EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
The Weekly E-Newsletter from the Editors of E-The Environmental Magazine
Sent to subscriber lasharpe@cox.net
September 27, 2017
|
Dear EarthTalk: What is being done to safeguard grizzly bears now? I heard that their numbers are dwindling and they could vanish from the Lower 48 if we don’t protect them. – Jim Meth, Akron, OH
Before European colonization of North America, upwards of 50,000 grizzly bears—also known as brown bears—roamed free across what is now the continental United States. But more than a century of commercial trapping, persecution, habitat loss and poorly regulated hunting have taken a heavy toll on grizzly populations.
Today fewer than 1,500 of the majestic omnivores are left in just five small pockets of wilderness—across less than two percent of their former range—on the northern fringes of Washington state, and scattered throughout the Northern Rockies around Yellowstone and Glacier national parks. The grizzlies’ “threatened” status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act has allowed these remnant populations to start to rebound in recent years, but conservationists report the fierce bears (their scientific name is Ursus arctos horribilis) aren’t out of the woods yet, so to speak.
Wildlife biologists consider grizzlies to be an “umbrella” species, meaning that the health of their populations indicates how healthy hundreds of other native plant and animal species may be across the same habitat range. Grizzlies thrive in large uninterrupted wilderness areas, so environmental groups are working hard to connect up existing protected areas to allow for the bears to move into new territory and continue to rebound.
“Protecting the habitats that allow the bear the freedom to roam and thrive also benefits mule deer, wolverines, elk and mountain goats, and many more wildlife,” reports Conservation Northwest, a regional environmental group championing efforts to expand wilderness designations and so-called “wildlife corridors”—protected habitat pathways between larger swaths of wilderness—in Northwest Washington State for the sake of grizzlies and other wildlife down the forest food chain. “Protecting the roadless watersheds that nurture the grizzly bear helps ensure clean water, solitude and recreational opportunities for everyone.”
Another leading conservation organization working to secure a better future for grizzlies in the lower 48 is Defenders of Wildlife. The group supports and promotes projects to help reduce human-grizzly conflicts and increase community tolerance for having the bears as neighbors. One such program involves assisting homeowners with funding for the installation of bear-resistant electric fencing, which has proven to be a safe and accepted way to deter bears from accessing human food resources. Defenders reasons that training the bears not to access human food gives them a better chance for survival as they cannot become dependent on a resource bound to get them in trouble.
Yet another big advocate for grizzlies is the National Wildfire Federation (NWF). The group’s Adopt-a-Wildfire-Acre program uses funds raised from members and other concerned donors to acquire land outside of Yellowstone National Park to give the region’s iconic grizzly population room to roam beyond the confines of the park borders. NWF also works the halls of Congress, lobbying on behalf of grizzlies and other iconic American wildlife species suffering at the hands of progress.
Environmentalists are optimistic that better planning and more focus on conservation will allow the grizzly population of the Lower 48 to continue rebounding to the point where the bears can be removed from threatened species protection. As Conservation Northwest puts it, “What’s good for bears is good for people.”
CONTACTS: Conservation Northwest; Defenders of Wildlife; NWF.
Dear EarthTalk: What is being done to get toxic flame retardants out of children’s furniture and other products? – Mary Sweetland, Seminole, FL
Putting flame retardants in furniture seemed like a good idea back in the 1970s to help protect against the risk of fire, but our insistence on safety has come back to haunt us. The chemicals “off-gassing” from these flame retardants can be toxic, especially to the kids they are meant to protect in the first place. “Scientists have found that exposure to toxic fire retardant chemicals at critical points in development can damage the reproductive system and cause deficits in motor skills, learning, memory and behavior,” reports the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG). Some of these chemicals have even been linked to cancer.
Manufacturers started putting flame retardants into their products in the mid-1970s after legislators in California passed a law requiring polyurethane foam in furniture to resist catching fire after exposure to an open flame for 12 seconds. Given the importance of the California market and the fact that other states soon enacted similar requirements, adding flame retardants to furniture foam became standard practice across the country.
But a flurry of research in the early 2000s called into question both the effectiveness and safety of common flame retardants, and ever since environmentalists have been working hard to eliminate such questionable chemicals from our living rooms. In 2013, California finally updated its rule on flame retardants, replacing the old open flame test with a new smolder test that assesses the ability of the furniture covering—not the foam padding—to withstand catching fire. State regulators estimate that some 85 percent of furniture fabrics currently on the market can pass the new smolder test without the benefit of flame retardant chemicals. In addition, a wide variety of kids’ products, including car seats, play mats, highchair pads and infant mattress pads, are no longer required to contain flame retardants. Additionally, California now requires labels on upholstered furniture sold there detailing whether or not flame retardants are present.
Unfortunately, consumers outside of California will have to do their own research to steer clear of flame retardants. EWG suggests checking in directly with manufacturers to see if their products contain flame retardants, or limiting your shopping to retailers that specialize in so-called “organic” (read: chemical-free) furniture such as Elka Home, Furnature, Green Sofas, Eco Select Furniture and Viesso, among others.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another leading non-profit active in the effort to ban toxic flame retardants, recommends replacing not just the fabric but also the foam during reupholster projects, as most foam manufactured before 2004 is likely off-gassing toxic chemicals. Likewise, NRDC says to be careful removing old carpeting, as the degraded scrap foam in the underlying padding can also release copious amount of noxious flame retardants. Other ways to minimize flame retardant exposure include regular wet-mopping of the floors around the house and using a vacuum cleaner fitted with a HEPA filter. Consumers can also take a stand against toxic flame retardants by signing onto NRDC’s MoveOn.org petition calling on the U.S. Consumer Safety Product Commission to adopt a new nationwide standard to prevent the use of toxic chemicals in furniture foam and other everyday items.
CONTACTS: EWG; NRDC; MoveOn.org.
Dear
EarthTalk: What are
“ghost factories?”
-- Philip Walker, Hartford, CT
Photo
Credit: Simon Bowen
Unsafe levels of lead contaminate soil in
hundreds of neighborhoods around the U.S. where lead smelting
facilities operated between the 1930s and 1960s. Children under the
age of six are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can
severely affect mental and physical development. Pictured: Rusty
remains at an old lead smelting mill.
The factories, which used a process called smelting to
melt down lead, were in operation from the 1930s until the 1960s
when they began to shut down. While the factories themselves may now
be gone, their toxic legacy remains, as they have left behind
significant amounts of poisonous lead particles in surrounding
soils. The lead particles are particularly dangerous for children
who live and play in these areas. “Lead poisoning occurs when lead
builds up in the body, often over a period of months or years,”
reports the Mayo Clinic, adding that even small amounts of lead can
cause serious health problems. “Children under the age of 6 are
especially vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can severely affect
mental and physical development [and] at very high levels...can be
fatal.”
Environmental scientist William Eckel warned government
officials of the dangers of old lead factories in his research
article “Discovering Unrecognized Lead-Smelting Sites by Historical
Methods,” which was published in the American Journal of Public
Health in April of 2001. Eckel used EPA databases along with
lead industry directories to compile a list of more than 400
possible factory sites around the country that may have been unknown
or forgotten over time. In an effort to create some urgency for
federal regulators, he paid to have the soil around eight of the
sites tested and all but one exceeded the EPA’s hazard level for
residential areas. More recent soil tests done by USA TODAY
revealed that all 21 areas that were examined in 13 states had
potentially dangerous enough lead levels that children should not be
playing in that dirt. This meant, of course, that cleanups of these
sites had not been done.
Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical used
in the production of rocket fuel, missiles, fireworks, flares and
explosives. It is also sometimes present in bleach and in some
fertilizers. Its widespread release into the environment is
primarily associated with defense contracting, military operations
and aerospace programs.
Perchlorate in the environment is a health concern because it can
disrupt the thyroid’s ability to produce hormones needed for normal
growth and development. Besides its potential to cause endocrine
system and reproductive problems, perchlorate is considered a
“likely human carcinogen” by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Some 11 million Americans live in areas where
concentrations of perchlorate in public drinking water supplies are
significantly higher than what is considered safe.
Per the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA is currently
working on setting national standards for how much perchlorate can
be allowed in drinking water without putting people at risk. As part
of the process, the agency is studying the available science on the
health effects of perchlorate exposure and evaluating laboratory
methods for measuring, treating and removing perchlorate in drinking
water. The EPA will publish a proposed rule on the matter for public
review at some point in 2013.
“We are happy that the EPA is moving ahead with a drinking water
standard...but we are concerned that it won’t be strict enough,”
reports Renee Sharp of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group
(EWG). The group would like to see the
The only other state to have a drinking water standard for
perchlorate is
If the EPA develops a tough new standard, almost every state will
need to readjust its water monitoring systems to take into account
how much perchlorate is making its way to our taps and into the
foods we eat—a no doubt costly process but one that will greatly
benefit both current and future generations.
CONTACTS: Environmental
Working Group, www.ewg.org; EPA
Perchlorate Info,
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/unregulated/perchlorate.cfm.
Dear
EarthTalk: What is the scientific consensus on all
the extreme weather we’ve been having—from monster tornadoes to
massive floods and wildfires? Is there a clear connection to climate
change? And if so what are we doing to be prepared?
-- Jason Devine, Summit, PA
While most scientists don’t dispute the link between global warming
and extreme weather, the once skeptical public is now starting to
come around—especially following 2011, when floods, droughts, heat
waves and tornadoes took a heavy toll on the U.S. According to a
poll conducted by researchers at Yale University’s Project on
Climate Change Communication, four out of five Americans reported
personally experiencing one or more types of extreme weather or a
natural disaster in 2011, while more than a third were personally
harmed either a great deal or a moderate amount by one or more of
these events. And a large majority of Americans believe that global
warming made several high profile extreme weather events worse,
including record high summer temperatures nationwide, droughts in
Texas and Oklahoma, catastrophic Mississippi River flooding,
Hurricane Irene and an unusually warm winter.
The IPCC wants world leaders to err on the side of caution in
preparing their citizens for extreme weather events that will likely
become more frequent; earlier this year they released a report
entitled “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation” to help policymakers do
just that. The report is considered a must read in coastal, arid and
other especially vulnerable areas.
As for the U.S. government, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) tracks weather and storms, while the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deals with the impacts of extreme
weather and other disasters. But critics would like to see Congress
and the White House do more to increase Americans’ preparedness.
“The U.S. [in 2011] experienced a record fourteen weather-related
disasters each in excess of a billion dollars—and many more
disasters of lesser magnitudes,” reports the non-profit Climate
Science Watch (CSW). “Yet the U.S. has no national climate change
preparedness strategy; and Federal efforts to address the rising
risks have been undermined through budget cuts and other means.” CSW
and others are calling for the creation of a new cabinet-level
agency called the National Climate Service to oversee both climate
change mitigation as well as preparedness for increasingly extreme
weather events.
CONTACTS: IPCC report,
www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf;
Yale Project,
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Extreme-Weather-Climate-Preparedness.pdf;
FEMA, www.fema.gov; NOAA,
www.noaa.gov; Climate Science
Watch,
www.climatesciencewatch.org.
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear
EarthTalk: I’ve always suspected that perfumes and colognes must
not be too healthy simply because of the way the smell of most of
them bothers me. Am I correct? Is there information available on
this issue?
-- Lucinda Barry, Minneapolis, MN
Ahhh...the sweet smell of petrochemicals! The Environmental Working
Group (EWG) reports that, while many popular perfumes, colognes and
body sprays contain trace amounts of natural essences, they also
typically contain a dozen or more potentially hazardous synthetic
chemicals, some of which are derived from petroleum. To protect
trade secrets, makers are allowed to withhold fragrance ingredients,
so consumers can’t rely on labels to know what hazards may lurk
inside that new bottle of perfume.
“A rose may be a rose,” reports EWG. “But that rose-like fragrance
in your perfume may be something else entirely, concocted from any
number of the fragrance industry’s 3,100 stock chemical ingredients,
the blend of which is almost always kept hidden from the consumer.”
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of over 100 groups
seeking transparency about chemicals in cosmetics, commissioned
independent laboratory tests that revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17
leading fragrances. The top offenders?: American Eagle Seventy Seven
topped the list with 24, followed by Chanel Coco with 18 and Britney
Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio each with 17.
“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals
not listed on the label,” reports EWG, which analyzed the Campaign’s
data. “Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption
and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been
assessed for safety in personal care products.” EWG adds that some
of the undisclosed ingredients are chemicals “with troubling
hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human
tissues.” Examples include diethyl phthalate, a chemical found in 97
percent of Americans and linked to sperm damage in human
epidemiological studies, and musk ketone, which concentrates in
human fat tissue and breast milk.
EWG explains that ingredients not in a product’s “hidden fragrance
mixture” must be listed on the label, so makers disclose some
chemicals but “lump others together in the generic category of
‘fragrance’.”
EWG blames the U.S. government in part, pointing out that the Food
and Drug Administration “has not assessed the safety of the vast
majority” of secret chemicals used in spray-on products such as
fragrances. “Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in
the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, which requires
companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels but
explicitly exempts fragrance,” reports EWG. As such, the cosmetics
industry has kept the public in the dark about fragrance
ingredients, “even those that present potential health risks or
build up in people’s bodies.”
For more information, check out EWG’s May 2010 “Not So Sexy” report,
available on the group’s website. Also, EWG’s SkinDeep database
serves as an evolving source of information on the ingredients (and
their health risks) in thousands of cosmetics and related products
widely available on store shelves.
CONTACTS: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics,
www.safecosmetics.org;
EWG’s “Not So Sexy,”
www.ewg.org/notsosexy; Skin Deep,
www.ewg.org/skindeep.
Dear EarthTalk: I
understand that the use of antibiotics in raising farm animals is
threatening to make bacteria overall more resistant to antibiotics,
which has serious life and death implications for people. Can you
enlighten and advise what is being done about this?
-- Robert Gelb,
Most medical doctors would agree that antibiotic drugs—which stave
off bacterial infections from staph to salmonella to bacterial
pneumonia—are among the most important tools in modern medicine. But
public health advocates, environmentalists and even many doctors
worry that our society’s overuse and misuse of antibiotics is making
bacteria more resistant and thus limiting the effectiveness of these
lifesaving drugs.
Bacterial resistance to our antibiotics simply means longer, more
serious and more costly illnesses. The
While misuse of antibiotics for human health problems is definitely
a concern—those with a valid need for antibiotics who don’t finish
off their prescriptions, for example, could effectively help
bacteria develop resistance and make it stronger for when it infects
its next host—a larger issue is the misuse of antibiotics to treat
the common cold and flu and other viral infections which do not
involve bacteria. The more antibiotics we use willy-nilly, the
faster bacteria will develop resistance, rendering many of the drugs
modern medicine has come to rely on obsolete.
Of even greater concern is the preponderance of antibiotics used
down on the farm. “Antibiotics often are used on industrial farms
not only to treat sick animals but also to offset [the health
effects of] crowding and poor sanitation, as well as to spur animal
growth,” reports the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial
Farming. Indeed, researchers estimate that up to 70 percent of all
antibiotics sold in the
So what can we do to curtail the overuse and misuse of antibiotics?
For one, we should not prescribe or use antibiotics to (mis)treat
viral infections. Beyond being conscientious with our own bodies, we
should also urge farmers to reduce their use of these drugs. Pew and
other groups are trying to muster public support for the
Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA, H.R.
1549/S. 619), which if enacted would withdraw from food animal
production the routine use of seven classes of antibiotics vitally
important to human health unless animals are diseased or drug
companies can prove that their use does not harm human health.
Hundreds of groups, including the American Medical Association,
CONTACTS:
Dear EarthTalk:
Why don’t more states mandate deposits on beverage bottles as
incentives for people to return them? Most bottles I’ve seen only
list a few states on them.
-- Alan Wu, Cary, NC
So-called bottle bills, otherwise known
as container recycling laws, mandate that certain types of beverage
containers require a small deposit (usually five or ten cents) at
checkout beyond the price of the beverage itself. Customers can
return the empty containers later and reclaim their nickels and
dimes. The idea is to provide a financial incentive for consumers to
recycle and to force industry to re-use the raw materials.
According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a
California-based non-profit which encourages the collection and
recycling of packaging materials (and runs the website
BottleBill.org), the benefits of bottle bills include: supplying
recyclable materials for a high-demand market; conserving energy,
natural resources and landfill space; creating new businesses and
green jobs; and reducing waste disposal costs and litter. The 10
U.S. states that currently have container recycling laws recycle at
least 70 percent of their bottles and cans; this amounts to a
recycling rate 2.5 times higher than in states without bottle bills.
Beverage containers make up a whopping 5.6 percent of the overall
U.S. waste stream, so every bottle and can that gets recycled counts
toward freeing up landfill space. And CRI reports that beverage
containers account for some 20 percent of the greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from landfilling municipal solid waste and
replacing the wasted products with new ones made from virgin
feedstock. So by promoting more recycling, bottle bills indirectly
reduce our carbon footprints.
The 10 U.S. states with bottle bills are California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and
Vermont. Delaware’s legislature repealed its bottle bill after
almost three decades on the books last year as the state’s bottle
recycling rate had dropped to just 12 percent due to more and more
retailers refusing to deal with the hassle of accepting returned
containers. In place of its bottle bill, Delaware enacted a
$0.04/bottle recycling fee that will help defray the costs of
starting up a curbside recycling pickup system to service the entire
state.
“We are extremely disappointed they chose to repeal their law,
rather than enforce it,” reported CRI’s Susan Collins, adding that
the new fee places a burden on consumers only. “Consumers will be
subsidizing the producers and that is unfair.” CRI supports
“extended producer responsibility” where producers and consumers
together pay for the life cycle costs of product packaging.
Beyond Delaware, the main reason bottle bills haven’t caught on is
because of opposition to them by the beverage industry, which
doesn’t want to bear the costs of recycling and claims that the
extra nickel or dime on the initial cost of the beverage is enough
to turn potential customers away. The U.S. Public Interest Research
Group (USPIRG) found that the beverage industry and its
representatives spent about $14 million in campaign contributions
aimed at defeating a national bottle bill between 1989 and 1994.
Meanwhile, members of a Senate committee who voted against national
bottle bill legislation in 1992 received some 75 times more in
beverage-industry PAC money than those who voted in favor of the
bill.
CONTACTS:
Container Recycling Institute,
www.container-recycling.org;
USPIRG,
www.uspirg.org.
EarthTalk®
is written and edited
by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E
- The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com).
Send questions to:
earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free
Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear EarthTalk: Has
the use of E-ZPass and similar programs to facilitate faster highway
toll-paying cut down on traffic jams and therefore tailpipe
pollution? Why do we need tolls at all?
-- Dianne Comstock, New York, NY
Yes, E-ZPass and similar programs have been a boon to both
participating drivers and the environment by reducing or eliminating
idling and traffic back-ups at toll booths. Maybe that’s why 25 U.S.
states either participate in E-ZPass or have their own similar
systems (FasTrak in California, EXpressToll in Colorado, SunPass in
Florida, etc.) to speed up highway travel and reduce pollution.
A study conducted in 2000 to evaluate the New Jersey Turnpike
Authority ‘s E-ZPass electronic toll collection system found that
toll plaza delay had been reduced by about 85 percent overall for a
total savings of more than two million vehicle-hours per year.
Passenger car drivers saved a total of 1.8 million hours per year,
while truckers saved almost 300,000 hours. The system’s “reduced
queuing” decreased overall fuel consumption on the state’s turnpike
system by some 1.2 million gallons per year and cut emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—a key component of smog—by 0.35
tons per day.
Maryland’s Department of Transportation is about to take the concept
a step further by installing express toll lanes along the a
congested eight mile stretch of Interstate 95 north of Baltimore.
Once the project is complete, drivers will be able to either zip
through the express lanes to pay an electronically collected toll,
or save their money and instead suffer through the congestion in the
free, general-purpose lanes.
The toll amount will vary depending on the
time of day and traffic conditions and will be assessed
automatically via existing E-ZPass transponders or by photo capture
of drivers’ license plates. Unlike existing E-ZPass-type systems in
the U.S., there will be no penalty or fine for entering the express
toll lane without a transponder—a bill for the toll will just be
mailed to the address on file with the car’s registration. The new
cutting edge express toll lanes in Maryland should be operational by
2014.
Why do we need tolls at all? Their
original purpose was to raise funds for highway upkeep in a way that
places the burden on the users of the roads and not simply on local
taxpayers who may not even take to the highway or may do so only
minimally. After all, a large percentage of highway traffic is
trucks and other vehicles “just passing through,” often for
commercial purposes. And environmentalists saw tolls as a way to
discourage individual automobile usage, even make it unpleasant
enough to hasten the day that people would begin to embrace a
serious commitment to public transit. In that sense, it could be
argued that E-ZPass and similar systems, in making tolls more
bearable, could undermine the realization of that dream.
Given that the private automobile as our main mode of transportation is likely to be around for some time to come yet, it certainly behooves us to green up the experience as much as possible. With electric cars, plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles poised to come on strong in coming years, we certainly seem to be moving in that direction. But let’s not lose sight of the incredible benefits that public transportation could provide if we could just get our elected officials to pay it more than lip service.
CONTACTS: E-ZPass, www.ezpass.com; New Jersey Turnpike Authority, www.state.nj.us/turnpike; Maryland Department of Transportation, www.mdot.maryland.gov.
Dear EarthTalk:
What’s the latest research on the question of
whether cell phone
use causes cancer?
-- William Thigpen, via e-mail
Cell phones have only been in widespread use for a couple of
decades, which is far too short a time for us to know conclusively
whether or not using them could cause cancer. Research thus far
appears to indicate that most of us have little if anything to worry
about.
According to the federally funded National
Cancer Institute, the low-frequency electromagnetic radiation that
cell phones give off when we hold them up to our heads is
“non-ionizing,” meaning it cannot cause significant human tissue
heating or body temperature increases that could lead to direct
damage to cellular DNA. By contrast, X-rays consist of
high-frequency ionizing electromagnetic radiation and can lead to
the kind of cellular damage resulting in cancer. Nonetheless, some
cell phone users and researchers still worry about our cell phone
usage, given how much we now use them and how little we know about
their potential long-term effects.
The reason the issue keeps coming up is that some initial studies in
Europe, where cell phone usage caught on a decade before the U.S.,
showed links between some forms of tumors and heavy cell phone
usage. As a result, researchers teamed up to do a more definitive
study, called the “Interphone” study, across 13 countries between
2000 and 2004. The results, published in May 2010 in the
peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology,
indicated no increased risk of developing two of the most common
types of brain tumors, glioma and meningioma, from typical everyday
cell phone usage. Study participants who reported spending the most
time on their phones showed a slightly increased risk of developing
gliomas, but researchers considered this finding inconclusive due to
factors such as recall bias, whereby participants with brain tumors
may have simply remembered past cell phone use differently from
healthy respondents.
Researchers looking to get past the relatively short timing window
and the recall bias issues of the Interphone study recently launched
a longer term study, dubbed COSMOS (short for Cohort Study on Mobile
Communications), in Europe. Some 250,000 cell phone users between
the ages of 18 and 69 and located in Britain, Finland, the
Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark will participate by allowing
researchers to track their cell phone usage and health over three
decades. According to an April 22, 2010 article in Reuters,
the study will factor in the use of hands-free devices and how
people carry their phones and will also be on the lookout for links
to neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
There are some precautions you can take to minimize whatever risk
may exist. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) suggests
reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations, or for
times when a conventional phone isn’t available. Also, using a
hands-free device places more distance between the phone and your
head, significantly reducing the amount of radiation exposure. If
the fact that many states require hands-free devices for using a
cell phone while driving isn’t enough to make you go out and spend
the extra money on such an accessory, maybe the cancer risk,
perceived or real, will.
CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov;
INTERPHONE Study,
www.rfcom.ca/programs/interphone.shtml;
COSMOS Study,
www.ukcosmos.org,
FCC,
www.fcc.gov.
EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Most gold mining operations use cyanide to extract gold from surrounding rock. What are the environmental implications of this, and are there alternatives? -- J. Pelton, via e-mail
Although “cyanidation”—the use of a sodium cyanide compound to separate a precious metal from finely ground rock—has become less common in other forms of mining, it is still the dominant practice in gold mining. Some 90 percent of gold mines around the world employ cyanidation to harvest their loot.
“In gold mining, a diluted cyanide solution is sprayed on crushed ore that is placed in piles or mixed with ore in enclosed vats,” reports the State Environmental Resource Center (SERC), a project of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife. “The cyanide attaches to minute particles of gold to form a water-soluble, gold-cyanide compound from which the gold can be recovered.”
But of course not all the cyanide gets recovered. Some of it gets spilled, and some is left within mine waste that is often buried underground woefully close to groundwater, leaving neighbors and public health officials worried about its effects on drinking water and on surrounding ecosystems and local wildlife.
“Mining and regulatory documents often state that cyanide in water rapidly breaks down in the presence of sunlight into largely harmless substances, such as carbon dioxide and nitrate or ammonia,” reports Earthworks, a Washington, DC-based non-profit. “However, cyanide also tends to react readily with many other chemical elements and is known to form, at a minimum, hundreds of different compounds.” While many of these compounds are less toxic than the original cyanide, says Earthworks, they can still persist in the environment and accumulate in fish and plant tissues, wreaking havoc on up the food chain.
In 2000, a breach in a tailings (mining waste) dam at a gold mine in Baia Mare, Romania resulted in the release of 100,000 cubic meters of cyanide-rich waste into the surrounding watershed. Nearly all aquatic life in nearby waters died, while drinking water supplies were cut off for some 2.5 million people.
In the wake of this accident, gold miners around the world have been taking steps to deal with tailings in a safer manner, through the use of special systems designed to prevent cyanide or its breakdown compounds from escaping into the environment. But such precautions at present are only voluntary. Regulators in the U.S.—the third largest gold producer after South Africa and Australia—don’t require mine operators to monitor cyanide and its breakdown compounds in nearby groundwater and water bodies, so no one knows just how big a problem might be.
One promising alternative to using cyanide in gold mines is the Haber Gold Process, a non-toxic extraction system that tests have shown can result in more gold recovery over a shorter period than cyanidation. Another alternative is YES Technologies’ biocatalyzed leaching process which proponents say is 200 times less toxic than cyanide. But with cyanidation well-entrenched in the industry and regulators looking the other way, these alternatives face an uphill battle in gaining widespread adoption.
CONTACTS: State Environmental Resource Center (SERC), www.serconline.org; Earthworks, www.earthworksaction.org; Haber Gold Process, www.habercorp.com/index.php?id=23; YES Technologies’ Cyanide-free Biocatalyzed Leaching, yestech.com/tech/gold1.htm.
EarthTalk®
is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.Dear EarthTalk: I understand that mountaintop removal as a way of coal mining is incredibly destructive. Didn’t a report come out recently that named major banks that were funding this activity? -- Seth Jergens, New York, NY
Yes it’s true that many major banks invest
in companies that engage in the environmentally destructive practice
of mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining, whereby the tops of
mountains are removed by explosives to expose thin seams of
recoverable coal. The wasted earth and other materials are either
put back onto the mountain top in an approximation of their original
contours, wreaking havoc on local ecosystems and biodiversity, or
dumped into neighboring valleys, polluting lakes and streams and
jeopardizing water quality for humans and wildlife.
According
to the non-profit Rainforest Action Network (RAN), this
dumping—especially throughout Appalachia where MTR is most
prevalent—“undermines the objectives and requirements of the Clean
Water Act.” The group adds that some 2,000 miles of streams have
already been buried or contaminated in the region. “The mining
destroys Appalachian communities, the health of coalfield residents
and any hope for positive economic growth.”
This past April, RAN teamed up for the
second year in a row with another leading non-profit green group
concerned about MTR, the Sierra Club, in publishing a “report card”
reviewing 10 of the world’s largest banks in regard to their
financing of MTR coal mining projects. The new 2011 version of
“Policy and Practice” takes a look at the MTR-related financing
practices of Bank of America, CitiBank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche
Bank, GE Capital, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, PNC, UBS and Wells
Fargo.
What did they find? Since January 2010,
the 10 banks reviewed have provided upwards of $2.5 billion in loans
and bonds to companies practicing MTR. While some of the
banks—Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC, UBS, and Credit Suisse—adopted
policies limiting their financing of MTR, few actually pulled
funding in place from any such activities upon adopting such
policies. Citibank, despite announcing publicly in 2009 that
it would limit its involvement in MTR, doubled its investments in
the business in 2010.
RAN and the Sierra Club are also keeping a
close eye on UBS which, soon after stating that it “needs to be
satisfied that the client is committed to reduce over time its
exposure to [MTR],” went ahead and acted as a paid advisor on the
merger of Massey Energy, which operated the West Virginia mine where
29 men died last year, and Alpha Natural Resources. This merger
created the largest single MTR company in the country, now
responsible for some 25 percent of coal production from MTR mines.
The report card grades each bank based on its
current position and practice regarding MTR investments, and calls
on the banks to strengthen their policies and cease their financial
support for coal companies engaging in MTR. “The ‘best
practice’...is a clear exclusion policy on commercial lending and
investment banking services for all coal companies who practice
mountaintop removal coal extraction,” says RAN.
CONTACTS: Rainforest
Action Network,
www.ran.org;
Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org.
EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
I’m interested in getting a new tattoo, but recently found out that
red tattoo ink contains mercury. Is this true of other tattoo inks
as well? Are there any eco-friendly alternatives?
-- John P., Racine, WA
Helen Suh MacIntosh, a professor in environmental health at Harvard
University and a columnist for the website, Treehugger, reports that
as a result of a 2007 lawsuit brought by the American Environmental
Safety Institute (AESI), two of the leading tattoo ink manufacturers
must now place warning labels on their product containers, catalogs
and websites explaining that “inks contain many heavy metals,
including lead, arsenic and others” and that the ingredients have
been linked to cancer and birth defects.
Of course, exposure to mercury and other heavy metals is hardly the
only risk involved with getting a tattoo. The term tattoo itself
means to puncture the skin. Tattoo ink is placed via needles into
the dermis layer of the skin, where it remains permanently (although
some colors will fade over time). Some people have reported
sensitivity springing up even years after they first got their
tattoo; also, medical MRIs can cause tattoos to burn or sting as the
heavy metals in the ink are affected by the test’s magnetism.
Beyond the long term risks of walking around with heavy metals
injected into your body’s largest organ (the skin), getting a tattoo
in and of itself can be risky business. If the tattoo parlor’s
needles and equipment aren’t properly sterilized in an autoclave
between customers, you could be exposing yourself to hepatitis B or
C, tuberculosis, mycobacterium, syphilis, malaria, HIV or even
leprosy.
“The potential risk of infectious spread from tattooing
(particularly due to Hepatitis B) is high enough that it is a
practice that should be avoided by pregnant women to safeguard the
health of the baby [and that of the pregnant woman herself] whose
immune system is down regulated and is much more vulnerable to these
types of infection,” reports dermatologist Audrey Kunin, who runs
the popular Dermadoctor website. Dr. Kunin advises to be careful
about choosing a tattoo parlor: “Make sure the place is reputable,
perhaps check with the health department to see if there have been
past claims against the parlor in question if you still have
doubts.” She adds that since tattoos are essentially open wounds,
they must be cared for properly, especially in the first few weeks,
to stave off infection.
Those who want go ahead with getting a tattoo anyway despite the
risks should consider steering clear of colors derived from heavy
metals. Dr. Kunin reports that black might be the safest permanent
tattoo ink; it is often derived from a substance called carbon black
and rarely causes any kind of sensitivity issues. If your heart is
set on red in your tattoo, ask around to see if any tattoo parlors
in your area are willing to work with non-metallic organic pigments
that lend a red color such as carmine, scarlet lake, sandalwood or
brazilwood. There are non-metallic alternatives available for many
other popular tattoo ink shades, too.
CONTACTS:
Treehugger, www.treehugger.com; Dermadoctor,
www.dermadoctor.com.
EarthTalk®
is written and edited
by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E
- The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com).
Send questions to:
earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear EarthTalk:
The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to strip the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority over state
water quality. Why did they do this, what are the ramifications and
what do leading green groups have to say about it?
-- Joseph Emory, York, PA
“By second-guessing and inserting itself into the states’…standards
and permitting decisions, EPA has upset the long-standing balance
between federal and state partners in regulating the nation’s
waters, and undermined the system of cooperative federalism
established under the CWA in which the primary responsibilities for
water pollution control are allocated to the states,” says GOP.gov,
the website of the Republican majority in Congress. “EPA’s actions
have created an atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty for the
regulated community, and have had a chilling effect on the nation’s
economy and job creation.”
But those opposed to the bill, including the White House and many
Congressional Democrats, say that its provisions would undermine
stringent federal water quality protections some four decades in the
making.
“H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing
the Federal Government’s
authority to take action when State water quality standards are not
protective of public health,” said the White House after the bill
passed in the House by a count of 239-184. Such changes, they added,
could adversely impact public health and the environment through
increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that provide
drinking water, recreation and tourism opportunities, and habitat
for fish and wildlife.
For their part,
environmental groups couldn’t agree more. “Make no mistake: This
bill would take the environmental cop off the beat and put at risk
drinking water for millions of people, the habitat for scores of
wildlife, and the jobs and economic growth that depends on a safer,
cleaner environment,” said Larry Schweiger of the non-profit
National Wildlife Federation, adding that, if enacted, the bill
would take us “back to a time when rivers caught fire because of
rampant pollution.”
Environmentalists are optimistic that backers won’t have enough
Senate votes to pass the bill. Meanwhile, President Obama has
pledged to veto any such legislation that does make its way across
his desk. But political winds shift quickly inside the Beltway, and
only time will tell if the bill will gain enough support to
withstand a veto. The quality of the nation’s water supply hangs in
the balance.
CONTACTS:
H.R. 2018,
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2018;
U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov; GOP.gov, www.gop.gov; National Wildlife
Federation, www.nwf.org.
EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
I love to cook and when I have the time I make soups, stews and
pasta meals in large batches and freeze them. I use leftover
plastic containers, but I know this is not good. What kinds of
containers are safe for freezer food storage?
-- Kathy Roberto, via e-mail
Luckily though, many other materials are suitable for use as
freezer-safe storage containers, at least according to the National
Center for Home Food Preparation. To qualify as “freezer-safe,” the
Georgia-based non-profit maintains, food storage containers must
resist moisture-vapor, oil, grease and water as well as brittleness
and cracking at low temperatures, while being durable, leak-proof
and easy-to seal. They must also protect foods from absorption of
off-flavors or odors. “Good freezing materials include rigid
containers made of aluminum, glass, plastic, tin or heavily waxed
cardboard; bags and sheets of moisture-vapor resistant wraps; and
laminated papers made specially for freezing,” reports the group.
As to the leaking of unsafe constituent chemicals (BPA, phthalates,
etc.) from certain plastics into foods, freezing is generally less
of a threat than heating, but it is better to avoid plastics known
to be problematic anyway just to be safe. Polycarbonate plastic,
marked with #7, contains BPA while polyvinyl chloride, marked with
#3, contains potentially harmful phthalates. If a plastic item does
not bear a recycling number on its bottom, steer clear as it may
well be a mix, which classifies it as a #7 polycarbonate.
Of course, the majority of plastic containers designed for freezer
use are safe and, since they can be washed and reused, are a better
choice than disposable freezer bags and wraps. For those still leery
of using plastic at all, glass containers designed to withstand
large temperature extremes, such as Ball Freezing Jars (Mason jars)
or anything made by Pyrex—regular glass containers could break when
frozen or if thawed too quickly—can be a sensible alternative. Also,
beware of loading up glass containers to the brim before freezing;
some foods expand when frozen so leaving a little extra room between
the top of the food and the bottom of the (airtight) lid is always a
good idea.
However you store your frozen delicacies, keep in mind that freezing
food may inactivate microbes like bacteria and mold but may not
destroy them. According to dietician and author Elaine Magee on the
MedicineNet website, just thawing out frozen foods doesn’t
necessarily mean they are automatically safe to eat. Foods that
require cooking still require cooking for health’s sake after
thawing. Also, Magee recommends quickly labeling and dating any
foods you are freezing to facilitate purging of potentially spoiled
or tasteless food down the line.
CONTACTS:
National Center for Home Food Preparation,
www.uga.edu/nchfp/; Pyrex,
www.pyrex.com;
Ball,
www.freshpreserving.com;
MedicineNet,
www.medicinenet.com.
EarthTalk®
is written and edited by Roddy Scheer
and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of
E - The Environmental Magazine
(www.emagazine.com).
Send questions to:
earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe.
Free
Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear
EarthTalk: Instances of people with
thyroid problems seems to be on the rise. Is there an
environmental connection?
-- Dora Light, Waukesha, WI
The American Cancer Society reports that
thyroid cancer is one of the few cancers that have been on the rise
in recent decades, with cases increasing six percent annually since
1997. Many researchers, however, attribute these increases to our
having simply gotten better at detection. Regardless, exposures to
stress, radiation and pollutants have been known to increase a
person’s risk of developing thyroid problems.
Thyroid disease takes two primary forms.
Hyperthyroidism occurs when the thyroid produces too much of the T3
and T4 hormones that regulate metabolism. This can cause a racing
heart, weight loss, insomnia and other problems. In cases of
hypothyroidism, the body produces too few hormones, so we feel
fatigued and may gain weight, among other symptoms. According to the
American Thyroid Association (ATA), many people with thyroid
problems don’t realize it, as symptoms can be mistaken for other
problems or attributed to lack of sleep. Thyroid problems in
children can delay or impair neurological development.
Doctors are not sure why some people are prone to thyroid disease
while others aren’t, but genetics has much to do with it. One recent
UCLA study found that genetic background accounts for about 70
percent of the risk. However, researchers have begun to find links
between increased risk of thyroid disease and exposure to certain
chemicals, especially among women. “Pesticide
Use and Thyroid Disease among Women in the Agricultural Health Study,”
published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2002,
found that Iowa and North Carolina women married to men using such
pesticides as aldrin, DDT and lindane were at much higher risk of
developing thyroid disease than women in non-agricultural areas.
According to Dr. Whitney S. Goldner, lead researcher on the study,
12.5 percent of the 16,500 wives evaluated developed thyroid disease
compared to between one and eight percent in the general population.
It’s not just farm women who should worry.
Trace amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers most certainly
end up in some of the food we eat. The nonprofit
group Beyond Pesticides warns that some 60 percent of pesticides
used today have been shown to affect the thyroid gland’s production
of T3 and T4 hormones. Commercially available insecticides and
fungicides have also been implicated.
Likewise, some chemicals used in plastics
and flame retardants contain toxins shown to trigger thyroid
problems in those genetically predisposed. And a 2007 study at the
University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio found that
triclosan, an anti-bacterial agent found in everything from hand
soaps to facial tissues to toys—it’s present in the bloodstreams of
three out of every four Americans—could be causing some mothers’
thyroid glands to send signals to fetuses that may in turn
contribute to autism.
An increasing number of doctors now
believe that hypothyroidism could be precipitated by a dietary
deficiency in iodine, a trace element found in the thyroid’s T3 and
T4 hormones and essential in small amounts for good health. Besides
eating more seafood, switching to iodized salt and/or taking iodine
supplements can boost iodine intake without the need for
medications. But too much iodine is not healthy, so always consult
with your doctor before embarking on any new health or diet regimen.
CONTACTS:
ATA, www.thyroid.org; Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org.
EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: I
understand that, among mining’s other problems, like providing
climate-warming coal and endangering miners’ lives, it is also a
serious water polluter. Can you enlighten?
-- Richard Moeller, Salt Lake City, UT
Mining disasters have grabbed a lot of
headlines of late, but mines pose another insidious threat that
tends to get little press attention: pollution of the nearby
environment which, in turn, threatens the health of the people who
live nearby. Environmentalists are particularly concerned about
water pollution from mines.
Mining operations use large amounts of
fresh water to process recovered ore; the resulting mine effluent is
typically a stew of hazardous acid-generating sulphides, toxic heavy
metals, waste rock impoundments and water—and it is often deposited
nearby in large free-draining piles where it can pollute land and
water supplies for decades to come. When this waste water drains
into local streams and aquifers, it can kill living organisms and
render formerly pristine local waters unsafe to swim in or drink.
Increased soil erosion around mines also
leads to excessive sedimentation of nearby waterways. This reduces
the productivity of fisheries while limiting the availability of
irrigation sources.
“Mining by its nature consumes, diverts and can seriously pollute
water resources,” reports the nonprofit Safe Drinking Water
Foundation (SWDF). “…mining has become more mechanized and therefore
able to handle more rock and ore material than ever before,” reports
SWDF. “Therefore, mine waste has multiplied enormously.” The group
warns that “as mine technologies are developed to make it more
profitable to mine low grade ore, even more waste will be generated
in the future.”
Here in the U.S., increasing recognition of the water (and other
types of) pollution problems caused by various forms of mining led
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue much more
stringent guidelines in April 2010 regarding how and where mines on
American soil must dispose of waste.
In January 2011 the EPA got the opportunity to walk its talk when it
vetoed a permit that would have allowed the largest “mountaintop
removal” mining operation in the history of West Virginia coal
mining to go forward. Mountaintop removal is an aggressive form of
coal mining that strips a mountain bare of vegetation and then
blasts off the top of the mountain with explosives. It is the most
destructive and polluting form of mining. Environmentalists praised
the EPA for not only standing up to industry but also for saving
some 2,000 forested mountaintop acres and nearly seven miles of
riparian habitat while sparing surrounding communities from the
effects of polluted land and water.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have been pushing Congress to pass the
Clean Water Protection Act, a bill first introduced in 2009 that
aims to protect fresh water supplies from mining contamination by
sharply curtailing mountaintop removal. Green groups including
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Appalachian Voices and the Sierra
Club are lobbying Congress heavily to consider the bill sooner
rather than later.
CONTACTS: SDWF,
www.safewater.org; Appalachian Voices, www.appvoices.org;
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, www.kftc.org;
Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org.
EarthTalk® is written
and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered
trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine
(www.emagazine.com). Send questions to:
earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Free Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear EarthTalk:
A number of federal energy efficiency related tax incentives expired
at the end of 2010. Will any such programs remain in force and if
not, are there other ways to save money on green upgrades?
-- Jen Franklin,
Chicago, IL
It is true that some federal tax credits
for energy efficiency upgrades expired at the end of 2010, but there
is legislative effort afoot to extend some of those credits—and
there are plenty of other ways to defray the costs of turning over a
new green leaf or two this year and beyond.
One of the best known green federal tax incentives, the Residential
Energy Efficiency Tax Credit—which kicked in 30 percent of the cost
of household efficiency upgrades up to $1,500 on items including
water heaters, furnaces, heat pumps, central air conditioning
systems, insulation, windows, doors and roofs—is no longer available
as of January 1, 2011. However, some lawmakers are looking to extend
the credit. U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jeff Bingaman
(D-New Mexico) have drafted legislation calling for keeping the
program going, in a slightly revised form, for another two years.
“Residential energy efficiency has been
identified as the most effective strategy to enhance our energy
security and save money on energy bills,” says Snowe. “The
residential energy efficiency tax credits…have been key catalysts in
improving the energy efficiency of homes throughout the country
[and] have driven companies to produce the most advanced products
current technology allows…”
And if you were thinking you would save thousands of dollars on the
price of a Toyota Prius thanks to federal incentives, think again.
Federal tax credits also expired at the end of 2010 on the purchase
of hybrid gas-electric cars and trucks. However, if you want to roll
away in one of the sporty new all-electric cars, such as the Nissan
Leaf or Chevy Volt, you can now qualify for up to a $7,500
(depending on battery capacity) federal tax credit. The federal
government now also offers a tax credit for 10 percent (up to
$4,000) of the cost of a kit to convert an existing hybrid vehicle
into a plug-in hybrid.
All of these programs expire themselves at
the end of 2011. Whether or not new federal alternative fuel vehicle
incentives crop up for 2012—when many new ultra-efficient plug-in
hybrids from the likes of Toyota, Honda, Volvo and others are slated
for release—remains to be seen.
Regardless, many states have their own programs to encourage energy
efficiency. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) regularly updates its free online State Energy Efficiency
Policy Database, which makes accessing information on your state’s
energy efficiency programs, standards and “reward structures” as
easy as clicking on a map. Likewise, the Database of State
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE) is another free
online resource that lists state and federal incentives for buying
an alternative fuel car, greening up your home or otherwise
embracing energy efficiency. And the Energy Star website details
special offers and rebates from cities, towns, counties and
utilities on the purchase of appliances and equipment that meet
federal standards for energy efficiency.
CONTACTS: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency (DSIRE), www.dsireusa.org; ACEEE’s State Energy
Efficiency Policy Database, www.aceee.org/sector/state-policy;
Energy Star Special Offers and Rebates,
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=rebate.rebate_locator.
SEND YOUR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO:
EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine,
P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a
Free Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
Aren’t environmental issues primarily about health? Detractors like
to trivialize environmentalists as “tree huggers,” but the bottom
line is that pollution makes us sick, right? Wouldn’t people care
more if they had a better understanding of that?
-- Tim Douglas, Stowe, VT
No doubt many of the ways we harm our environment come back to haunt
us in the form of sickness and death. The realization that the
pesticide-laced foods we eat, the smokestack-befouled air we breathe
and the petrochemical-based products we use negatively affect our
quality of life is a big part of the reason so many people have
“gone green” in recent years.
Just following the news is enough to green anyone.
Scientific American reported in 2009
that a joint U.S./Swedish study looking into the effects of
household contaminants discovered that children who live in homes
with vinyl floors—which can emit hazardous chemicals called
phthalates—are twice as likely to develop signs of autism as kids in
other homes. Other studies have shown that women exposed to high
levels of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants
common in cushions, carpet padding and mattresses—97 percent of us
have detectable levels of these chemicals in our bloodstreams—are
more likely to have trouble getting pregnant and suffer from other
fertility issues as a result. Cheaply produced drywall made in China
can emit so much sulfur gas that it not only corrodes electrical
wiring but also causes breathing problems, bloody noses and
headaches for building occupants. The list goes on and on....
But perhaps trumping all of these examples is the potential
disastrous health effects of global warming. Carbon dioxide
emissions may not be directly responsible for health problems at or
near their point of release, but in aggregate they can cause lots of
distress. According to the Center for Health and the Global
Environment at Harvard Medical School, climate change over the
coming decades is likely to increase rates of allergies, asthma,
heart disease and cancer, among other illnesses. Also, it is quite
likely that, as global temperature rises, diseases that were
previously found only in warmer areas of the world may show up
increasingly in other, previously cooler areas, where people have
not yet developed natural defenses against them. And the loss of
rain forest that accompanies increases in temperature means less
access to undiscovered medicines and degradation of the
environment’s ability to sustain our species.
Given the link between environmental problems and human health, more
of us are realizing that what may seem like exorbitant up-front
costs for environmental clean-up may well pay us dividends in the
end when we see our overall health care costs go down and our loved
ones living longer, healthier lives.
To help bridge the understanding gap between environmental problems
and human health, the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences offers
the free website, Environmental Health
News, which features daily reports on
research showing how man-made environmental problems correspond to a
wide range of individual and public health problems. Even your local
TV station or newspaper likely carries an occasional story about the
health effects of environmental pollution. We don’t have to look
very hard to find examples of environmental neglect leading to human
suffering. But with newfound public awareness and the commitment of
younger generations to a cleaner future, we are moving in a good
direction.
CONTACTS:
Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment,
http://chge.med.harvard.edu;
Environmental Health News,
www.environmentalhealthnews.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO:
EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine,
P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a
Free Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear EarthTalk: What are the differences between farmed versus wild salmon when it comes to human and environmental health? -- Greg Diamond, Nashville, TN
Salmon farming, which involves raising salmon in containers placed under water near shore, began in Norway about 50 years ago and has since caught on in the U.S., Ireland, Canada, Chile and the United Kingdom. Due to the large decline in wild fish from over fishing, many experts see the farming of salmon and other fish as the future of the industry. On the flip side, many marine biologists and ocean advocates fear such a future, citing serious health and ecological implications with so-called “aquaculture.”
George Mateljan, founder of Health Valley Foods, says that farmed fish are “far inferior” to their wild counterparts. “Despite being much fattier, farmed fish provide less usable beneficial omega 3 fats than wild fish,” he says. Indeed, U.S. Department of Agriculture research bears out that the fat content of farmed salmon is 30-35 percent by weight while wild salmons’ fat content is some 20 percent lower, though with a protein content about 20 percent higher. And farm-raised fish contain higher amounts of pro-inflammatory omega 6 fats instead of the preponderance of healthier omega 3s found in wild fish.
“Due to the feedlot conditions of aquafarming, farm-raised fish are doused with antibiotics and exposed to more concentrated pesticides than their wild kin,” reports Mateljan. He adds that farmed salmon are given a salmon-colored dye in their feed “without which their flesh would be an unappetizing grey color.”
Some aquaculture proponents claim that fish farming eases pressure on wild fish populations, but most ocean advocates disagree. To wit, one National Academy of Sciences study found that sea lice from fish farming operations killed up to 95 percent of juvenile wild salmon migrating past them. And two other studies—one in western Canada and the other in England—found that farmed salmon accumulate more cancer-causing PCBs and dioxins than wild salmon due to pesticides circulating in the ocean that get absorbed by the sardines, anchovies and other fish that are ground up as feed for the fish farms. A recent survey of U.S. grocery stores found that farmed salmon typically contains 16 times the PCBs found in wild salmon; other studies in Canada, Ireland and Great Britain reached similar conclusions.
Another problem with fish farms is the liberal use of drugs and antibiotics to control bacterial outbreaks and parasites. These primarily synthetic chemicals spread out into marine ecosystems just from drifting in the water column as well as from fish feces. In addition, millions of farmed fish escape fish farms every year around the world and mix into wild populations, spreading contaminants and disease accordingly.
Ocean advocates would like to end fish farming and instead put resources into reviving wild fish populations. But given the size of the industry, improving conditions would be a start. Noted Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says that aquaculture operations could use fully enclosed systems that trap waste and do not allow farmed fish to escape into the wild ocean. As for what consumers can do, Suzuki recommends buying only wild-caught salmon and other fish. Whole Foods and other natural foods and high end grocers, as well as concerned restaurants, will stock wild salmon from Alaska and elsewhere.
CONTACTS: Health Valley Foods, www.healthvalley.com; USDA, www.usda.gov; David Suzuki Foundation, www.davidsuzuki.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been hearing about the great gas mileage for Volkswagens that use diesel fuel. But is it better for the environment to use diesel or unleaded gasoline? -- K. Cronk, Bay City, MI
In the past, diesel fuel was always considered dirtier than gasoline. But newer standards regulating sulfur content and improved technology in diesel engines have made diesel somewhat kinder to the environment. Many eco-advocates now tout diesel as a viable and preferable alternative to regular unleaded gasoline.
Where diesel fuel really shines over gasoline is improved fuel economy thanks to its higher “energy density”: Diesel contains more power per liter than gasoline. Today’s diesel engines have 20-40 percent better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts, which some say more than makes up for the fact that they also produce about 15 percent more greenhouse gases. This greater efficiency means that diesel engines emit less carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and fewer hydrocarbons than gasoline engines.
Diesel’s downside is that it emits larger amounts of nitrogen compounds and particulate matter (soot) that can cause respiratory problems and even cancer. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) attributes 70 percent of that state’s cancer risk from airborne toxins to soot from diesel cars and trucks. Nationwide, studies have shown a 26 percent mortality increase for those living in soot-polluted areas.
But diesel’s dark side is getting a little brighter, thanks to new technologies such as Mercedes-Benz’ BlueTEC system (now used in many VW, Audi and Chrysler diesel models) that filters particulates while improving overall engine performance. The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF), a trade association of carmakers, engine builders and petroleum distributors, reports that technologies now commonplace in new diesel engines reduce the tailpipe output of particulate matter by as much as 90 percent and nitrogen oxides by some 50 percent compared to diesel engines on the road just a decade ago.
“The industry has made significant strides in recent years to develop diesel systems that are cleaner and more efficient than ever before,” reports DTF. “Thanks to state-of-the-art engines, cleaner-burning fuels, effective emissions-control systems, and advancements in the fuel injection system, it would take 60 trucks sold today to equal the soot emissions of one 1988 truck.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data shows that airborne diesel particulate levels fell by more than 37 percent during the 1990s.
Meanwhile, continually improving fuel efficiency standards in the European Union (where the majority of new cars purchased in many member countries use diesel fuel) are forcing carmakers to design more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles around the world. After all, there’s no sense in designing better engines for one region with high standards and another for areas with less stringent rules. Another green benefit of diesel-powered engines is their ability to run on plant-derived biodiesel instead of petroleum-based diesel. And in the near future consumers may be able to shop for new diesel-electric hybrid cars now on the drawing boards of major automakers around the world. For now, consumers looking to buy a new or used car—diesel or otherwise—can see how different models stack up in regard to efficiency and emissions via the FuelEconomy.gov website, a joint effort of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.
CONTACTS: CARB, www.arb.ca.gov; Mercedes-Benz’ BlueTEC, www.mbusa.com/bluetec; Diesel Technology Forum, www.dieselforum.org; FuelEconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
Dear EarthTalk: Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like? -- Shelly Johansen, Fairbanks, AK
The short answer is…maybe. Critics of the health care industry postulate that our society’s quickness to test for disease may in fact be causing more of it, especially in the case of medical scans. To wit, the radiation dose from a typical CT scan (short for computed tomography and commonly known as a “cat scan”) is 600 times more powerful than the average chest x-ray.
A 2007 study by Dr. Amy Berrington de González of the National Cancer Institute projected that the 72 million CT scans conducted yearly in the U.S. (not including scans conducted after a cancer diagnosis or performed at the end of life) will likely cause some 29,000 cancers resulting in 15,000 deaths two to three decades later. Scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest and head were deemed most likely to cause cancer, and patients aged 35 to 54 were more likely to develop cancer as a result of CT scans than other age group.
Another study found that, among Americans who received CT scans, upwards of 20 percent had a false positive after one scan and 33 percent after two, meaning that such patients were getting huge doses of radiation without cause. And about seven percent of those patients underwent unnecessary invasive medical procedures following their misleading scans. CT scans are much more common today than in earlier decades, exacerbating the potential damage from false positives and excessive radiation exposure.
“Physicians and their patients cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public-health time bomb,” says Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at University of California-San Francisco. “To avoid unnecessarily increasing cancer incidence in future years, every clinician must carefully assess the expected benefits of each CT scan and fully inform his or her patients of the known risks of radiation.”
CT scans are not the only concern. Mammograms are now routine for women over 40 years old. But some studies suggest that these types of screenings may cause more cancers than they prevent. Because of this, the federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women not otherwise considered high risk for breast cancer wait until age 50 to begin getting mammograms—and then to get them every two years instead of annually. However, the American Cancer Society argues that such restraint would result in women dying unnecessarily from delaying screenings.
Women with a family history of breast cancer may be at greatest risk. Researchers from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands found that five or more x-rays—or any exposure to radiation—before the age of 20 for “high risk” women increased the likelihood of developing breast cancer later by a factor of two and a half.
Individuals should ask tough questions of their physicians to determine if and how much screening is absolutely necessary to look for suspected abnormalities. Our knowledge of the risks of radiation-based screenings will only help us to make more informed decisions about our health.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: What is happening with various programs initiated over the years in the U.S. to return to the wild certain animal species that had been endangered or threatened? And do environmentalists tend to be for or against such efforts? -- Susan Adams, Owl’s Head, ME
From the standpoint of species and ecosystem health, limited attempts at predator reintroduction in the United States have for the most part proven very successful. The gray wolf, extirpated by hunters in the Yellowstone region some 90 years ago, is now thriving there in the wake of a controversial reintroduction program initiated in 1995, when the National Park Service released 31 gray wolves into the park’s expansive backcountry. Today as many as 170 gray wolves roam the park and environs, while the elk population—which was denuding many iconic park landscapes in the absence of its chief predator—has fallen by half, in what many environmentalists see as a win-win scenario.
Other reintroduction efforts across the U.S. have also been successful. From the lynx in Colorado to the condor in California to the Black-footed ferret on the Plains, scientists are pleased with how well reintroduced species have taken to their new surroundings. As a result, many conservationists now view the reintroduction of iconic wildlife species as key to restoring otherwise degraded natural landscapes.
“When we kill off big cats, wolves and other wild hunters, we lose not only prominent species, but also the key ecological and evolutionary process of top-down regulation,” says the non-profit Rewilding Institute, adding that the recovery of large native carnivores should be the heart of any conservation strategy in areas where such predators have disappeared. “Wolves, cougars, lynx, wolverines, grizzly and black bears, jaguars, sea otters and other top carnivores need to be restored throughout North America in ecologically effective densities in their natural ranges where suitable habitat remains or can be restored.”
Not everyone is so bullish on wildlife reintroduction programs, despite their success. As for the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction, ranchers operating on private land outside park boundaries still complain about the threat of free-roaming wolves poaching their livestock. In response, the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife has implemented its Wolf Conservation Trust whereby donated funds are channeled toward paying ranchers fair market value for any stock lost to wolf predation. The group hopes the fund will “eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery” by shifting the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.
Some environmental advocates also oppose wildlife reintroductions. One argument is that people have “played God” enough and should stop tinkering even more with wildlife and ecosystems, especially given that the overall long-term impact is always uncertain. And some animal advocates dislike such strategies from a humanitarian perspective: “Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always stressful for them, and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs,” claims People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), adding that, when predators are reintroduced to an area where they have long been absent, prey species tend to scatter and “their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down.”
CONTACTS: The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), www.peta.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
When you look deep enough what do you see? Hubble Telescope saw...
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: If the ice caps are melting, what is happening to the salt content of the oceans? And might this contribute to weather patterns or cause other environmental problems? -- George Boyer, via e-mail
It’s true that the melting of the polar ice caps as a result of global warming is sending large amounts of freshwater into the world’s oceans. Environmentalists and many climate scientists fear that if the climate heats up fast enough and melts off the remaining polar ice rapidly, the influx of freshwater could disturb ocean currents enough to drastically change the weather on the land as well.
The Gulf Stream, a ribbon of ocean water that delivers heat from the tropics up to the North Atlantic, keeps northeastern U.S. and northwestern Europe weather much milder than other areas at the same latitude around the globe. In theory, less salt in the ocean could stall out the Gulf Stream and rob some of the world’s greatest civilization centers of their natural heating source, plunging the two continents into a cold snap that could last decades or longer—even as the rest of the globe warms around them.
The Gulf Stream keeps running because the warmer water travelling north is lighter than cold water, so it floats on top and keeps moving. As the current approaches the northern Atlantic and disgorges its heat, it grows denser and sinks, at which point it flows back to the south, crossing under the northbound Gulf Stream, until it reaches the tropics to start the cycle all over again. This cycle has allowed humans and other life forms to thrive across wide swaths of formerly frozen continents over thousands of years. But if too much dilution occurs, the water will get lighter, idling on top and stalling out the system.
"The melting of
the polar ice caps is sending large amounts of fresh water into the
world�s oceans. Many climate scientists fear that if the climate
heats up fast enough and melts off the remaining polar ice rapidly,
the influx of fresh water could stall out the Gulf Stream and rob
the northeastern U.S. and northwestern Europe of their natural
heating source, plunging the two continents into a cold snap that
could last decades or longer."
credit image to "Getty Images."
Some scientists worry that this grim future is fast approaching. Researchers from Britain's National Oceanography Center have noticed a marked slowing in the Gulf Stream since the late 1950s. They suspect that the increased release of Arctic and Greenland meltwater is to blame for overwhelming the cycle, and fear that more warming could plunge temperatures significantly lower across land masses known as some of the most hospitable places for humans to live.
Of course—not surprisingly—others have noted a contradictory trend: Some parts of the world’s oceans are getting saltier. Researchers from the UK’s Met Office and Reading University reported in a recent issue of the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters that warmer temperatures over southerly sections of the Atlantic Ocean have significantly increased evaporation and reduced rainfall from Africa to the Caribbean in recent years, concentrating salt in the water that’s left behind. In fact, the Atlantic in this region is about 0.5 percent saltier than it was four decades ago.
But given how little we really know about the future effects of our carbon loading of the atmosphere, calling these two trends contradictory might be premature—as the two regions of ocean interact with one another and are part of a larger whole. Looking instead at the big picture, it’s clear that climate change is already having a relatively large effect on the world’s oceans by fundamentally altering evaporation and precipitation cycles. Only time will tell how dramatic the results of these changes will be.
CONTACTS: National Oceanography Center, www.noc.soton.ac.uk; Met Office, www.metoffice.gov.uk; Geophysical Research Letters, www.agu.org/journals/gl/.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
I am very concerned about the amount of chlorine in
my tap water. I called my water company and they
said it is safe just let the tap run for awhile to
rid the smell of the chlorine. But that just gets
rid of the smell, perhaps, not the chlorine?
-- Anita Frigo, Milford, CT
Thousands of American municipalities add chlorine
to their drinking water to get rid of contaminants
like microbes, nitrates, arsenic and pesticides. But this
inexpensive and highly effective disinfectant has a
dark side. “Chlorine, added as an inexpensive and
effective drinking water disinfectant, is also a
known poison to the body,” says Vanessa Lausch of
filter manufacturer Aquasana. “It is certainly no
coincidence that chlorine gas was used with deadly
effectiveness as a weapon in the First World War.”
The gas would severely burn the lungs and other body
tissues when inhaled, and is no less powerful when
ingested by mouth.
Lausch adds that researchers have now linked chlorine in drinking water to higher incidences of bladder, rectal and breast cancers. Reportedly chlorine, once in water, interacts with organic compounds to create trihalomethanes (THMs)—which when ingested encourage the growth of free radicals that can destroy or damage vital cells in the body. “Because so much of the water we drink ends up in the bladder and/or rectum, ingestions of THMs in drinking water are particularly damaging to these organs,” says Lausch.
The link between chlorine and bladder and rectal cancers has long been known, but only recently have researchers found a link between common chlorine disinfectant and breast cancer, which affects one out of every eight American women. A recent study conducted in Hartford, Connecticut found that women with breast cancer have 50-60 percent higher levels of organochlorines (chlorine by-products) in their breast tissue than cancer-free women. But don't think that buying bottled water is any solution. Much of the bottled water for sale in the U.S. comes from public municipal water sources that are often treated with, you guessed it, chlorine. A few cities have switched over to other means of disinfecting their water supplies. Las Vegas, for example, has followed the lead of many European and Canadian cities in switching over to harmless ozone instead of chlorine to disinfect its municipal water supply. As for getting rid of the chlorine that your city or town adds to its drinking water on your own, theories abound. Some swear by the method of letting their water sit for 24 hours so that the chlorine in the glass or pitcher will off-gas. Letting the tap run for a while is not likely to remove any sizable portion of chlorine, unless one were to then let the water sit overnight before consuming it.
Of course, an easier way to get rid of chlorine from your tap water is by installing a carbon-based filter, which absorbs chlorine and other contaminants before they get into your glass or body. Tap-based filters from the likes of Paragon, Aquasana, Kenmore, Seagul and others remove most if not all of the chlorine in tap water, and are relatively inexpensive to boot. A more aggressive solution is to restructure your water for increased health benefits with a Kangen water machine.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk®is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Where do I recycle old ski boots (hard plastic)? My recycling center does not take hard plastic. -- Beth Fitzpatrick, Stamford, CT
Americans recycle more plastic than ever these days, but there are still plenty of items that are not accepted by municipalities, including many hard plastic items like ski boots.
If such items are still usable, consider donating them to a local Goodwill or Salvation Army store, which can sell them and put the money earned toward housing and feeding those less fortunate. Another option would be to sell or give them to a second-hand sporting goods store, which might even give you trade-in credit toward an upgrade. If you can’t find somewhere local, you can ship them to Colorado-based Boulder Ski Deals. The company accepts ski boots (along with skis, bindings, poles and snowboards) for recycling, donating usable equipment to charitable programs and shredding the rest for re-use in making new products.
The fact that it is so difficult to recycle hard plastic items is a growing issue as we all try to minimize our impact on the environment. Everyone involved with the lifecycle of a given item—from manufacturer to retailer to consumer—can share the blame when something ends up taking up precious space in a landfill instead of being recycled in one way or another. Concerned consumers should make sure that a given item is easy to recycle when its usefulness runs its course before buying it in the first place. It also can’t hurt to let a manufacturer know that you didn’t purchase a given product because it didn’t meet your recyclability standards. Manufacturers want to make products that people will buy and such feedback can go a long way to getting them to re-think their practices.
Likewise, municipalities need to hear from residents if there is a need to expand the types of items accepted for recycling. If enough people are willing to recycle a certain type of item, it may be worthwhile for the municipality to expand capacity and move into new markets.
The good news is that there are plenty of firms that are happy to take back otherwise difficult-to-recycle stuff. The non-profit Earth911 offers up a free searchable online database of different types of recyclers keyed to the user’s zip code anywhere across the United States. If no local provider comes up, the site will refer users to a place that accepts shipped items. Another good resource is the consulting firm Eco-Officiency’s concise yet comprehensive online list of companies around the country that accept different types of hard plastic and other hard-to-recycle items.
Consumers should keep in mind that they may have to pay for the privilege of recycling certain items, as well as shipping costs. If you can swing it, think of it as a tax for buying something less friendly to the environment. Maybe next time you’ll look for one made out of easier-to-recycle materials.
CONTACTS: Boulder Ski Deals, www.boulderskideals.com; Earth911, www.earth911.org; Eco-Officiency’s Recycling and Donation Resources, www.eco-officiency.com/resources_recycling.html.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk® From the
Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Haiti
Aftermath Concerns
Dear EarthTalk:
What are the primary environmental
concerns in the aftermath of the big
earthquake in Haiti?
-- Frank Dover, Portland, OR
As would be the case after any natural disaster, water-borne illness could run rampant and chemicals and oil could leak out of damaged storage facilities as a result of the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that ripped apart Haiti on January 12. Surprisingly, no large industrial spills have been found during initial post-quake rescue efforts, but of course the focus has been on saving human lives and restoring civil order. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the biggest issue is the building waste; some 40 to 50 percent of the buildings fell in Port-au-Prince and nearby towns. “Thousands of buildings suddenly become debris and this overwhelms the capacity of waste management,” says UNEP’s Muralee Thummarukudy, who is directing efforts to collect the waste for use in reconstruction projects.
Even before the quake Haiti had major environmental problems. Intensive logging beginning in the 1950s reduced Haiti’s forest cover from 60 percent to less than two percent today. This lack of trees causes huge soil erosion problems, threatening both food and clean water sources for throngs of hungry and thirsty people. “If you have forest cover, when heavy rain takes place it doesn’t erode the land,” UNEP’s Asif Zaidi reports. “It doesn’t result in flash floods.” He adds that, due to its lack of forest cover, Haiti suffers much more during hurricanes than does the neighboring Dominican Republic. "Even before the earthquake Haiti had major environmental and economic problems. Intensive logging beginning in the 1950s has reduced Haiti's forest cover from 60 percent to less than two percent today. This lack of trees causes huge soil erosion problems, threatening both food and clean water sources for throngs of hungry and thirsty people. The earthquake has only exacerbated problems in this country of 9.7 million people that is the poorest in the Western hemisphere." Photo credit "Remi Kaupp, Wikipedia."
Compounding these ecological insults is Haiti’s fast growing population, now 9.7 million and growing by 2.5 percent per year. This has pushed millions of Haitians into marginal areas like floodplains and on land that could otherwise be used profitably. “Most fertile land areas are often used for slums, while hillsides and steep landscapes are used for agriculture,” reports USAID’s Beth Cypser. The resulting sanitation problems have stepped up cases of dysentery, malaria and drug-resistant tuberculosis among Haiti’s poverty-stricken population. Trash-filled beaches, smelly waterways, swarms of dead fish and tons of floating debris stand testament to Haiti’s water pollution problems—now exacerbated by the earthquake.
“We need to…create mechanisms that reinforce better use of natural resources," says UNEP’s Zaidi. Prior to the quake, UNEP had committed to a two-year project to bolster to restore Haiti’s forests, coral reefs and other natural systems compromised by the island’s economic problems. Providing access to propane to encourage a shift from charcoal-burning stoves is an immediate goal. Longer term, UNEP hopes the program will help kick-start reforestation efforts and investments in renewable energy infrastructure there.
Perhaps the silver lining of the earthquake in Haiti is the fact that millions of people around the world now know about the plight of the country’s people and environment, and donations have started to pour in. Anyone interested in helping relief efforts in Haiti can send a text message triggering a small donation to the American Red Cross (text “HAITI” to 90999 and $10 will be donated and added to your next phone bill). Those concerned about clean water specifically should donate to World Water Relief, a non-profit focusing on the installation of water filtration systems in Haiti and other distressed areas of the world.
CONTACTS: USAID, www.usaid.gov; UNEP, www.unep.org; American Red Cross, www.redcross.org; World Water Relief, www.worldwaterrelief.org. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
I’ve read that human breast milk contains toxins
from pollution and other causes. How serious is this
and what affect will it have on my baby?
-- Skylar S., New York, NY
Researchers have found that those of us living in developed countries—men, women and children alike—carry around quite a toxic burden in our bodies from the constant exposure to various chemicals in our urban, suburban and even rural environments. If this weren’t alarming enough, the fact that these chemicals end up in breast milk and are in turn passed along to newborns is even more troubling.
According to writer Florence Williams, whose groundbreaking 2005 article in the New York Times Magazine opened many women’s eyes to the environmental health issues with breastfeeding, breast milk tends to attract heavy metals and other contaminants due to its high-fat and protein content. “When we nurse our babies, we feed them not only the fats, sugars and proteins that fire their immune systems, metabolisms and cerebral synapses,” she reports. “We also feed them, albeit in minuscule amounts, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids, wood preservatives, toilet deodorizers, cosmetic additives, gasoline byproducts, rocket fuel, termite poisons, fungicides and flame retardants.”
In the wake of such kinds of news reports, four nursing mothers came together in 2005 to form Make Our Milk Safe (MOMS), a nonprofit engaging in education, advocacy and corporate campaigns to try to eliminate toxic chemicals from the environment and in breast milk. The group educates pregnant women and others about the impacts on children of exposure to chemicals before, during and after pregnancy, and promotes safer alternatives to products such as cleaning supplies, food storage containers and personal care products that contain offending substances. Photos Getty Images
“Along with its antibodies, enzymes and general goodness, breast milk also contains dozens of compounds that have been linked to negative health effects,” reports MOMS, which lists Bisphenol-A (BPA, a plastic component), PBDEs (used in flame retardants), perchlorate (used in rocket fuel), perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs, used in floor cleaners and non-stick pans), phthalates (used in plastics), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, commonly known as vinyl) and the heavy metals cadmium, lead and mercury as leading offenders.
Despite these concerns, some recent research has shown the toxic load in breast milk to be smaller than that in the air most city dwellers breathe inside their homes. Researchers from Ohio State and Johns Hopkins universities measured levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breast milk and in the air inside the homes of three lactating Baltimore mothers, finding that a nursing infant’s chemical exposure from airborne pollutants to be between 25 and 135 times higher than from drinking mother’s milk.
“We ought to focus our efforts on reducing the indoor air sources of these compounds,” said Johns Hopkins’ Sungroul Kim, the study’s lead author. He concurs with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many other public health experts that, despite breast milk’s vulnerability to chemical contamination, the benefits of breast feeding—from the nutrition and important enzymes and antibodies it supplies to the mother/child bonding it provides—far outweigh the risks.
CONTACTS: MOMS, www.safemilk.org; Study: Volatile Organic Compounds in Human Milk, www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es062362y; CDC, www.cdc.gov.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk:
I am very concerned about the amount of chlorine in
my tap water. I called my water company and they
said it is safe just let the tap run for awhile to
rid the smell of the chlorine. But that just gets
rid of the smell, perhaps, not the chlorine?
-- Anita Frigo, Milford, CT
Thousands of American municipalities add chlorine
to their drinking water to get rid of contaminants
like microbes, nitrates, arsenic and pesticides. But this
inexpensive and highly effective disinfectant has a
dark side. “Chlorine, added as an inexpensive and
effective drinking water disinfectant, is also a
known poison to the body,” says Vanessa Lausch of
filter manufacturer Aquasana. “It is certainly no
coincidence that chlorine gas was used with deadly
effectiveness as a weapon in the First World War.”
The gas would severely burn the lungs and other body
tissues when inhaled, and is no less powerful when
ingested by mouth.
Lausch adds that researchers have now linked chlorine in drinking water to higher incidences of bladder, rectal and breast cancers. Reportedly chlorine, once in water, interacts with organic compounds to create trihalomethanes (THMs)—which when ingested encourage the growth of free radicals that can destroy or damage vital cells in the body. “Because so much of the water we drink ends up in the bladder and/or rectum, ingestions of THMs in drinking water are particularly damaging to these organs,” says Lausch.
The link between chlorine and bladder and rectal cancers has long been known, but only recently have researchers found a link between common chlorine disinfectant and breast cancer, which affects one out of every eight American women. A recent study conducted in Hartford, Connecticut found that women with breast cancer have 50-60 percent higher levels of organochlorines (chlorine by-products) in their breast tissue than cancer-free women. But don't think that buying bottled water is any solution. Much of the bottled water for sale in the U.S. comes from public municipal water sources that are often treated with, you guessed it, chlorine. A few cities have switched over to other means of disinfecting their water supplies. Las Vegas, for example, has followed the lead of many European and Canadian cities in switching over to harmless ozone instead of chlorine to disinfect its municipal water supply. As for getting rid of the chlorine that your city or town adds to its drinking water on your own, theories abound. Some swear by the method of letting their water sit for 24 hours so that the chlorine in the glass or pitcher will off-gas. Letting the tap run for a while is not likely to remove any sizable portion of chlorine, unless one were to then let the water sit overnight before consuming it.
Of course, an easier way to get rid of chlorine from your tap water is by installing a carbon-based filter, which absorbs chlorine and other contaminants before they get into your glass or body. Tap-based filters from the likes of Paragon, Aquasana, Kenmore, Seagul and others remove most if not all of the chlorine in tap water, and are relatively inexpensive to boot. A more aggressive solution is to restructure your water for increased health benefits with a Kangen water machine. Editors
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk®is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
EarthTalk®
is written and edited by
Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a
registered trademark of E - The
Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com).
Send questions to:
earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Subscribe:
www.emagazine.com/subscribe.
Free
Trial Issue:
www.emagazine.com/trial.