Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental factors could be playing a role in the increasing number of prostate cancer cases in the U.S. and elsewhere? – Joshua Gordon, New York, NY

Prostate cancer is a growing problem for men in the U.S. as well as in other developed nations around the world. Some 40,000 American men lose their battle with prostate cancer every year—the only cancer more deadly for U.S. men is skin cancer. Age is the primary “risk factor” for developing prostate cancer. One out of every six American men over the age of 40 will develop prostate cancer, while four out of five over 80 years old will get it. Of course, genes also play a big role. The American Cancer Society reports that a man’s prostate cancer risk doubles if his father or brother has suffered from the disease. Researchers believe a genetic predisposition accounts for as many as 10 percent of all cases of the disease in the U.S.

Beyond age and genetics, though, environmental factors do likely play a role. WebMD reports, for instance, that prostate cancer occurs about 60 percent more often in African American men than in white American men, and when diagnosed is more likely to be advanced. But interestingly enough, prostate cancer rates for African men living in their native countries are much lower. When native Africans immigrate to the U.S., however, prostate cancer rates increase sharply.

According to WebMD, the reason for these differences are not fully understood, but an environmental connection—possibly related to high-fat diets, less exposure to the sun, exposure to heavy metals, infectious agents, or smoking—might be to blame. Some new research suggests that a switch to a diet high in fat could be a significant contributing factor in these cases. “The disease is much more common in countries where meat and dairy products are dietary staples,” adds WebMD.

The take-away for men concerned about prostate health is to eat healthier. Several studies suggest that a diet high in lycopene (an antioxidant found in high levels in tomatoes, pink grapefruit, watermelon and some other fruits and veggies) could lower an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer significantly.

Researchers have also found links between other environmental factors and prostate cancer. Dr. Matthew Schmitz, a prostate cancer specialist at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital and the prostate cancer “guide” at About.com, reports that exposure to high levels of cadmium (a naturally occurring element used in industrial processes and present in cigarette smoke) as well as dioxins (chemicals widely used in herbicides and other applications) have been linked to increased prostate cancer risk. Other researchers have noticed that men who take calcium supplements and multi-vitamins regularly may be at higher risk. Schmitz says that more research is needed to learn how risky such exposures really are.

For those who do get prostate cancer, some promising new treatments will be undergoing clinical trials soon. Dr. Marianne Sadar of the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, Canada, has used an experimental drug adapted from sea sponges to shrink cancer tumors in mice. It will be a year before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits trials of the new drug on humans, but prostate patients and their doctors are holding out hope that this and other new treatments can obviate the need for many surgeries.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; WebMD, www.webmd.com; About.com, www.about.com; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Given the environmental and economic benefits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a federal law mandating recycling nationwide? – N. Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Today, Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually (Media credit/Tom Magliery via Flickr)

The U.S. government has historically relied on state and local governments to handle waste management in all of its forms, including recycling. Although there have been a few attempts to push legislation through Congress to mandate minimum national recycling rates, none have made it out of committee hearings. Federal lawmakers are loathe to take waste management regulatory powers away from individual states which have vastly different needs from one another. For instance, less populous western states with lots of extra land for siting landfills might not be as inclined to push for higher recycling rates as those crowded eastern states with less room to store their trash.

According to Chaz Miller, Director of State Programs at the National Solid Wastes Management Association, America’s very first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act—itself an amendment to the original Clean Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven years later, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller. RCRA abolished open dumps and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations for hazardous waste management, but had little to say about recycling except to call for an increase in federal purchases of products made with recycled content. The EPA also published manuals and workshops on implementing curbside recycling programs, although funding for such programs dried up by 1981.

Nevertheless, the seed had taken root. Pioneering programs in Massachusetts and elsewhere led to the development of curbside recycling programs in more than 600 municipalities throughout the U.S.—mostly in the Northeast and on the West Coast—by the mid-1980s. In addition, 10 states introduced “bottle bill” laws to encourage recycling of beer and soft drink containers. Two states, Rhode Island and New Jersey, both being small, densely populated and short on landfill space, implemented comprehensive approaches to recycling. They began requiring local jurisdictions to pick-up residents’ and businesses’ paper, metal and glass, and helped towns and cities set-up systems for pick-up, sorting and materials recovery. Most of the 8,600-plus municipal recycling programs in existence today are modeled on these early efforts.

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Multi-material and curbside collection programs were non-existent, paper was only collected sporadically when a local scout troop or similar group organized a paper drive, and family-owned scrap dealers would occasionally buy paper and metal scrap based on limited market demand for additional raw materials.

Today, the EPA estimates that Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually. While it still has no federal platform for doing so, the EPA, through its Resource Conservation Challenge program, is pushing for Americans to up that rate. Forty-two states now have their own recycling or waste diversion goals, and 18 are trying to divert upwards of half their waste via recycling or composting.
CONTACTS: National Solid Wastes Management Association, www.environmentalistseveryday.org; EPA Resource Conservation Challenge, www.epa.gov/osw/rcc.

This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear the case of The State of California vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association. The landmark case, which marks the first time the Supreme Court will hear a case regarding video games is an all out debate on whether the content of violent games is protected under first amendment rights. Here’s a quick breakdown of what you need to know:

Why Should you care?

Be they entertainment, art, or consumerism, video Games are a growing medium, if the State of California is victorious in this case, violent video games like Grand Theft Auto will be treated much like Pornography, and it will be illegal to sell them to minors.

But, kids staying away from these games is a good thing right?

Of course, but the big question here is whether the government has the right to regulate the gaming industry. As of right now, it’s technically not illegal to sell an M-Rated game to kids, just as it’s technically not illegal to let a child watch an R Rated movie. If the law passes, these games would be viewed much the same as X-rated movies with strict penalties for those letting kids play them. Is parental control and the ESRB enough to deter kids from playing these games?

Who’s proposing this bill?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, The State of California and a few other states. They’ve been trying to get this law on the books for almost a decade now, but each time the games industry has sued, and won. California Assemblyman Leeland Yee wrote a bill which would fine a retailer $1,000 for selling a violent video game to a minor, which was signed the by the Governor but promptly delayed and struck down by a lawsuit.

So, just what makes a game violent?

It’s tough to say. Most hearings, those for the law are showing pretty edited tapes of games like Grand theft Auto and Postal 2. While they’re not going after bigger games like Call of Duty, it’s really only a matter of time before they do so. The law does however clearly state what criteria it would use for determining whether a video game is viewed as violent:

A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would
find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon
images of human beings or characters with substantially human
characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or
depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the
victim.

Alright, what can I do?

While gamer advocacy groups like The Entertainment Consumers Association and the Entertainment Software Association have launched awareness campaigns (including one featuring a mass mailing of controllers to law makers, there’s no much you can do at this point. The hearing starts on Tuesday, November 2 at 10: 00 AM Et; which is also the Fall general elections. Stick with Blast as we’ll keep you updated throughout the day on this monumental case.

When everyone has a public MySpace profile, tweets what they had for lunch, and puts their drunken escapades in a Facebook album, no one really has a whole lot of privacy when it comes to the Internet. Nevertheless, we trust that the sites we use on a daily basis will respect the information we give them, as per their privacy policies. For example, Google scrubs user search data after nine months; Yahoo bests even Google by anonymizing search requests after just ninety days.

However, sometimes this trust isn’t respected. Beyond the typical bank breaches that release our credit card and social security numbers “" which are typically the fault of malicious individuals “" companies sometimes just show a flagrant disregard of their users’ respect. For example, take Last.fm and their parent company CBS.

Users of Last.fm scrobble every song they play, essentially allowing their play counts to be displayed on their site profile, and keeping a complete track history on Last.fm’s servers. The site can then determine which users like which songs together and can provide suggestions. The site also can make widgets that display your recently played and favorite artists and tracks.

While certainly nifty, this puts quite a data set in the hands of Last.fm. While the site promises never to release individual, personally identifiable data, the site does release aggregate information to other parties to determine royalty payments and the like. This much makes sense. In trade for free social recommendations and data tools, the labels know how much airtime their songs are getting and how to compensate the artists fairly.

However, allegations have surfaced that Last.fm released information identifying users listening to a leaked U2 album. Last.fm denied this, stating that “no data had been made available to the [Recording Industry Association of America].” Later, in a blog post, Last.fm founders issued a truly categorical denial of information release in a blog post. While the story was alarming, it mostly died down because the information was gathered from anonymous users.

The fire has picked back up again though in the last week; TechCrunch, who originally broke the first story, received more tips stating that while Last.fm did not release the information to the RIAA, CBS requested it “for internal use,” then turned around and released it to the RIAA without Last.fm’s consent.

As of right now, the only hard evidence of anything actually happening is a redacted email sent to TechCrunch, which, while very likely real, is not nearly as damning as in internal email from Last.fm or CBS would be. Last.fm has denied the issue all along, and CBS finally responsed yesterday. The whole story is just sort of hanging in limbo.

Essentially, the take-away message from this whole ordeal is that you have to be careful what sort of information you put on the Internet. It can be used against you in a court of law. Whether or not Last.fm released the information, it is still easily relatable to your user profile via web access, and depending on how much personal information you share there, possibly relatable back to the physical you. This also raises questions about how much you own your information. Sure you give it to Last.fm to compile and display, but most users would still claim rights over its use “" like by opting not to releaase to the RIAA. The possibilities suggested in this situation show that this might not always be the case.

It is no surprise to anyone at this point that gay rights are a hot topic of discussion.

With people either thinking the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community deserves the same rights every other straight citizen has, or deserves to go to hell for even bringing up the issue, the debate continues with no clear resolutions in sight.

California’s Proposition 8, passed in November, changed the state constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, eliminating same-sex couples’ right to marry and hurting the morale of gay rights supporters. At the same time, gay marriage acknowledged in seven states, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and District of Columbia, has‚ disappointed‚ oppositionists.

One impromptu activist has decided to talk about the human aspect and give these feelings a face.

Faces of Us is a photo campaign created by Brendan Davis with the purpose of bringing the fight for LGBT rights to the national spotlight.

The campaign is small but growing. It shows the ‚ members of the LGBT community and their friends and political allies as people. People from all over the United States send in photos of themselves with positive messages supporting gay rights, expressing a general message that love has no boundaries.

“The fight will not be won unless every legislator in the United States sees that these are their constituents and that the LGBT community deserves full equal rights under the law,” Davis said. “The American queer community will not be recognized as first class citizens until every single person in the United States realizes that these people are their neighbors or their friends, or even part of their family.”

“Somebody who is a member of the LGBT community, or a human being for that matter, should not have to look beyond the place that they consider home in order to find equal rights.”

Davis was inspired to create this online movement after Prop 8 was passed in California. He explains that frustration came after he says the ballot question was only addressing gay marriage in California when there are hundreds of gays in the entire nation. The issue should be addressed at a national level and not on a state-by-state basis.

“The entire nation saw what the LGBT was capable of, especially when rights are taken away,” Davis said. “My frustration came from the fact that we were only talking about California and that we were only talking about marriage.”

Davis said marriage was an important issue in the gay community but that there were other issues like equality in the work place and hate crime legislation to address too. “There are members of the community in every single state and every single person deserves equal rights,” Davis said.

Although the issues have always been present, the release of more films like Milk, which won big at this year’s Oscars, increases conversations about equality amongst the general public.

Currently more than 30 states are represented with photographs and through the use of Twitter and local media coverage the campaign is extending. Davis hopes for every state to be included through photos of citizens and for the photos to reach legislators so that they, too, can see the people gay rights restrictions affect.

“The project is important because it shows that there are LGBT people and allies in every state and that the community is so diverse. We come in every variety. The reaction to the project was, of course, mixed. However, the positive definitely outweighs the negative,” said Davis. “I made the choice to leave the comments unmediated so we were experiencing anonymous negativity. I thought of turning off comments altogether, then thought better of it.”

Davis also wants to set up a traveling tour around the country with his campaign, showing people what he has done and how they can contribute.

“Harvey Milk said that, “Ëœunless you have dialogue, unless you open the walls of dialogue, you can never reach to change people’s opinions.”

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, last April, when tornadoes were threatening Jackson, Mississippi, many residents were not alerted to the severe weather because five tornado warning sirens didn’t work. The reason: the sirens’ copper wiring had been stolen.

A month before that, 4,000 Polk County, Fla. residents were powerless when thieves ripped copper wire right off an electrical transformer, costing $500,000 to replace.

These cases and others, according to authorities, combine to form a very real threat to national security and American infrastructure.

“More and more since 9/11, we’re using intelligence to get our arms around emerging threats at the national level-not just when it comes to terrorism, but also in the criminal arena,” the FBI said in a statement recently. A recent FBI criminal intelligence report outlines the situation. It concluded that:

• “The demand for copper from developing nations such as China and India is creating a robust international copper trade,” and as the global supply of copper continues to tighten, “the market for illicit copper will likely increase.” From 2001 until 2008, the price of the metal has increased by more than 500 percent.
• The thieves-many of whom are drug addicts or gang members-may act individually or as part of organized groups and are interested in the quick cash they get from selling copper to scrap metal dealers.
• Their targets include electrical substations, railroads, security and emergency services, and other sensitive sites. Already, copper thefts have been responsible for shutting down railway systems and even 9-1-1 emergency systems.

“On the surface, it could be a relatively small theft,” said one FBI agent who specializes in major theft crimes and who commissioned the report after getting wind of the problem, “but the public safety impact could be significant.”

While the thieves may just be looking for a quick score and not mean to compromise national infrastructure, that’s just what’s happening, and the Feds are looking to find them and wrap thee thieves up heavy federal charges that include jail time.

The government has set up task forces between local, state an federal law enforcement agencies to combat the copper problem, which is particularly heavy in Nevada, where one thief now faces 20 years in prison.

A Georgia man was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court for using a website to fraudulently get people to invest in so-called “certificates”, promising a guaranteed rate of return after nine months. Of course, he just pocketed the money, authorities say.

Michael Patrick Luckett, 37, of Gainesville, Ga. got three years in jail followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay almost $100,000 in restitution to his victims. The Securities and Exchange Commission previously froze $220,900 in Luckett’s accounts, and they will start to distribute that to victims as well.

Luckett pleaded guilty to four counts of mail fraud July 14.

In his scheme, Luckett worked from his Boston apartment and duped about 15 people all around the country to send him more than $450,000 for investment in the fake “Transnational Fund”.

To try and hide his tracks, Luckett filtered the checks through an address in Hartford, which forwarded to Boston. It did not work.

The FBI says Luckett used nearly $100,000 of the funds received for expenses such as his personal rent and meals, making cash withdrawals and promoting the Transnational Fund website to try and get more money.

This is a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists.

INDIANAPOLIS – Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists remain hopeful a federal shield law will pass when Congress reconvenes following the August recess, despite opposition to certain components of the bill.

SPJ leaders are bothered by opponents’ latest attempts to deter Senators’ support of this important piece of legislation. Members of the opposition include a group of former national security and law enforcement professionals who have tried to urge legislators to reject the shield law citing concerns about who would be covered by the law and specific risks to national security.

“We are advocating for the bill as it is currently written,” SPJ President Clint Brewer said. “It clearly addresses both of the oppositions’ concerns in its present state.”

In response to who constitutes a journalist under the federal shield law, the bill contains a clear definition that provides coverage for anyone who “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes information of public interest” for dissemination to the public.

The bill also invites no risks to national security, as opponents suggest. Specifically, Section 5 states that journalists must be ordered to reveal confidential sources and documents if, by a preponderance of evidence, a federal court finds that the protected information would assist in preventing a specific case of terrorism against the United States or significant harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in newsgathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens.

“National security is not something SPJ or fellow federal shield law supporters are ignoring in the effort to protect journalists’ confidential information and sources,” Brewer said. “This bill addresses the opposition’s concerns about national security. However, it would require law enforcement officials and prosecutors to exhaust all other investigative avenues before turning to journalists.

“I suspect this is the part they are opposed to, because they would no longer be able to count on journalists to do the investigative work for them.”

The Society and its leaders encourage journalists across the country to contact their senators and voice their support for the bill. Contact information can be found at Senate.gov.

To see a list of those who voted late July against bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, see the roll call

A federal shield law would give journalists the right to refuse to reveal information and sources obtained during the newsgathering process with a few notable exceptions, including where national security is at issue. The qualified privilege would be similar to those afforded to lawyers and their clients, clergy and their penitents and psychotherapists and their patients. To read more about SPJ’s research and past releases about the federal shield law, visit http://spj.org/shieldlaw-stall.asp.

Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For further information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

Dear EarthTalk: My New Year’s Resolution is to reduce my "carbon footprint" to help fight global warming. Do you have suggestions for ways I can make good on my promise? – Carrie, via e-mail

There’s never been a more urgent time to reduce your carbon footprint. With the U.S. government still opting out of mandatory emissions cuts, it’s up to every individual, business owner and city or state government to take steps. So here are 10 ways to get you started in the new year:

(1) Step-up Recycling and Composting. Recycling prevents carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by saving the energy it takes to make products from new materials and by saving the energy it takes to incinerate or landfill what we discard. And composting food scraps turns organic material back into fertile soil, which itself is an efficient carbon "sink." To get started, see: www.earth911.org and www.howtocompost.org.

(2) Stay close or stay put: About half the CO2 we generate comes from our car trips, so walk, bike or take mass transit instead. Air travel also produces huge amounts of CO2, so the less you fly, the smaller your carbon footprint. See: www.culturechange.org.

(3) Eat organic and local: Stick to foods produced organically and you prevent harmful pesticides and fertilizers from polluting air, waterways, soils and family members. And if the food is grown nearby, thousands of pounds of CO2 weren’t emitted getting it to your grocery store. See: www.100milediet.org.

(4) Buy green power. Your power company might just source part of its supply from renewable sources like hydro-electric or wind, and will sell it to customers who know to ask for it. See: www.green-e.org.

(5) Change out your lightbulbs. A compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) uses less than a third of the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light—and it lasts 10 times longer. And some CFLs now have 3-way capabilities and can be dimmed. Visit Energy Federation, Inc. at: www.efi.org.

(6) Upgrade and unplug: Upgrading any appliances (including computers and TVs)? Be sure to look for the "Energy Star" logo, which only energy efficient models can wear. Also, turn off appliances when not in use to prevent wasting so-called phantom energy coming in off the grid. See: www.energystar.gov.

(7) Adjust your thermostats: If you don’t need a sweater indoors, your heat is too high. Likewise, in hot weather turn down the AC. Also, keeping your hot water at no more than 120 degrees—the minimum temperature to keep the water bacteria-free—is another way to save energy, money and the environment.

(8) Plant a tree…or 300! An average tree stores 13 pounds of carbon per year; a mature tree can absorb upwards of four times that amount. Just 300 trees can counterbalance the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that one person produces in a lifetime. So get to work! See: www.americanforests.org/planttrees.

(9) Buy offsets: Many organizations sell "carbon offsets," whereby you pay a voluntary fee to offset your daily CO2 emissions. The money usually goes to develop alternative, renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. See: www.climatetrust.org, www.nativeenergy.com and www.my-climate.com.

(10) Get involved: Donate time or money to groups working to fight global warming. Just about all green groups devote some work to climate change, and they need your help. See: www.volunteermatch.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I can’t understand why it is not mandatory to recycle in the U.S. In my home we recycle 80 percent and toss 20 percent and I am trying to improve those percentages. What needs to happen to make recycling the law of the land? – Vicki, Geneva, NY

Mandatory recycling is a hard sell in the U.S., where the economy runs largely along free market lines and landfilling waste remains inexpensive and efficient. When the research firm Franklin Associates examined the issue a decade ago, it found that the value of the materials recovered from curbside recycling was far less than the extra costs of collection, transportation, sorting and processing incurred by municipalities.

Plain and simple, recycling still costs more than landfilling in most locales. This fact, coupled with the revelation that the so-called "landfill crisis" of the mid-1990s may have been overblown—most of our landfills still have considerable capacity and do not pose health hazards to surrounding communities—means that recycling has not caught on the way some environmentalists were hoping it would.

However, many cities have found ways to recycle economically. They have cut costs by scaling back the frequency of curbside pickups and automating sorting and processing. They’ve also found larger, more lucrative markets for the recyclables, such as in developing countries eager to reuse our cast-off items. Increased efforts by green groups to educate the public about the benefits of recycling have also helped. Today, dozens of U.S. cities are diverting upwards of 30 percent of their solid waste streams to recycling.

While recycling remains an option for most Americans, a few cities, such as Pittsburgh, San Diego and Seattle, have made recycling mandatory. Seattle passed its mandatory recycling law in 2006 as a way to counter declining recycling rates there. Recyclables are now prohibited from both residential and business garbage. Businesses must sort for recycling all paper, cardboard and yard waste. Households must recycle all basic recyclables, such as paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass and plastic. Businesses with garbage containers "contaminated" with more than 10 recyclables are issued warnings and eventually fines if they don’t comply. Household garbage cans with recyclables in them are simply not collected until the recyclables are removed to the recycling bin. Meanwhile, a handful of other cities, including Gainesville, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii, require businesses to recycle, but not yet residences.

In perhaps the most famous case of a city putting recycling to the economic test, New York, a national leader on recycling, decided to stop its least cost-effective recycling programs (plastic and glass) in 2002. But rising landfill costs ate up the $39 million savings expected. As a result, the city reinstated plastic and glass recycling and committed to a 20-year contract with the country’s largest private recycling firm, Hugo Neu Corporation, which built a state-of-the art facility along South Brooklyn’s waterfront. There, automation has streamlined the sorting process, and its easy access to rail and barges has cut both the environmental and transportation costs previously incurred by previously using trucks. The new deal and new facility have made recycling much more efficient for the city and its residents, proving once and for all that responsibly run recycling programs can actually save money, landfill space and the environment.

CONTACTS: Franklin Associates, www.fal.com; Recycling in Seattle, www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Recycling; Hugo Neu Corporation, www.hugoneu.com

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

A U.S. congressman has introduced a bill that would exclude poker and other “skill games” from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was passed in October 2006 and effectively bans gambling on the World Wide Web by prohibiting financial institutions from transferring funds to and from online betting sites.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) presented his “Skill Game Protection Act” to the House in June, seeking to distinguish activities based on skill, such as poker, mahjong and chess from other “games of chance” as addressed in the UIGEA.

“There will be some people that say, ‘You know, the Internet is the venue of the 21st Century for everything,’” Wexler said in a press release. “So, the idea that we would prohibit poker and other games of skill, is not only just counterproductive, it’s antiquated.”

Internet games such as fantasy sports, horse racing and lotteries are already exempt from the law. And “gaming” websites are legal because they only offer free casino games, so players don’t run the risk of losing money when they play.

The UIGEA was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress last year as part of a port security bill, a victory for GOP lawmakers who had tried for almost a decade to pass laws prohibiting online gambling.

Wexler, who describes poker as “an American institution,” has stated that the Democratic takeover of Congress in the November 2006 election prompted him to file the legislation because it created a “more amenable environment” for his proposal.

“I thought as really a matter of personal freedom more than anything else, Congress should not be telling consenting adults in America what games they can play on the Internet,” Wexler said. “In essence, it’s the newest form of prohibition.”

Other lawmakers, including Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) have also introduced separate pieces of legislation to respond to the UIGEA. Frank has proposed legalizing all forms of Internet gambling with careful regulations, and taxing it.

Some sponsors of the original bill have already denounced Frank and Wexler’s efforts.

“Online poker is currently the most addictive form of gambling activity among American youth,” Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told the San Francisco Chronicle last month. “Online poker players are more likely to exhibit problem gambling symptoms than other types of gamblers, and over half of young people who gamble on the Internet displays signs of
problem gambling.”

Reports indicate that Internet gambling in the US, at its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s, was a $12 billion industry.