Al's Morning Meeting

RELATED RESOURCES

Like Al's ideas? Hear more in our broadcast and online seminars. Sign up to receive Al's Morning Meeting by e-mail: * Click here (sent Monday-Friday at 7 a.m.) Buy Al's book, "Aim for the Heart," here, and Poynter receives a small cut as an Amazon affiliate.

From cereal makers to bakeries large and small, everyone is feeling the pinch of sharply higher corn and wheat prices. It is good news for the farmers who can produce decent crops, but one of the reasons for the higher prices is a nagging drought in much of the country. (See a drought-monitor map.)

The price of flour is up 25 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal report last week. The U.S. Department of Agriculture now predicts 2006 wheat harvests to drop to 1.8 billion bushels. [PDF] American farmers produced just under 2.8 billion bushels last year.

Corn prices are also sitting at 10-year highs, as yields drop and the rising demand for corn (to make ethanol) helps to drive up prices. Ethanol production may consume 20 percent of the nation's corn crop this year, the Journal reported.

See Agriculture.com for more details.

The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minn., reported:

Earlier this year, a drought devastated the winter wheat crop from Kansas to Texas. Now the same seems to be happening to the spring wheat crop of the Upper Midwest. This makes it "really, really crucial what's going to happen to the yields on the northern Plains," said Jerry Gidel, president of Midland Research in Chicago. ...

... Minneapolis wheat futures remain well short of the all-time high of $7.32 a bushel, but that 1996 peak no longer seems quite so distant.

A combination of factors is electrifying grain markets. Shrinking grain stockpiles are playing a role, as is growing interest in commodities. But the most powerful factors seem to be the widening drought and the rising demand for corn-based ethanol.

Dry weather already has scorched virtually the entire vast Great Plains region and the problem now is marching deep into the Corn Belt. The U.S. government is forecasting an unusually dry summer across Minnesota, and ironically, the first parts of Minnesota to dry out were in the oft-flooded Red River Valley.

"For near 15 years we've been in a wet cycle, but now it's dry," said Dave Torgenson with the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers. "Around Crookston, the heart of the wheat-growing area of Minnesota, this was the third-driest June they've had on record."

Farther west in the Dakotas, a full-blown drought is already under way. In central North Dakota, farmer Mike Martin still has a decent wheat crop, but he's more fortunate than many. On a recent drive across western North Dakota, he was stunned to see "there is virtually no crop to be harvested."

For those farmers, a sky-high wheat price offers no consolation.

"For the fellas that don't have a crop, I assume they'd just as soon turn off the radio when the markets come on," Martin said.

In corn markets, the combination of drought-shriveled supplies and ethanol-fueled demand has sent futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade to their highest levels since 1996.

Mint Madness

A friend of mine, Travis Mayfield (from KOMO Radio in Seattle), dropped me this note:

Mojitos are all the rage right now. We have several bars devoted to them now in Seattle. They're the official drink of the new "Miami Vice" movie, thanks to a product placement deal with Bacardi. 

But to make a mojito you need rum, lime, sugar AND fresh mint. So Mojito Madness equals Mint Madness for herb farmers.

I talked to several Puget Sound-area mint growers who all told me they can't get the stuff out to stores fast enough.

The CEO of HerbCo, Ted Andrews, tells me in just the last three weeks he's seen a near 40 percent increase in fresh mint demand. 

Andrews also told me higher-end grocery stores are now asking for it in bulk.

He even told me the story of a guy who ordered 30 pounds of fresh mint for a "Mojito Party."

This might not be the biggest story out there, but it's fun and easily localized if anyone has herb growers in their area. (Here's a link to the International Herb Association's Web site.)

Firefighters & Cancer

There is a push underway, among firefighters and lawmakers, to find out if firefighters worldwide are at a greater risk for cancer than the rest of the population. As you will see below, there is a lot of evidence for and against such claims -- but little in the way of a definitive answer.

KHOU-TV recently reported that firefighters have a significantly higher rate of lung, brain and testicular cancer than the general population. Three weeks after the station's story aired, the Texas legislature gave firefighters line-of-duty death benefits for cancer.

But other research has found that the question of how much of a cancer risk firefighters face has no clear-cut answer. In fact, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently announced that it would fund new research and training to prevent and, for the first time, really understand health problems among firefighters.

Previous studies have tended to be small and have produced conflicting conclusions.

One Canadian study went so far as to say, "There is not a probable connection between lung cancer and the occupation of firefighting." But it is well understood that fires often emit cancer-causing toxins and firefighters seldom know exactly what they are walking into.

The Canadian study lists dozens of cancer-causing poisons that firemen routinely encounter. In addition, the study says, "the heavy exertion demanded by fighting a fire causes more rapid and deeper breathing which increases delivery of toxins to deep within the lungs."

It is no wonder some firefighters so strenuously believe their jobs might be killing them.

The same study said none of its experts could draw a clear link between firefighting and lung cancer. But it does points out that it could be possible that firefighters, often eligible for retirement after 20 years on the job, leave the force before the cancer appears.

Separate studies of Seattle-area and Danish firefighters (in 1990) showed unusually high numbers of lung cancer cases among retired firefighters. It is also possible, that study said, that the firefighters smoked cigarettes at a higher rate than the rest of the population. There was no data for that one way or the other.

While two of three medical consultants to the Canadian study said they could not make a connection between firefighting and brain cancer, a third consultant said:

With several studies pointing to an increased incidence of brain cancer in firefighters and with [another] study confirming the increased frequency of brain tumors in firefighters when compared to policemen, I think there is little doubt that firefighters are at increased risk of dying from brain cancer.

In fact, the report points out, of the 14 major studies of firefighters' mortality which gave findings for brain cancer, 11 found some excess risk to firefighters.

The Canadian review of research found a probable connection between firefighting and colon and bladder cancers, even though there is contrary evidence to that notion, too. Of 17 firefighter studies for lymphatic/haematopoietic cancer deaths, the Canadian report says, 11 of the studies found no probable link to the firefighters occupation, but six did mention such a possible link. The report also quotes a 1986 New Jersey study that found that firefighters had a higher rate of leukemia, when compared to police officers. But a study of the deaths of 3,084 people who served as Chicago firefighters found nothing to suggest they died with a greater rate of leukemia than the general population.

Here is some other related research:

• A 16-year study by the National Institutes of Health showed firefighters in Seattle and Tacoma showed no higher risk for cancer than the general population.
• A Johns Hopkins University study looked at some specific illnesses in Maryland to see if they could be linked to firefighter training exercises -- the study was unable to establish such a link.
• The Baltimore Sun said firefighters and unions have been critical of the Hopkins study because, they said, the study did not include all of the cancer cases that it should have. 
• In 2000, The Philadelphia Inquirer looked at this question of whether firefighters who were exposed to toxic materials at one particularly poisonous fire were at a greater risk for cancer and other illnesses than others. 
• A New Zealand study found that firefighters had a higher incidence of testicular cancer than the general male population. 
• A small-scale German study found essentially the same thing.
• It was reported that the cancer rate among those who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center is higher than the general population, but it is difficult to pin the illnesses on a single cause. 

Twenty-four states allow provisions for firefighters to claim that their job caused their cancer but  states have varying standards for proof of their injury. The Canadian study explained:

Alabama, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma and Rhode Island apply a presumption to claims for "cancer".  In Maryland, a presumption is applied to claims for "throat, prostate, rectal or pancreatic cancer, or leukemia".  The states of Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, Maine, Hawaii, Iowa and Tennessee apply a presumption to claims for lung or respiratory disease, which is usually held to include lung cancer by the courts.

Here is a listing of more than a dozen firefighter associations.

By the way, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has a remarkable site that lists all fire deaths for the past several years in a state-by-state interactive map. You can pull up a PDF of the detailed death report for each incident, too.

Your Birthday: In Context

I am sure some smart journalist will find a way to use this in a real story. Plug in a birthday and you will get it.