it is really doing really well. local bookstore in l.a., diesel, its called, a bookstore. it will probably be in book soup and those are local bookstores. nationally i have, haven't been able to get into any but i think that is going to change. i'm hopi that is going to change. >> michael jason overstreet. "71 days, the media assault on obama", a self-published book. >> in her book, the "the body toxic." nena baker contends the chemical makeup of several products in use today may be the responsible for health problems. this event sponsored at google in mountainview, california is 45 minutes. >> i'm really delighted to be here at google today. it is thrilling to get a chance to peek behind the big g i see on my computer screenut i'm wondering if you're going letters, what are the rest of us?

muglles. really honor you would come and spend your lunchtime to hear about my new book, "the body toxic." chemicals of everything day this dletens our health and well-being. i will tell you why i wrote the book and read briefly and redetails has does chemistry of things in our homes and office. i focus on five hormone mimickings. chemicals. the building block of poly carbonate plastic. this chemical you may have heard of because it canada banned it from baby bottles. we have water rye is tant to food wrapping, fabric and non-stick pans and flame retard ants. called ethers used in upholstered. phthalate is chemical in everything from pcv plastic to personal care products. atrazine which is

best-selling agricultural weed killer. finally will explain simple changes i made in my own life doing research for the body toxic. after that i will do my best to answer your questions. before i do any of this i like to see a show of hands. how many of you eat microwave popcorn. okay? that is what i thought. quick and easy snack working at home. and when we're done talking here today it might be one of the things you think about changing. one of the things that i changed anyway. so, how did i get started on this path writing about stocks to i can chemicals in everything day things? a few years ago i was reading "the new york times" and i stumbled on to an article by new work for the centers of disease control and prevention in atlanta. it was a short article and said that the cdc was acking strayses of chemical poe out ants, including chemicals used in every day things in blood and urine after representative sample of the population. these kinds of measurements are called bio monitoring.

up until i heard about bi biomonitoring. i thought pollution was external insult effecting the environment. what the cdc was reporting and tracking chemical poe out ants in people, brought open the concept our body shares the pollution too. at the same time, the information gathered through biomonitoring raised important questions i might be automobile to address as a journalist. should we be concerned about effect of pollutants on our health? can every day items be responsible for the chemicals inside us. don't regulators already make sure we're save from daily dose sus from has does substances? i started digging around and so discovered things that really stunned me. here is how i begin to tell the story what i found. the turnoff to the tiny hamlet balinas is unmarked from california highway 1 as it twisted along pacific ocean head lands one hour north of san francisco every time highway crews put up a sign pointing to

balinas take it down a building more tore couple enacted in 1971 preserves bali in. sa much as it was during the counter culture hey, day. colony of 1560 artists healers activists intent on safeguarding their bow hehman community from man shuns. balins loo like it when when richard nixon was in the white house. downtown boast as grocery store with free range dogs loitering outside than patrons inside a restaurant serves freshest ingredients from nearby farmsnd gas station with bed and breakfasabove it. victorian houses and wther clap board cottages above the lagoon. haven for pelicans and migratory birds navigating the pacific flyaway. living costs have gone up but the local sensibilities and pristine landscape

remained the same. i use todd come out to bow mean -- bow lien has. that led to playing brew grass and jazz for a living. she met her husband, michael learner in bolinas. they started a cancer healing center occupies a former rca transmission sight over looking the pacific with bolinas where the couple lives. approaching the age of 60. patton has a spirited build of a woman who pays attention to diet and exercise. it is easy to eat organic in bolinas says patton. she takes advantage of miles of beaches right outside her door and bathtaking vistas in point reyes national seashore. she was raised on a coloro ranch and likes to be outdoors. the bungalow she shares with her husband came with a spectacular garden. pat tone tends the previous owners legacy. she is always taken good

care of herself avoiding the pitfalls of drugs booze and tobacco that plagued others of her generation especially fellow musicians. it shows. she stands strait which makes her look tailer than her 5'8". a tassel of blond hair frames blue eyes that twinkle. patton displays the energy of a woman half her age as activist on issues of health and the environment. in 2001, in stockholm as a leader of a network of 350 non-governmental organizations from around the world, patton helped guide the u.n. organic pollutants treaty. calls for worldwide elimination of dirty doz chemics considered morni the world's most hazardous. she understand anyone the ubiquitous nature of organic pollutants. she didn't expect the jolt she felt h body was polluted with traces of 105 chemicals linked to animal study linked to devastating

heal effects cancer, birth deformties and neurologil impairments. i don't live next door to refinery or incinerator or some kind of facry, says patton, whose blood and urine were screened for chemical pollutants for a study conducted by mount sign ney sool in new york. it turns out what is in patton is i everyone of us too. unlike our forebearers are everyone everywhere now carry as dizzying array of chemical contaminants. the by-products of modern industry and innovation. these toxic substanceps accumulate in our fat, bones, blood and organs, are passed through us in breast milk, urine,eces, swelled sweat, semen hair and nails. scientists studying pollutants in people, including researchers at the cdc call the phenomenon, chemical body burden. it is the consequence of womb to tomb exposure to

substances so common in our daily lives we never stop to consider them. that water repellant jacket you're wearing got that way because of a chemical called, pfoa. used to make the polymer membranes need to impart the extra utility. as of this writing the environmental protection agency which asked manufacturers to voluntary reduce emissions of pfoa is debating whether to officially describe the substance as likely to cause cars know again isty in humans. that cute bath toy your child loves to chew. it contains plasticizers then as phthalates. they are linked to impaired erm quality in animals that tv you spe hours in front of, probably made with a neurotoxic chemical flame retard ability. known as. dpbe. which is showing up in the breast milk of u.s. mothers at rates 100 times the average found in european studies. in 2003, california followed

the lead of the european union and became the first state to ban two types of pdb es. other states have followed. but the most common type of pdbe and one found in tvs is still in wide use. scientis are worried that pdbes disrupt a developing thigh rot civil and could cause developmental deficits. overwhelming what we're exposed to said january houlihan, vice presidentf environmental working group, a washington, d.c.-based public advocacy organizations that partnered in several monitoring studies and araise awareness of chemical body burden. every day we get a fresh flush of chemicals. no place and no one in immune. e most persistent chemical contaminants are carried across oceans and continents by water and air. like grass hoppers they lift intohe atmosphere and then glide back to earth moving from warmer climates to colder climates and settling thousands o miles from the contamination source.

they're fat soluble and bio magnify, increasing in concentration as they move up the food chain. they cross the placenta, so babies receive their first exposures in the womb. in the united states, our chemical neighborhood includes more than 80,000 industrials substances registered for commercial purposes with the epa. about 10,000 of these chemicals are widely used in everything from clothing, carpeting, househo clners and computers. to furniture, food, food containers, paint, cookware and cosmetics. but the vast majority of them have not been tested for potential toxic eects because the u.s. toxic substances control act of 1976 does not requi it. and the news gets shockingly worse. epa can not take any regulatory actn regarding a suspected harmful substance until it has evidence that it poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. the barriers to action are so high, that according to a

2005 report by the government accountability office, the epa has givenp trying to regulate chemicals, and instead, relies on the chemical industry to act voluntarily when concerns arise. these stunning policy failures have not been rectified in more than three decades. indisputably chemicals raised our living standard and make our lives easier and safer. think of convenes of plastic food storage containers stain resistant carpeting and fast-cooking microwas. think of security of fire resistant materials, clean water supplies, stronger than steel bulletproof vests and nylon seatbelts. who can argue with the american chest tricouncil that represents dow, do punt and other count companies. that chemicals are essential to life. the slogan speaks volumes of the importance of $637 billion a year u.s. industry. it is not that chemicals have bad per se and it would be preposterous for most

ardent environmentalist to suggest such a notion. that costly societal problems often arise because we know so little about some chemicals. and in the time it takes to learn what harm substance is doing, to people, to animal, to braces the genie is long out of the bottle. so, what it comes down to is this. the united states does not have a viable means to keep its 300 million citizens safe from newfound chemical hazards in the things we use and buy every single day. the result of this policy failure is that chemicals known to interfere with the body's reproductive, developmental and behavioral functions are freely used in everything from plastics, soaps and toys, to food wrappers, clothing and carpeting. children receive their first exposures to hazardous chemicals developing in the womb because the placenta is no barrier. every child born today comes preloaded with chemicals that may contributing to various health problems that

aren't apparent until later in life. hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show the dndocrine disrupting chemicals which throw off the body's hormone system in various ways and alter gene expression cause lab animals to exhibit disorders and dysfunction that are on the rise in humans. the list includes, cancers of the breast, testicles, brain and lowered sperm counts, early puberty in girls, endo meet triowe sis and other defectses female reproductive system and diabetes, attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism. so,oing back to the cdc's bio monitoring work the chemicals not own been contaminate our air, water and soil but they're inside of us at levels in some cases are uncomfortably close to the amounts that cause harmful effects in lab animals. let me be very clear about this. my review of the research shows that scientists are demotrating through laboratory work in animal study as correlation between the human problems i just

mentioned, and exposures to substances in such things as poly carbognat plastic. grease resistant food wrapping, baby lotions and s. human epidemiological studies are beginning to confirm what scientists see in lab animals but at this point one can not say there is direct cause and effect n my book i introduce you to scientists and public health advocates around the world who are looking at the animal findings and urging new limits on human exposures because of their serious concerns. these are brilliant young scientists such as berkeley professor, tyrone hayes who was hired by cyngentas the prince approximately maker of at tra seen to discuss the herb side-effect on frogs. the chemical industry borrows from public relationslaybook from big tobacco to create doubt over findings of researchers as haze. one part per billion of atrazene is enough to scramble frogs.

in the u.s. okay to have three parts of at tra seen in the drinking water. it is widely use nds the united states. the ropean union a canada, are leed in exercising precautionary actions on chemicals. based on connect the dots method of identifying hazards. but this is not the case in the united states. here we have a system where the epa tries to manage chemicals, through the toxic substances control act. . . these

materials. the epa puts on another perspective too. whatever action the epa takes to restrict chemicals, cannot create unnecessary barriers to business. the last time the epa tried to regulate a substance was back in 1989. the substance was asbestos. the e p's restrictions ere overturned by a federal appeals court because the epa -- risk benefit balancing. the bottom line is the toxic regulation of the united states with company profits before consum protection at the extent of public health. evaluated from the national academy of sciences to the general accountability office to the congressional office of technology assessment have weighed in on the inadequacies of the system, but we are still stuck with it. as of controls and about

hazards, all the epa can do is negotiate with the chemical industry when it suspects the chemical is a bad actor. the inside of a microwave popcorn bag is coated with a substance that results in a chemical which stands for perfluorooctanoic acid. you put it in the microwave, the oil comes through the bag. related perfluorinated chemicals used in the production of the enormous nbers of items, from making cuttings like teflon, applications for carpet and clothing and also as a processing aid from making materials that used in plumber at stake and dental floss. according to the environmental protection agency, virtually every industry has applications foperfluorinated chemicals. pfcs have a truly eye-popping

characteristic. they last forever in the environment. we have discovered some persistent, long live chemicals before and banned or restricted them. charles than worked on a treaty that ushered in a worldwide ban. these substances current such as ectrical insulators that stopped manufacturing in the 1970s because they can cause harmful health effects of. they're still measured in the environment and in people beuse they're so slow to break down and they are in our food. i know this first and because they were present in my blood when i was green for pollutants as part of my research. pfcs are beyond tcbs because ey don't break down. they will be there forever. they have a very long half-life.

it takes years and years for a body to rid itself of pfcs system and we never have another exposure. we are exposed to more than our bodies can ever get rid of. let's gaugehat scientists know about perfluorinated chemicals, they are in umbilical cord blood, in places you expect to find the mike downstream from a manufacturing plant where these chemicals are made. and places where you want, like the arctic. they move in air and water. they're ubiquitous in people and the environment. what we doing about it? after consiring the research, the science advisory panel recommended a likely cancer causing agent in humans. eta received its recommendation in 2005, it has yet to act on it because it is conducting a formal risk assessment. as you remember from a moment ago, the epa has had little

success regulating chemicals. it ask the chemical industry to save out production by 2015. meile,he fda which oversees food additives, is looking at this situation because of how these chemicals i used in food mapping and toxicologists are holding meetings trying to figure out if animal studies suggest low dose developmental exposure to the chemicals are somehow contributing to obesity. studies link low birth weight and body mass in newborn babies to very low levels of pfcs and we're ill being exposed to every day. what researchers found made makes you think carefully about that next bag of popcorn. microwave popcorn bags contain a higher level of chemical coatings and any other product and they get extremely hot extremely fast. this may be what the concentration of chemicals migrating from the bag into the

popcorn oil were hundreds of times higher than the amount from heated nonstick cookware. based on the concentrations measuredy the scientists, consumption of ten bags of microwave popcorn a year could contribute 20% of the average f pfoa blood level. is not the pans we should worry about, it is the paper. there are other things we need to be worried about, you have heard about the building block of pauleycarbonate plastic. canadaanned it because of t hazards in every day exposure levels. the makers of brand-name have said they would no longer make their products using paul e.and a plastic. they can't produce them fast enough to fill demand in canada, the united states and a round

world. walmart and other major retailers and sd they will no longer sell certain -- consumers clearly don't want this in their products but as you may have heard, the fda came to the conclusion that this is peectly safe as used. however it, the fda in its recent safety assessment relied on the findings from the two industry funded studies to declare that it poses no problem. the fda failed to consider the unique behavior of this chemical at extremely low levels of exposure. in doing so it dismissed the concerns of the world's leading expes. last year, 38 of them published a consensus statement in a peer review journal called reproductive toxicology. they said that 95% of us have blood levels within a range predicted to be biologically active. not all of this is coming from

sport bottles and baby bottles. it is used in the material that line's most metal food cans. the researchers warn the average effect they have seen in 150 lab studies are of great concern because of the potential for simir effectin humans. ese are problems that correspond with recent trends in human diseases includi increases in prostate cancer, increases in general abnormalities in male babies, decline inhe quality of men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders leading to diabetes and obesity and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. let's say the experts are only half right. isn't that reason enough to get it out of our products? the fda doesn't s it that way because it relies on a risk-based approach rather is an one based on hazard identification. the fda is studying the odds

that it is not a problem in spite of what the experts say and the final determination by the federal national toxicology program. it has been working on a hazard identification for several months and just this morning they came out with their final determination that the d.a. is of some concern for effect on development of the prostate gland and for behavioral effects in fetuss, infants and children. occasionally the reality of the hazards of these chemicals get through to our policymakers. this was the case recently about another family of chemicals i write about which are extremely versatile. they're using toys, baby products, lessons, personal-care products, air fresheners, pharmaceuticals, they are ubiquitous in our daily environment, and people

including pregnant women and fetuses, biomonitoring steady some bubbles of exposure were a concern. humans are exposed to the same maxtures of cumulative effects. mail lab rats developing in the will and contribute to toxic effect of the reproductive system including birth defects of the penis, infertility and cancer. there are reasons to suspect the fallates symptoms in rats may shed light on him and abnormalitie last month congress passed sweeping reforms to the consumer product safety act which included new standards for toys. part of this legislation calls for a ban on six kind of phthalates. president bush gned this into law and it is a good start but it does not call for banning phthalates and personal-care products which is another route of exposure. as far a the fda is concerned,

phthalates are just fine. the legal authority over personal care products is different from authority over drugs and medical devices. cosmetics and personal-care ingredients are not subject to premarketpproval, and the fda is not authorized to substantiate safety and performance claims. as i talk about in my book the fda overseas $1 trillion a year of food, drugs, medical devices, but its own advisory council concluded it is suffering serious deficiencies. i submitted freedom of information act request to find out about the workis of the fda's office of cosmetics. this office oversees the sale of some eleven billion personal-care products every year in the united states. the office has 30 employees and a budget of $3.4 million. in portland, or the office that controls 980 traffic

signals has 40 employees and a budget of $22 million. you can see the low priority at the federal watchdog office. before i wrap up and get your questions i want to tell you about another family of chemicals we are exposed t these are the flame retardants known asolybrominated diphenyl ethers. structurally their similar to pcbs which were banned in the 1970s. beamer introduced in the 1970s, and are very persistent, they bioaccumulate, increase in consolation -- constitution. they have been added to items like carpeting, furniture, plastic casings electronics. researchers began taking notice of them in the 1990s when they saw increases in human breast milk. the good news is the types used in trade, carpeting and upholstered furniture were

voluntarily taken off the market in 2004 because of health and exposure concerns, but that is tempered by two facts, first, most of us have furniture and carpets and other big-ticket items in our homes and offices that date back well before 2004. second, theost widely used flame retardant is still available for applications on electronics. several states have moved to ban them all because better alternatives are available. you can find lists of products free from polybrominated diphenyl ethers with items that are on line. in the meantime, there is some preliminary work suggesting that exposure is committing to an epidemic of hyperthyroidism and house cats. cats, like children, like to spend a lot of time on the floor and have an abundance behavior is that make them susceptible to ingesting the standard loaded with them. the bottom line is they may be

easy pcb of the twenty-first century. like other chemicals, we are exposed to them every day. there are proposals before the state of california and the u.s. congress that would greatly improve the status quo with respect to how we use and manage toxic chemicals in everyday things. these overhauls would safeguard our children and grandchildre from the error of our ways. that is the big picture, but what about our personal choices. 7 like to read a few paragraphs from my book about what i do in the face of this dilemma. is my list and beyond. when it comes to toxic exposure, curtling exposures to hazardous chemicals and consumer products requires individual and collective action. it would be easy to shrug your shoulders and continue to buy and use the same thing but small adjustments in your own life can lessen your exposures and risks. i am frequently asked what changes i have made to reduce

the tech of chemical exposures i write about. and want to share my own list. in no particular order, here's what i have done to light my chemical load. i by anti organic foods whenever possible because there pesticide fr and i see tt google is ahead of the game on that already. i swore off microwaves poorn because of what is contained in the packaging, i ditched like plastic food containers. i use glass or ceramic containers instead. i canceled my contract for a monthly luncheon control insider outside my home because it is not necessary and there are nontoxic ways for me to deal with tests. i declined all optional stain prection treatments for upholstery or floor coverings that merchants try to sell me. i use low or no pf paint. i vacuum and just my home and

office at least once a week, ich is more than i did before i wrote the book because dust is loaded with chemical pollutants that concern me. i'd bought aluminum pots and pans when my cookware wore out. i asked retailers questions about the things that i buy. if they don't know the answd i contact manufaurers. i read labels, sometimes they don't give me the entire picture but they can providclues. i talked to my friends and family about a changes are made and why i made them. that is it. i don't obsess about chemical pollutants, i make informed decisions based on my understanding of the hazards of pesticidesflame retardants and stain protectors. when i know something's contains suspects substances i ask myself can i find an alternative? th answer is usually yes but in one case i decided the benefit of using a certain product out ways the risk. i work in an old building where water runs from the attack the

color of a caflatte. filterakes it no better. the best way to get the amount of water i need every day is to drink from a jug perched atop a reed cooler in ly office. if i was serving a child or added point in my life and times considering having a baby i would ask for a water delivery method that avoids this pauleycottony. i do not mean to suggest we can shock our way clear of hazardous substances. we can't. large-scale population levels, exposure reductions, will happen only when we eliminate the worst acting substances in favor of safer alternatives. to that end, congress must reform the toxic substances control act with provisions demanding proof of safety from manufacturers. the european union has already done it and we can too. what is lacking so far is the political will. in the 2008 election year, we heard lots of lip service about change. the presidential front runners

promised new domestic policy from health care reform to economic action plans to taxes and overhauls. no mattewho occupies the oval office or which party controls congress we must urge our elected leaders to give consumers the protection from toxins week expect. as of this writing, environmental and public healt groups are breaking with congressional staffers to line up new legislation that would protect americans from hazardous chemicals and conmer products and incurred the development of safe alternatives. it is called the kids safe chemicals act. based on what we already know about these hazards and their potential to impact future generations we cannot wait any longer. state and local governments have made the moment right the for federal action by moving ahead with restrictions on individual substances. even industry concedes that federal rules are less burdensome than a patchwork of restrictions that vary by jurisdiction. most important, in the second

half of 2008, sometime this winter or in early 2009, the cdc is releasing its next biomonitoring study which reports on u.s. population exposures to some 300 chemicals, which is twice as many as the 2005 report. the much-anticipated scorecard build the case for what we already know. we are the body toxic and can no longer afford our ignorance. thank you for your time and attention and i will do my best to answer any questinns that you have. high. >> i was wondering if you think -- you wrote mostly about these five chemicals. if we get rid of these five, then what? do you see this as a war that can be won in the near future or will it be a hundred years before there are no toxic chemicals in the things we use? >> that is a good question. i think we can really make major

improvements through actions like this kid safe chemical act. the state of california in the closing days of the legislative session last week passed a green chemistry initiative which is a state version of the kids safe chemical act. it is goin to create a way for scientists within state government to assess the toxicity of certa chemicals and also going to provide lots of incentives for the creation of alternative substances that are inherently benign. it is doable. i feel very confident that we are dealing with problems that we created, that society began to create well before we were born. around world war ii is when many

of these introduced for commercial applications as we go forwd, i really do believe that we have an opportunity to and do it dierently. the united states is lagging behind the rest of the world in reassessing, reconfiguring its approach to chemical management. >> i have two questions. the night any efforts to get flame retardant out of children at sleeper. i that two sets shipped to me from canada. the other question is, did you hear anything about work on carbon anna tubes that behave like asbestos, any effort to manage those? >> let me answer the second question first. nanotechnology is fascinating, an area, again, where we are

letting the genie out of the bottle before we have any idea exactly what we are dealing with, and what to expect. i don't have any details about the carbon that no particles you are referring to, but if you go to a website that is run by this -- testing kit is the epa, it is a federal agency, there is an office coordinating nanotechnology development and it is a fascinating read because it is quite obvious that although this is a thrilling develop and with all sorts of potential applications, so litle is known about what happens once we have applied this technology and all sorts of consumer products. as far as the flame retardants and sleep where, i think that

california has taken some action on that very recently. it may not be quite in effect yet, are you shaking your head no? i think what you are dealing with is a great illustration of day-to-day problem, sounds like you havead to educate yourself, go out and try to find a product that you felt was the safer alternative. it puts a huge burden on the consumer to do all sorts of rk, and that is really unfounate. it should be the other way around, i think. we should be at a point where we have some sense, that what is out there is safe. at leasthat the hazards are acceptable to us. yes? >> another questn. have you heard of microvave therapy?

>> i haven't. removing the toxins ich was not something i gotnto in the book. they're a lot of theories about different ways to do it. but this wasn't something that i went to. maybe nextime. >> the one i heard about, you put yourself in a low grade microwave and supposedly they're resigned to 6 studies about it, there were more chemicals in your urine? i don't know if israel. >> it will be ok as long as you are now wearing a vortex jacket. [inaudible question. >> you talked about studies and

comparisons between europe and the u.s. and canada and so on. farther studies in societies where people didn't have the means to buy all this stuff, the impact of no chemicals in their lives, incidents of cancer? >> what i talk about in my book is that unfortunately, because of the most persistent pollutants moving around in the environment, there are not very many places that haven't been exposed so it is almost like you can&t find a clean sample. that is an unfortuna effect that nobody anticipated when we started down this path. >> the difference betwn those close contact with chemicals, things like that, people don't

have access to that. >> i really couldn't answer that but it is a very good question. >> i wanted to ask, what is the relative hazar associated with these chemicals, automobiles kill 40,000 year just in this country, how many are affected by the chemicals and what is the impact relative to other hazards? >> we are at the point where research is indicating a correlation between increases in certain diseases and dysfunction. one of the things, if you want to look at one particular chemical, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, many researchers are concerned that there might be a population level affect as a result of these things, thyroid function,

and impact that shifts the way our society, the way our population's thyroids work, you end up with higher costs, all sorts of problems relative to the development associated with your thyroid,unctioning associated with your thyroid, there have been studies that have been done, it is not something i detail i the book but when the state of california was proposing this chemistry initiative, they did right in great detail about what they projected the cost savings would be to society, embracing the chemtry initiative and restricting some of the chemicals that i do write about verses continuing down the path that we are on.

>> i think thatbout concludes our talk. does anyone have any more questions? thank you for cong. nena baker will be available to sign books after the talk. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> nena baker has been a reporter for united press international, the arizona republic and the oregonian, she is a licensed private investigator in portland, ore.. for more information about this book, visit thebodies toxic.com. >> the jamaican will host a book

fair and the cave r storytelling festival in kentucky will offer fireside ghost stories and fily storiestelling at night. later this month, the 2009 book festival in fairfax, va.. and the sonoma book festival can enjoy a performance and panels in northern california. at the end of september, the baltimore book festival hosts a weekend of workshops, author talks and literary events. from the national mall in washington d.c. bk tv bring you live coverage of the 2009 national book feival. please let us know about book fairs and festivals in your ariane and ue will add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv@c-span.org. >> july 20th, 2009, marks the fortieth anniversary of the apollo 11 mission to the moon. craig nelson talks about a first mill in landi and the