRSA. It's also possible to get MRSA from surfaces that are contaminated with the germ, but this is less likely than person-to-person contact.

Who is at risk for MRSA

The CDC says it has investigated clusters of MRSA skin infections among athletes, military recruits, children, men who have sex with men, and prisoners. Risk factors include close skin-to-skin contact, openings in the skin such as cuts or abrasions, crowded living conditions and poor hygiene.

What about schools?

Recommendations for preventing infections in schools focus on good hygiene. Cleaning regimens vary from district to district. The CDC says that in most cases, it is not necessary to close schools because a student has an MRSA infection. Covering infections will greatly reduce the risks of surfaces becoming contaminated. The CDC says the only surfaces that need to be cleaned are those that have been recently touched by someone with MRSA. "In general," the CDC says, "it is not necessary to close schools to 'disinfect' them."

What about health clubs?

The CDC says that the environment has not played a significant role in MRSA outbreaks, but it advises that you always practice good hygiene. At health clubs, this would include showering after working out and using a barrier such as clothing or a towel between your skin and shared equipment. The CDC also recommends wiping surfaces of equipment before and after use.

Why the sudden outbreak of MRSA?

There hasn't been a sudden increase. Drug-resistant staph germs have been spreading across the country for years now, causing deaths from time to time. In the JAMA study published last fall, the CDC estimated that 94,000 Americans get potentially life-threatening MRSA infections every year. That's three times the previous estimates and came as a surprise to many people.

How is MRSA treated if it is resistant to antibiotics?

So far, MRSA is not resistant to all antibiotics. Vancomycin is one treatment. If your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, take the whole prescription — stopping too soon can cause bacteria to become resistant to that antibiotic.

What is the new resistant staph being reported in gay communities?

It's a variant of the MRSA that's spreading nationally. It's resistant to more antibiotics than regular MRSA — not just penicillin-type drugs like methicillin but also clindamycin, erythromycin and mupirocin. The new strain is called multiply drug-resistant MRSA (MDR-MRSA).

The strain has caused serious infections in hundreds of people so far, mostly in the gay communities of San Francisco, Boston, Los Angeles and New York. Doctors say these infections are more fast-moving, so any delay in recognizing them and treating them with the right antibiotic can cause life-threatening infections.

Researchers think many of the infections so far have been transmitted during sexual activity. But MDR-MRSA is spread through skin-to-skin contact and sometimes by contaminated surfaces or shared towels. So anyone can get infected. The precautions are the same — frequent and thorough washing, and immediate attention to any boils or painful rashes.

EXPERT ADVICE ON PREVENTING STAPH INFECTION:
* Experts recommend washing with soap and water or using an alcohol-based hand-sanitizer.
* Cleaning and Covering cuts and abrasions until they are healed.
* Avoiding contact with other peoples's wounds and bandages.
* Avoiding sharing personal items such as toothbrushes, razors and towels.