text:
Green Book
VOL. 59, No. 182
Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio
DATE: Wednesday, September 21, 1994
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving maintenance plans and redesignation of Morgan and Washington Counties, Ohio, from nonattainment to attainment for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and is deferring action on the maintenance plans and redesignation request for Gallia and Coshocton Counties. This action for Morgan and Washington Counties is based on Ohio's request, and provides that the new source review requirements for nonattainment areas will no longer apply for SO2 in these two counties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on October 21, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the maintenance plan and redesignation request, public comments on the rulemaking, and other materials relating to this rulemaking are available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended that you telephone John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.
I. Summary of Proposed Rulemaking
A subsequent submittal provided stack test data for one of the relevant facilities. On March 18, 1994, at 59 FR 12886, USEPA proposed to approve maintenance plans and redesignation of Morgan and Washington Counties, Ohio, from nonattainment to attainment for sulfur dioxide (SO2). In that document, USEPA did not propose to take action on the maintenance plans and redesignation request for Gallia and Coshocton Counties. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) included a background synopsis of the State's submittals and the applicable criteria, a full review of the State's submittals, and a summary of the proposed action. The NPR contained five subsections corresponding to the five criteria for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment given in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. In the NPR, USEPA made the following proposed findings: (i) All four counties are attaining the 24-hour air quality standard, Morgan and Washington Counties are attaining the 3-hour standard, and USEPA did not evaluate whether Coshocton and Gallia Counties are attaining the 3-hour standard; (ii) USEPA considered approval of the Morgan and Washington County plans under section 110(a)(2) to satisfy section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) for these counties, but "based on questions as to whether (Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)) satisfy the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)," USEPA deferred action on Ohio's request for Coshocton and Gallia Counties; (iii) USEPA judged all four counties to have permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (iv) USEPA judged the maintenance plans for Morgan and Washington Counties adequate, and did not evaluate the maintenance plans for Coshocton and Gallia Counties; and (v) USEPA judged that Ohio had satisfied the requirements of section 110 and part D of title I for Morgan and Washington Counties, and did not evaluate whether these requirements were satisfied for Coshocton and Gallia Counties. On the basis of this review, USEPA proposed to approve the maintenance plans and redesignation request for Morgan and Washington Counties and did not propose action for Coshocton and Gallia Counties.
II. Public Comments/USEPA Responses
One letter commenting on the proposed rulemaking was received, submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). This letter included as an attachment a letter commenting on the same issues, sent from Ohio Governor Voinovich to Administrator Carol Browner prior to publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. The comments in these letters and USEPA's responses follow:
Comment: Ohio supports the proposed action with respect to Morgan and Washington Counties.
Response: USEPA received no adverse comments on this part of its proposal, and, for the reasons provided in the proposal, concludes that the maintenance plans and redesignation request for these counties should be approved.
Comment: The State objects to USEPA's decision to defer action on the redesignation of Coshocton and Gallia Counties, and in particular presents arguments that areas subject to FIP limits (promulgated under section 110(c) of the Clean Air Act) rather than SIP limits (approved under section 110(k) or its equivalent) may be redesignated. Ohio argues that FIP limits are equivalent to SIP limits. The State cites language previously in section 110(d) (essentially moved to section 302(q) by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) that the "implementation plan" includes both approved State submittals and federally promulgated measures. The State comments that if areas with FIPs could not be redesignated, then "U.S. EPA could never promulgate a FIP because such a plan would not provide for attainment redesignations and thus would be incomplete," and "nonattainment areas would be frozen, even though air quality may be demonstrably improved."
Also, the Governor commented that designations are based on air quality and that FIPs provide for permanent air quality improvement. The Governor concluded that Coshocton and Gallia Counties have been exhibiting attainment for 14 years, and that obstruction to the attainment status of these counties is based on a narrow interpretation of the Clean Air based on "periodic changes in review requirements," and is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Response: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, as amended in 1990, precludes USEPA from redesignating areas subject to FIPs, such as Coshocton and Gallia Counties to attainment. That section of the Act prohibits USEPA from redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment unless the area satisfies certain explicit statutory criteria. It provides that:
The Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area (or portion thereof) to attainment unless-
(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
(v) The State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
As is evident, several criteria must be satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment apart from attaining the national ambient air quality standard and the determination that improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. It is those criteria, especially that in clauses (ii), (iv) and (v), that are pertinent with respect to the issue of whether a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment if there is FIP, rather than a SIP, in place.
First, the language of clause (ii) requires that for USEPA to redesignate an area, USEPA must have "fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k)." This clause clearly requires that a SIP be in place. Only SIPs are approved by USEPA; FIPs are not approved, but promulgated. More importantly, the clause refers to approval under section 110(k), the provision of the Act setting forth the procedure for USEPA to act on SIP revisions submitted to the Agency by states. Thus, a FIP does not qualify as a plan approved under section 110(k). In contrast, the language of section 302(q) defines the term "applicable attainment plan" as meaning a FIP or a SIP. Thus, it defines "applicable implementation plan" as "the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under section 110 (a SIP, which is referred to in section 107(d)), or promulgated under section 110(c) (a FIP, which is not referred to in section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))."
Second, clause (iv) requires that USEPA have fully approved a maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of section 175A. Section 175A(a) requires that each State that submits a redesignation request to submit "a revision of applicable State implementation plan to provide for maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standard," and thus clearly presupposes that a SIP, not a FIP, will be in place prior to redesignation.
Third, clause (v) requires that, in order to have an area redesignated to attainment, the State containing the area must meet "all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D." As these requirements concern various SIP submissions, this clause also implicitly means that USEPA cannot approve a redesignation request for an area that is subject to a FIP.
Thus, the language of section 107(d)(3) plainly prohibits USEPA from redesignating an area to attainment if that area is subject to a FIP. This outcome is fully consistent with a fundamental policy underlying the law-that the states have primary responsibility for attaining and maintaining air quality standards and that FIPs are intended to be only short-term measures to fill gaps in control strategies. Further evidence of this policy is provided by the fact that sanctions imposed under section 179 due to a state's failure to comply with its SIP obligations are not suspended or lifted due to USEPA's promulgation of a FIP pursuant to its obligations under section 110(c).
USEPA also notes that areas subject to FIPs are not frozen in place as nonattainment areas. Assuming that the area continued to satisfy the national ambient air quality standards, the area would be eligible for redesignation to attainment once the state submitted approvable SIP revisions as required by the Act, and submitted an approvable state maintenance plan.
Comment: In another argument for redesignating areas with FIP-based plans, the State interprets section 110(n)(1), the "Savings Clause," as providing that "[t]he authority of USEPA to redesignate nonattainment areas under a section 110(c) plan would remain unchanged as a result of the 1990 Amendments." The State believes that former section 110(d) provided this authority prior to the 1990 amendments.
Response: Section 110(n)(1) authorizes the enforcement of plan elements approved prior to 1990. It does not authorize USEPA to ignore post-1990 Clean Air Act criteria in judging the acceptability of States' requests. The requirement now in section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requiring a plan approved under section 110(k) was not included in the pre-1990 Clean Air Act or in USEPA's guidance. However, this requirement is applicable now under the Act.
Comment: The Governor commented that "[a]reas with FIPs have been redesignated in Ohio in the past," indicating that USEPA agreed that FIPs provide for permanent air quality improvement, and indicating further that Gallia and Coshocton Counties should be redesignated.
Response: Regardless of the situation prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) are applicable under the Act now, and must be satisfied as a prerequisite for redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment.
Comment: The State comments that USEPA should not use 1.95 as the conversion factor from coal sulfur content to sulfur dioxide emissions, but should instead use the factor of 1.9 given in Supplement F of AP-42 (dated July 1993).
Response: USEPA agrees with the State's comment. Since the fuel quality information indicated the air quality standards being met using a 1.95 conversion factor, the fuel quality information also indicates the air quality standards being met using a 1.9 conversion factor.
III. Rulemaking Action
USEPA has reviewed the State's submittals and other related material and, for the reasons stated in the proposal, has concluded that the maintenance plan and redesignation request for Morgan and Washington Counties satisfy the applicable criteria for approval. Consequently, USEPA approves the maintenance plan for SO2 for Morgan and Washington Counties, and redesignates these two counties to attainment. USEPA continues to defer action with respect to Ohio's maintenance plans and redesignation requests for Coshocton and Gallia Counties.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action under the processing procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 22291 for a period of 2 years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 21, 1994. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: August 25, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart KK-Ohio
2. Section 52.1881 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
SS 52.1881 -- Control strategy: Sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).
(a) * * *
(12) In a letter dated June 25, 1992, Ohio submitted a maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide in Morgan and Washington Counties.
* * * * *
1. The authority citation of part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. In SS 81.336 the "Ohio-SO2" table is amended by revising the entries for "Morgan County" and "Washington County" to read as follows:
SS 81.336 -- Ohio. * * * * * Ohio-SO2 Designated Does not Does not Cannot be Better than area meet meet classified national primary secondary standards standards standards * * * * * * * Morgan County ......... ......... .......... X * * * * * * * Washington County ......... ......... .......... X * * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-23109 Filed 9-20-94; 8:45 am]


text:
Two items have recently burst onto the media scene: a movie called "The Iron Lady" about one of the greatest women in history -- former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher -- and a growing European recall of breast implants in danger of exploding. I wonder what the former would say about the latter. Did it ever cross Thatcher's mind that women's lives could be meaningfully enhanced by surgically strapping gel packs to their chests? How did women get from Thatcher to this?
Any such unfortunate developments are independent of feminist activism, which is little more than female activist self-flagellation and therefore as useless as it is prevalent. Thatcher herself acknowledged that feminism did nothing for her. Feminists would argue that she was an ingrate unable to recognize that her success was due to the women who came before her. That may be, but those women weren't feminists either, although feminists like to claim them as such. Feminists generally make a life out of feminist activism. Accomplished women are busy focusing on other things, but feminists will slap a label on them and unwittingly co-opt them to their own cause. Thatcher made sure they couldn't do that with her by disowning them.
Here's the harsh reality about exceptionally accomplished women: It's a quiet, lonely, very private and incredibly long struggle. It's a lifelong commitment. There is no feel-good, publicly extolled "progress" for the individual woman who seeks a life of meaning and contribution outside society's accepted and tread-worn norms. It's an endless, highly discreet struggle, as depicted in "The Iron Lady." Yet the struggle and the achievement of great women are the only things that matter to the women who come after. Talking about women's empowerment or asking for state funding to promote it isn't going to do anything, and it never has. This isn't a team sport.
Female empowerment is easy to fake superficially, like just about anything nowadays that once carried substantial meaning. Women augment their bodies with silicone, fillers and Botox; prance around on reality television shows; and collect big money for lending their names to parties in Las Vegas, all the while extolling the virtues of "independence." Will these independent women be remembered in five years? Will they have contributed any significant, lasting ideas? Or will they have wasted their life? I remember asking myself the same question when I struggled with showing my legs and cleavage every day on a national cable news network while largely muzzled from contributing anything meaningful. It was an empty existence not worth the money it paid. To say that is near-blasphemous and likely brands me as an ingrate in the eyes of many women in the industry who would have done anything to fill my stilettos. So be it.
On the same theme of fake female empowerment, it's not uncommon, particularly in Europe, to discover that women in various positions of power in business or government are there not for their abilities but because they are the wife, mistress, daughter or good friend of someone with power or influence. They're often extolled as proof of feminist advancement, yet they sure didn't get there via any kind of meritocracy. Do they really think people don't know the difference?
So, what's the solution? That's for every woman to determine for herself -- to decide whether "one's life must matter," as Thatcher would say, in a sense larger than herself, and whether that's something for which she wants to spend her entire existence striving. The Thatcher kind of success is so rare because, in part, the counter-pressures are enormous.
While sitting on a long-haul flight on New Year's Eve, the gentleman seated beside me asked what I did for a living. As I explained my career and ambitions, he replied, "Don't you have kids? Aren't you married?" I said that neither marriage nor kids has ever been a priority, and that I could take or leave both.
"No kids?" he replied. "What will you do with your life, then?"
Horrified by his implication that a woman's life ought to be only devoted to motherhood and its value relegated to a biological function, I told him that I plan to keep focusing on trying to make my life count for something more than myself, and that maybe someday when I'm well into my old age, I'll pay lip service to societal pressures and adopt a child soldier, preferably one who grew up in the jungles of Columbia serving with the FARC, who I then wouldn't have to train to choke fools who make such idiotic remarks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
An Intro to Capon Springs
Step 1 of 4:
Imagine you're here!
Picture yourself enjoying life as it was meant to be… relaxing at an all-inclusive secluded resort nestled in the majestic West Virginia mountains. Capon Springs' rich history, healing water, delicious food, and long-standing traditions create that nostalgic feeling that many generations of guests have described as … coming home.
An Intro to Capon Springs
Step 2 of 4:
Figure a budget
Planning for your Capon getaway is simple! Our all-inclusive per-person rates cover lodging, three all-you-can-eat meals per day (and snacks too!), and a wide variety of programs and activities for guests of all ages. Prices for adults range from $119/night to $179/night. There is no charge for children under the age of 5, and prices for older children range from $39/night to $89/night.
An Intro to Capon Springs
Step 3 of 4:
Understand the Magic
What truly makes Capon Springs different from other resorts are all the "extras" that you just won't find anywhere else. Operated by multiple generations of the same family, you are welcomed into a warm and caring atmosphere where everything is based on the honor system. The set-menu and meal times mean all you have to do is show up when the bell rings!
When was the last time you and your family had an opportunity to completely "unplug" and spend quality time together? Now imagine how great it would be that as your Capon experience draws to a close, you actually feel completely relaxed, restored, and reenergized- and already dreaming about your return!
An Intro to Capon Springs
Step 4 of 4:
Book Your Reservation
We make your reservation experience personal. Since there are no "cookie-cutter" rooms, we take the time to find out what location would work best for your perfect vacation. We look forward to having you with us anytime during the Capon Springs' resort season, which begins in early May and runs through the beginning of November.
To get the digital conversation started, click the Request Your Room button below and fill out a reservation request form. Or call us directly to get more information at 304-874-3695.
Stay in one of our 14 unique cottages with a variety of accommodations within each one.Request Your Room


text:
Russell Westbrook named NBA MVP
Thunder superstar Russell Westbrook was the NBA's Most Valuable Player on Monday during the 2017 NBA Awards in New York City.
The MVP honor is Westbrook's first, and the second for an Oklahoma City Thunder player. Kevin Durant was named the MVP for the 2013-14 season.
During Westbrook's MVP campaign, he averaged a triple-double for the season and broke Oscar Robertson's 55-year-old record for triple-doubles in a season. Westbrook broke the record April 9 and ended the season with 42 triple-doubles.
In 81 games, the 28-year-old point guard averaged 31.6 points, 10.7 rebounds and 10.4 assists. He scored at least 40 points in 18 games -- excluding a 41-point performance in the NBA All-Star Game -- and at least 50 points four times.
Westbrook led the Thunder to a 47-35 record, which was good for sixth in the Western Conference. Oklahoma City was eliminated in the first round of the Western Conference Playoffs by MVP finalist James Harden and the Houston Rockets.
Westbrook also won the fan vote for the NBA's Best Game Winner for his dramatic buzzer-beating 3-pointer against the Denver Nuggets and the fan vote for Best Style.


text:
Using livestock manure to fertilize fields is hardly a new concept. But the University of Illinois (U of I) plans to update the process for a greater return while eliminating potential problems.
The program is under the direction of Michael Ellis, professor, Department of Animal Sciences and head of the Swine Odor and Waste Management Project.
Ellis points out that more than half of the nitrogen in swine manure is lost to the atmosphere during manure storage and application. Capturing this loss would reduce nutrient loss and environmental impact, while lessening the use of chemical fertilizers on farm fields.
Those are some of the goals of the project, "Integrated Crop-Livestock Production Program." "We can track nutrients through the entire cycle and quantify what happens to the nitrogen at each stage from the grain through the animal and the manure and back to the crop again," explains Ellis. "Next year, we will follow up with detailed experiments which will require some special facilities."


text:
Why Arizona doesn't observe daylight-saving time
PHOENIX — On Sunday, America moves its clocks forward in an effort to save daylight.
But not here in Arizona. Clocks will remain untouched as daylight-saving time officially starts.
The Grand Canyon State is just fine where it is as the nation springs ahead.
That's because this state already has plenty of daylight. And when temperatures climb above 100, we'll wish we had daylight-spending time, urging the world to spin faster and return to the more comfortable dark side of Earth.
For a half century, Arizona — but not including the Navajo reservation — has refused to perform the standard-to-daylight-saving-and-back-again dance. In 1968, the state Legislature decided it was best for Arizona to opt out of the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which mandated the saving of daylight.
► Related: Here comes the sun: Daylight Savings Time starts Sunday
► Related: Love it or hate it, Daylight Saving Time is here
► Related: 10 things Hoosiers still hate about daylight saving time
The move meant that on 115-degree days in July, the sun would set at 7:40 p.m. MST rather than 8:40 p.m. MDT, avoiding nightly pleas from kids to stay up later because it's too bright (and hot) to go to bed.
Most of Arizona has remained a loyal Mountain Standard Time state ever since. As a result, it's singled out on the time-setting sub-menus for phones and other smart devices. While other states are lumped into time zones, the Grand Canyon State stands alone. #locktheclock
Follow Scott Craven on Twitter: @Scott_Craven2
Daylight-saving facts
• Origins. Daylight saving was started to save energy, but people enjoyed having an extra hour of daylight after work. Yet in Arizona sunlight only extends the heat-related misery.
• Reservations. The Navajo Reservation observes daylight saving time; the Hopi Reservation does not. The Navajo Reservation surrounds the Hopi Reservation, so if on Monday you drive from Flagstaff to Gallup through Tuba City and Ganado, you'll change time on four occasions.
• Indiana no more. Western Indiana used to be even more confusing as some counties and cities observed daylight saving while others did not. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 put an end to that foolishness. Now only Arizona and Hawaii stay on the same time all year.
• 20-minute increments? Be happy that in 1905, the British roundly ignored builder William Willett's proposal to push the clock ahead 20 minutes each Sunday in April and roll them back in similar increments in September.
• Before World War I. The first use of daylight saving dates to July 1908 in Port Arthur, called now Thunder Bay, Ontario. Despite the commercial possibilities, the city holds no daylight-saving parades nor sells "Birthplace of DST" shot glasses.
• During WWI. The U.S. first adopted daylight-saving time, called "Fast Time," in 1918 in support of the war effort. It was repealed seven months later.
• War Time. On Feb. 9, 1942, Americans set their clocks an hour ahead and kept them there until Sept. 30, 1945. The time zones were called War Time. Arizona, which couldn't opt out, was on Mountain War Time.
• Beijing time. China may or may not manipulate its currency, but it does mess with the clock. Though spread over five time zones, the country recognizes only one, Beijing time. It is supposed to promote unity, but tell that to those who live in the far west when the summer sun sets as late as midnight.
• One nation, one time zone? If the U.S. observed the one-time-zone policy — the Eastern time of the nation's capital, of course, — the summer sun would set as late as 10:42 p.m. and weather-related crankiness would hit an all-time high.
• Rare bipartisanship. In 1991 and again in 2014, a few lawmakers floated the idea of having Arizona join the daylight-saving parade. Republicans and Democrats were united in their rejection of such a proposal.
• Further behind. In 2016, California legislators were nearly unanimous against a measure stopping the move to daylight-saving time. One reason cited: Those in the financial industry didn't want to be four hours behind New York. But don't most New Yorkers think everybody else is at least four hours behind?
• More than a fad. More than 70 countries observe daylight-saving time. No one is sure just how much daylight is saved, globally, each year, though physics suggests none.
• A word on the words. The phrase is daylight-saving time, not daylight-savings time. That's the decree from those who spend inordinate amounts of time policing words.


text:
Hudson River school
Hudson River school, group of American landscape painters, working from 1825 to 1875. The 19th-century romantic movements of England, Germany, and France were introduced to the United States by such writers as Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper. At the same time, American painters were studying in Rome, absorbing much of the romantic aesthetic of the European painters. Adapting the European ideas about nature to a growing pride in the beauty of their homeland, for the first time a number of American artists began to devote themselves to landscape painting instead of portraiture. They were particularly attracted by the grandeur of Niagara Falls and the scenic beauty of the Hudson River valley, the Catskills, and the White Mts. The works of these artists reflected a new concept of wilderness—one in which man was an insignificant intrusion in a landscape more beautiful than fearsome. First of the group of artists properly classified with the Hudson River school was Thomas Doughty; his tranquil works greatly influenced later artists of the school. Albert Bierstadt glorified the Rocky Mts. in the West, working in the same manner as the painters in the East. Thomas Cole, whose dramatic and colorful landscapes are among the most impressive of the school, may be said to have been its leader during the group's most active years. Among the other important painters of the school are Asher B. Durand, J. F. Kensett, S. F. B. Morse, Henry Inman, Jasper Cropsey, Frederick E. Church, and, in his earlier work, George Inness. See articles on individual painters.
See B. Novak, American Painting in the Nineteenth Century (1969); J. K. Howat, The Hudson River and Its Painters (1972); E. C. Parry 3d, The Art of Thomas Cole (1988); D. Schuyler, Sanctified Landscape: Writers, Artists, and the Hudson River Valley, 1820–1909 (2012).
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: American and Canadian Art


text:
Jan. 12, 2010 (Coronado, Calif.) -- Drinking a cup or more a day of green tea may counteract the effect of smoking on lung cancer, especially in smokers who may not be genetically susceptible to the cancer, according to a Taiwanese researcher.
''The antioxidants may inhibit tumor growth," I-Hsin Lin, a master's degree student at Chung Shan Medical University in Taiwan, tells WebMD. She presented her findings today at the American Association of Cancer Research -- International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer meeting in Coronado, Calif.
Lin found the protective effect especially evident in a group of smokers she studied who have specific genotypes that have not been linked to cancer risk in some studies.
Lin's team evaluated 170 patients with lung cancer and 340 healthy patients. They asked the participants to describe their cigarette smoking habits, green tea drinking habits, and other lifestyle factors.
They asked participants to describe habits for the previous five years, Lin says.
The researchers performed genotyping in the participants to see if they had any of the genotypes found in some studies to be associated with cancer risk. These include IGF1 (insulin-like growth factor 1), IGF2, and IGFBP3.
Overall, the smokers and nonsmokers who didn't drink green tea had a more than five times greater risk of lung cancer compared to those who had at least a cup of green tea, Lin found.
Among the smokers, the non-green-tea drinkers had a nearly 13 times increased risk of lung cancer compared to the smokers who drank one cup or more of green tea per day.
Even more dramatic was the protective effect of the green tea in those who did not have the susceptible genotypes for lung cancer, the researchers found.
The green tea drinkers who didn't have a genotype termed by the researchers as susceptible had a 66% reduced risk in lung cancer compared to the green tea drinkers who were susceptible.
Those who smoked heavily and had the susceptible genotype had an even higher risk.
While Lin says the best way to avoid lung cancer is to stop smoking, green tea appears to reduce risk. "Green tea can protect them from lung cancer risk, a cup or more a day," she says.
About 23% of U.S. adults still smoke cigarettes, according to the CDC.
Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD, a doctor at the Taussig Cancer Institute at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, expressed caution at the findings.
He notes that "only seven smokers had one or more cups of green tea a day." That means the majority did not drink a cup or never drank it.
''Certainly no one has shown a definitive association between drinking green tea and lung cancer," he tells WebMD. And some antioxidants have not borne out as cancer preventives.