High winds bring fire warnings, traffic tie-ups, power outages

Santa Ana winds, which forecasters said could reach up to 70 mph during the day, ripped through Southern California on Wednesday, sending up red-flag fire warnings, slowing motorists and potentially contributing to power outages.

Thousands of Simi Valley residents were without power Wednesday morning, according to Southern California Edison, with some areas not expected to have service restored until about 10:30 a.m.

Meanwhile, an overturned box truck forced officials to close the slow lane of the eastbound 101 Freeway just west of the 405 Freeway interchange.

The accident caused slowing as far east as Burbank and south to Skirball Center Drive, said a California Highway Patrol spokeswoman.

Newport Beach jogger reports being chased by coyote

A Newport Beach man's morning jog turned into an adventure when a coyote began to pursue him and his dogs.

Brian Clarkson, 37, said he was jogging at about 8 a.m. Tuesday with his two Yorkie mixes on a trail near University Drive and Irvine Avenue when a coyote that "seemed hungry and desperate" began running toward them.

"I've never been chased by a coyote looking for a kill before," Clarkson told the Daily Pilot.

A man riding a horse yelled at the coyote, which was only momentarily deterred, according to Clarkson.

The rider then escorted Clarkson out of harm's way.

74-year-old fatally beaten with baseball bat inside a Wal-Mart

A 74-year-old man was fatally beaten with a baseball bat Tuesday inside a Lakewood Wal-Mart in what authorities believe was an unprovoked attack by a homeless man.

The incident occurred in the sporting-goods section of a Wal-Mart on Carson Street in Lakewood.

A 47-year-old man was taken into custody by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department officials.

"Witnesses have drawn the conclusion that the suspect is homeless,'' Lt. Eddie Hernandez told City News Service. "We haven't confirmed that. ... The victim was in the sporting-goods section. The suspect approached him and started to attack him with a baseball bat, causing severe head trauma.''

Ammonia leak at San Onofre nuclear plant is contained

An ammonia leak that prompted an emergency alert at the San Onofre nuclear power plant did not pose a threat to the public, and only a few workers inside the plant were evacuated, officials said.

Southern California Edison spokeswoman Lauren Bartlett said the leak occurred about 3 p.m. Tuesday in a make-up water-treatment system in a non-nuclear part of the facility. As a precautionary measure, some workers were evacuated.

The plant's two units were operating normally throughout the day.

The Level Two alert at the plant was called off shortly after 6 p.m. and normal operations were resumed, the Orange County Emergency Operations center said in a statement.

Officials have set up a hotline if people have questions about the alert that was declared at the Orange County facility. People are asked to call (714) 628-7085. The hotline will be open until 9 p.m.

San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant leak contained

An ammonia leak that prompted an emergency alert at the San Onofre nuclear power plant did not pose a threat to the public, and only a few workers inside the plant were evacuated, officias said.

Southern California Edison spokeswoman Lauren Bartlett said the leak occurred about 3 p.m. Tuesday in a make-up water-treatment system in a non-nuclear part of the facility. As a precautionary measure, some workers were evacuated.

The plant's two units were operating normally throughout the day.

The Level Two alert at the plant was called off shortly after 6 p.m. and normal operations were resumed, the Orange County Emergency Operations center said in a statement.

Officials have set up a hotline if people have questions about the alert that was declared at the Orange County facility. People are asked to call (714) 628-7085. The hotline will be open until 9 p.m.

Coastal Commission staff urges rejection of park plan

Citing concerns about endangered bird habitat and wetlands, California Coastal Commission staff members have recommended rejecting Newport Beach's plans for Sunset Ridge Park.

The fate of the 20-acre public sports park rests in the hands of the 12 commissioners when they meet Wednesday in Oceanside.

Compared to other parts of town, the city's west side has fewer soccer fields and baseball diamonds, which are both proposed at Sunset Ridge, but this facility, which would have sweeping views of the coastline, has been stalled in legal and administrative wrangling.

The commission's central issue is the park's access road, proposed to be just west of West Coast Highway and Superior Avenue. While the road would avoid sensitive habitat, it follows the path of a larger arterial road planned for the adjacent Banning Ranch property.

Commission staff members sought an agreement preventing future expansion of the road onto sensitive California gnatcatcher habitat, but the ranch owners declined, and now the city's plans hang in the balance.

Both the city and Banning Ranch developers argue that the commission should focus on the application at hand, according to the Daily Pilot.

ALSO:

Burning oil from BP spill produced carbon plumes

Climate skeptic admits he was wrong to doubt temperature data

Forest biofuel projects could increase West Coast carbon emissions

--Mike Reicher, Times Community News

Educating the public about the costs of treating cancer

research into cancer

Professor Richard Sullivan – lead author of The Lancet Oncology's Commission Affordable Care in High Income Countries, which reported in September and about which I wrote a blog post entitled "According to the Lancet, saving lives is an unaffordable burden. What a terrifying prospect" – has contacted me. The subject of the Commission was the ever-increasing cost of cancer medicine and "what makes a medicine cost-effective". The issues surrounding end of life medical care were also included – and charities involved in this area understood the conclusions to mean that palliative care was "futile".

Consequently, Professor Sullivan is anxious to clarify the Commission's stance on this incredibly difficult subject. I quoted his answers on BBC Radio 4's Today programme – and have listened to them again, just to make sure I was not imagining what he said – which seemed to imply that it was only worth spending money on drugs if an extra year of life was guaranteed. Although this is what I heard, Professor Sullivan is insistent that this is not the correct interpretation of his words. I am very happy to do as he requests and quote his email.

He writes: "Firstly, your comment about medicines giving only one year of life being the only ones of value – that is not what I said, nor what the report says should happen; this report is about having the debate about exactly what makes a medicine cost effective; and this is, simply put, a matter of how much it extends life, controls the particular cancer or improves the quality of life and its cost. Many medicines and other technologies provide a small benefit for very high cost. The question for society is what it is willing to pay and whether, within finite budgets, it is prepared to take money from one area e.g. mental health to pay for another.

"Secondly, you will see from the title of the Commission – Affordable Care in High Income Countries – and the list of authors that this report is about all developed countries, especially and particularly the USA. There is substantial evidence now that particularly in the USA a culture of excessive usage of diagnostics and other tests as well as over-treatment does exist. This report is not about telling doctors to write off their patients. It's about pointing out that in healthcare systems like the USA which are driven by reimbursement there are serious incentives for excessive application of medical technologies that go way beyond what one would consider the best standard of care."

I understand completely that this is, possibly, a "no-win" subject, which is incredibly difficult and uncomfortable to discuss, but one which needs desperately to be debated. Listening to the press conference at the publication of the Commission, Professor Sullivan explains the reasons for the huge rise in cost. Firstly, we have an aging population – and with age comes a greater risk of cancer; secondly, the new technologies – not just medicine but imaging, radiotherapy, surgery and nuclear medicine, including the new personalised medicine/tailor-made therapies; thirdly, the acceleration of new technology which explains the increase in healthcare professionals and infrastructure costs.

Interestingly, those taking part in the Commission included clinicians, pharmacists, patient groups etc, but the pharmaceutical industry would not agree to participate – on the advise of their legal teams. Interpret that as you will…

The opening of the Commission says "We are at a crossroads for affordable care, where our choices – or refusal to make choices – will affect the lives of millions of people". Professor Sullivan is extremely anxious that "the public must be educated on the huge struggle we are having with healthcare and cancer affordability". He says: "The debate must be brought back into the community."

So – that is what I am doing. What do you think? How should we divide our dwindling resources so that everyone is treated fairly? What about palliative care and the costs involved? The Commission describes preventative measures – lifestyle issues particularly – but we do not seem to be taking this to heart. Why? Surely early diagnosis would help too – yet the NHS seems reluctant to put more money into preventative medicine, as do the private health insurance companies.

Please email me your thoughts: judith.potts@telegraph.co.uk.