|
 |
|
Coordinated nationally by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health |
To join the Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment (PCHE) and receive this bulletin, please complete the form at http://www.partnersforchildren.org/members.html#member.
May 31 - June 3, 2006
Minneapolis, Minnesota
With the remarkable expansion of interest and investment in community-campus partnerships, the time is right to take a critical look at these partnerships in all of their iterations and ask (and answer) key questions about where we are now, where we are going and where we need to be. Community-Campus Partnerships for Health's 9th conference promises to address these questions and more as we create a vision for the future of community-campus partnerships as a strategy for social justice: How do we fully realize authentic partnerships between communities and higher educational institutions? How do we balance power and share resources among partners? How do we build community and campus capacity to engage each other as partners? How do we create healthier communities through partnerships? What are the barriers and challenges getting in our way? How do we overcome these, individually and collectively? How do we translate "principles" and "best practices" into widespread, expected practice?
Website: http://www.ccph.info
June 9 - 11, 2006
Baltimore, Maryland
Join with groups across America who are applying the precautionary approach to environmental hazards by shifting the focus to "how can we prevent harm?", instead of asking "what level of harm is acceptable?" This national event will bring together people working on conservation, disease prevention, environmental justice, environmental health, green purchasing, precautionary business practices, toxic and nuclear pollution prevention, worker safety and more to build a stronger movement to protect our health and environment. The conference will include sessions on 1) model policies and successful campaigns from Europe and U.S. national, state and local initiatives; 2) precautionary tools like assessments of safer alternatives and full cost-accounting on pollution's hidden costs; 3) crafting effective messaging, countering the critics and building a broader movement for precaution; 4) collaborative opportunities, with sessions on water, land use and ecosystems, trade, energy, and a cross-fertilization session with groups working on children's health, environmental justice, health professionals, chemical, nuclear and pesticide reforms; and 5) skills trainings on organizing, campaign strategies, media outreach, partnering with tribes and more.
Website: http://www.besafenet.com/
Contact: Anne Rabe, CHEJ, 518-732-4538 or annerabe@msn.com
June 13 - 17, 2006
Siena, Italy
At Footprint Forum 2006 you will have the opportunity to 1) learn about practical tools developed by ecological footprint practitioners; 2) hear leaders from Europe, Asia, the US, and Australia share about the results they are achieving in their communities and companies; 3) receive basic and advanced training in the application of the ecological Footprint; 4) be inspired by our keynote speakers including Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director, European Environment Agency; Simon Upton, Chair of the OECD Roundtable on Sustainable Development; Mick Bourke, Chair of EPA Victoria, and more; and 5) participate in Global Footprint Network's partner meeting to develop our strategy for the next 5 years. The highlight of the public forum will be a free public conference in Siena on Friday, June 16th.
Website: http://www.footprintforum.org/
Contact: Carrie Wynkoop, 503-307-5604 or carrie@mandatemedia.com
by Carl Campanile, New York Post
May 30, 2006
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/69293.htm
Children exposed to high levels of city air pollution while in the womb are nearly three times more likely to have mental deficiencies than other kids, an explosive Columbia University study has found. The analysis compared the learning ability of 183 3-year-olds from Harlem, Washington Heights and the South Bronx with the level of pollutants they were exposed to before birth. The moms wore air monitors while they were pregnant, and the kids are being studied over a number of years.
The study found that 42 kids exposed to the highest readings of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in utero -- mostly exhaust fumes from cars, buses and trucks, as well as power generators -- scored 5.7 points lower on cognitive tests than did kids in the sample who were subjected to lower levels of pollutants. The scores were 6 percent lower than the other kids -- but that means the risk of being developmentally disabled for the most-exposed 3-year-olds was 2.9 times greater, because the kids tended to fall below a crucial cutoff score.
Such delays in cognitive development could lead to academic difficulties in literacy and math when the youngsters attend school, the study authors claim. The researchers said the findings were groundbreaking because they were unaware of any other inquiry linking exposure of pollutants in the womb to the mental development of kids several years later. Prior studies have shown that pollutants can reduce fetal growth.
In-utero exposure to pollutants did not have a significant impact on mental development at ages 1 and 2, the report said, and researchers do not know why it took time for the problems to appear. "This is the first time it's been shown that in-utero exposure to air pollutants is linked to delayed cognitive development at age 3," said chief researcher Dr. Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia University Center for Children's Environmental Health. "They had a significant drop in scores." She added, "These findings are of concern, because compromised mental performance in the preschool years is an important precursor to subsequent educational performance deficits.
The researchers said they enrolled the affected children in state preschool "intervention" programs to help correct the developmental delays they had found. The Columbia study focused on moms and kids in neighborhoods surrounding the university, and most of the participants were black and Latino. But Perera said the results were consistent across the race and gender of the kids.
Environmental advocates have long complained that kids in these neighborhoods suffer from higher rates of asthma because of air pollutants caused by bus and truck traffic. But Perera said the type of urban air pollutants cited in the study are "very pervasive" throughout much of the city.
The mothers who participated in the study were nonsmokers, and the researchers controlled for secondhand smoke. The moms carried air monitors during the third trimester of pregnancy. Umbilical-cord blood was also collected during delivery, to be tested for pollutants.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
May 29,2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060529.chemicals-nonstick29/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Teflon and Scotchgard are among the best-known brand names in the world, and have been used in billions of dollars of non-stick and stain-resistant consumer products. Their use is so widespread, there probably isn't a person in North America who hasn't eaten a meal cooked on a non-stick pan, worn stain-resistant or water-repellant clothing, or had fast food served on a greaseproof wrapper. But after nearly five decades of extensive consumer and industrial use, some of the chemicals behind the popular brand names have been linked to cancers and even deaths in laboratory animals, and Environment Canada is concerned about their impact on wildlife.
Some environmental groups are comparing the chemicals to DDT, the pesticide that was the poster child for the environmental movement during the 1960s before it was banned. But while DDT eventually breaks down into less-harmful substances, these new chemicals don't appear to degrade under any known biological process. "A good way to think about it is as the DDT of this millennium," said Richard Wiles, vice-president of Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental organization that was one of the first to question the safety of the chemicals. "The fact that they last forever really raises the stakes. Even DDT goes away after decades or centuries."
DuPont Co. said its Teflon frying pans and other kitchenware are safe if used properly. Health Canada says human exposures to the chemicals aren't high enough to be a concern. "When you're using the cookware as it's intended to be used, at the temperatures it's intended to be used, it's perfectly safe," said David Boothe, DuPont's global manager for such products as Teflon.
The chemicals are part of a broad family of substances known as perfluorochemicals, which use the elements fluorine and carbon to make non-stick and stain-resistant coatings. Perfluorochemicals have a molecular structure that prevents them from mixing well with water or oil, which is why they are so useful in making such consumer items as French fry wrappers that stop grease and raincoats that shed water. Scientists in the United States have zeroed in on two members of this chemical family as particularly worrisome: perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA for short, and perfluorooctanyl sulfonate, or PFOS. They have been used to make some of the world's most-famous brand names, including Teflon and Scotchgard.
Environment Canada has concluded that PFOS levels have reached such high levels in animals like polar bears, which have been found to have more than 4,000 parts per billion in their livers, that they "could be harmed by current exposures." Environmentalists say Health Canada did not use the same conservative safety protocol that Environment Canada applied to animals. Using Environment Canada's approach to polar bears, adults and children in Canada would have been deemed to have had excessive exposures and would need to have lower levels to be certain that no health problems are occurring.
Some environmentalists contend that the differing approaches have caused a situation in which chemical safety calculations for wildlife are far more rigorous than those for humans. "The assessments are more protective of polar bears than human children," said Rich Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a Toronto activist organization.
In an ironic turn for chemicals that are used to make non-stick products, both PFOS and PFOA have been found to have an extreme affinity to stick to living things and, once absorbed, are incredibly hard to shed, often taking decades to be excreted. "We've never seen them degrade under any relevant environmental conditions," said Scott Mabury, a chemistry professor at the University of Toronto. "I often say they redefine persistence as we know it."
The chemicals are found in nearly all North Americans and in almost every wildlife species scientists have tested. Health Canada scientists checking PFOS levels in humans found them in every one of 56 Canadian volunteers tested, according to a paper published in 2004. Because the chemicals aren't made in Canada, the widespread human exposure suggests that small amounts of PFOS are breaking off of consumer goods and being absorbed by people and animals, although scientists don't know exactly how this is occurring.
The first public inkling that the chemicals might pose a danger emerged in May of 2000, when 3M unexpectedly announced that after 40 years of production, it was phasing out PFOS, used in Scotchgard, its well-known stain and water repellant. The company also said it would stop making PFOA, which has a similar chemical structure and is also used to make non-stick, stain-resistant coatings. In explaining the action, 3M said it was because PFOS was starting to be found in the environment at low levels. Nonetheless, it said its products were safe and that "all existing scientific knowledge" indicated exposure at the levels being detected wasn't an environmental or human health hazard.
Mr. Wiles's group began studying perfluorochemicals after 3M's announcement. "It just seemed to us not plausible that a company would drop its signature product or chemical, if there weren't a really big problem right in plain sight," Mr. Wiles said.
The same day 3M made its announcement, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency quietly notified Environment Canada and other governments around the world that the company acted because PFOS "appears to combine persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree." Bioaccumulation is the tendency for harmful chemicals to become more concentrated in living things higher up on the food chain.
The EPA notice was based in part on laboratory tests, conducted for 3M, that indicated the chemical killed some rat pups born to mothers that were themselves exposed in utero. The EPA noted that "it is very unusual to see such second-generation effects," which suggest that exposures are more dangerous during fetal development than they are to adults. The effects had been generated by relatively small daily doses -- about half a part per million, or the equivalent of a half kernel of corn in about 10 bushel baskets filled with the grain.
In January, the EPA announced an agreement with DuPont Co. and seven other companies to cut PFOA emissions from their plants and products by 95 per cent by 2010, and work toward complete elimination by 2015. Shortly after this announcement, an EPA panel determined that PFOA was a likely human carcinogen, although earlier testing had found that it also had multiple-generation effects in rats, with pups of exposed mothers being "found dead or presumed cannibalized," according to one study sponsored by 3M. This study is part of a growing body of research conducted by scientists around the world. Eleven studies have shown that PFOA or related chemicals damage the thyroid gland. Another five studies have shown that PFOA alters male reproductive hormones. Animal tests have also linked it to breast, testicular, liver and pancreatic cancers or tumours.
Among its many uses, PFOA is a processing aid involved in making Teflon, although DuPont has taken pains to publicize to consumers that pots and pans coated with its well-known product don't contain the chemical. However, DuPont faces a class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. Federal Court in Des Moines, Iowa, alleging that Teflon cookware releases PFOA and other harmful chemicals if heated to high temperatures. Pans would have to be left on an element at high heat for about four or five minutes to reach 680 degrees F, the temperatures cited for adverse effects in the lawsuit. That's about three times higher than the temperature at which water boils and is a level at which food would be charred.
For environmentalists, the corporate efforts to phase out PFOA and the ending of PFOS production are viewed as a sign of the dangers the chemicals posed. "It is hugely significant that industry agreed to do this," Mr. Wiles said. "They don't agree to do things like this unless they recognized there was a huge environmental and public health problem with these chemicals."
Environment Canada hasn't taken action against PFOS because 3M has agreed to drop the chemical, although it has placed a temporary import prohibition on four newly developed varieties of stain-resistant coatings, known as fluorotelomers, that it feared could break down into PFOA and related compounds. The government also plans to impose reductions on PFOA along the lines of the EPA agreement, with an announcement expected as early as next month.
Citing commercial confidentiality, Environment Canada would not identify the companies whose chemicals have been banned from entering the country, other than to say they are among the eight manufacturers covered by the EPA's agreement on PFOA. DuPont makes two of the fluorotelomers, which are available for use in the United States.
Canadian regulators didn't catch PFOS and PFOA as possible hazards because they were grandfathered from in-depth safety assessments when the country adopted comprehensive pollution legislation in 1988. The law exempted chemicals then in use from detailed safety reviews, although it placed more scrutiny on new substances. The chemicals escaped scrutiny in the United States because of similar regulatory gaps. "These chemicals were missed," said Derek Muir, an Environment Canada research scientist. "That was a mistake." Canada is trying to close this regulatory loophole under a requirement that all 23,000 grandfathered chemicals be given at least a preliminary evaluation to see whether they need further study, although this process won't be completed until later this year.
The widespread release of the perfluorochemicals wasn't detected in the 1970s when DDT, PCBs and other contaminants were banned because the sophisticated scientific equipment needed to find them in the environment wasn't widely available until the mid-1990s. Since at least 1979, 3M had known that PFOS was in the tissues of production workers, but this wasn't widely known outside of the corporation.
Although average levels of the contaminants in most people are still low, part of the population has been found to have exposures that are many times higher. For an unknown reason, levels in children can be higher than in adults. Some U.S. children with the highest blood levels of PFOA overlap with the levels seen to have caused such effects as low birth weight and decreased growth in animals, according to an evaluation by the Environmental Working Group. "The fact is that while we don't know all that we should know, what we do know is troubling," Tim Cropp, a toxicologist at the EWG, said.
by Tom Pelton, Baltimore Sun
May 28, 2006
Excerpted here. For the full article, please see http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.mde28may28,0,5177326.story
Maryland environmental officials have for years been ignoring most air pollution violations at the state's dirtiest power plants -- and have become even less aggressive about imposing penalties under the Ehrlich administration, an investigation by The Sun has found. A review of thousands of pages of emission reports for the state's seven oldest coal-fired power plants revealed numerous pollution violations over the past six years that have drawn no penalties. The newspaper examined these plants because they're the state's largest individual sources of air pollution and the only facilities subject to a new state emission-control law passed this spring.
The Maryland Department of the Environment issued fines totaling just $350,000 against these plants during the final three years of the administration of Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat, state records show. The agency imposed no financial penalties against them during the first three years under Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican. No penalties were assessed from January 2003 though December 2005, though four of the plants were spewing more pollution.
In March, after the newspaper started asking questions about the lack of enforcement, the administration assessed its first fine against one of the plants, for $20,000. "This is a total failure to enforce the Clean Air Act," Bruce Buckheit, a former director of air enforcement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said when shown records detailing 8,833 unpunished violations at a Prince George's County plant since Jan. 1, 2003. Eric Schaeffer, another former EPA official who is now an environmental activist, decried the lax enforcement in Maryland stretching back years. "Weak enforcement has gotten weaker under Governor Ehrlich," Schaeffer said. "These power companies are breaking the law, and they really should pay because they make a lot of money."
Tad Aburn, a 22-year veteran of the MDE's air division who has worked in both administrations and was recently named director, said in a written statement that his agency is doing more than ever to clean up the air but "strives to achieve a fair and balanced enforcement approach." "Not every exceedence or violation warrants an enforcement action," Aburn wrote. "It is not unusual for the number of violations, enforcement actions, etc. to fluctuate year to year."
Beyond the failure to vigorously enforce the terms of power plant permits, Maryland under both administrations has failed to issue stronger new permits for two of the state's worst polluters. A 1990 federal law required the new permits -- designed to hold company executives more accountable for meeting pollution standards -- by 1999. Operating without these environmental permits are the Chalk Point power plant in Southern Maryland and the Dickerson plant in Montgomery County, federal and state officials said. The two plants, along with the Morgantown plant in Charles County, were identified last year as being among the worst polluters in the nation by the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington-based nonprofit organization. "Unfortunately, Maryland lags behind ... in implementing this important air pollution control program," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat who sponsored the law. "Maryland residents and its environment are likely to suffer from higher pollution as a result."
Aburn attributed the seven-year delay to "the complex technical issues involved and the high level of public interest" in the permits. Jane Nishida, who was Maryland's secretary of the environment during much of that time, from 1995 to 2002, could not be reached for comment.
The Sun examined environmental compliance reports for the seven plants -- which have the capacity to generate about 60 percent of the electricity produced in Maryland -- from January 2000 through 2005, the final three years of the Glendening administration and the first three years of Ehrlich's term. The amount of pollutants released by the seven plants as a group was 3 percent higher in the past three years than in the previous three. That was because increases in pollution at four of the plants more than outweighed reductions at the other three. The seven plants released 1,031,833 tons of air pollution from 2003 through 2005, which was 32,785 tons more than in the period from 2000 through 2002, according to the power companies' annual statements filed with the state.
Three of the plants are owned by Constellation Energy, parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. The Ehrlich administration has appointed three former Constellation officials to key positions at the state environment department. Atlanta-based Mirant power company operates three other plants, and one is owned by Pennsylvania-based Allegheny Energy. The three companies have contributed at least $670,000 to state and federal politicians of both parties over the past five years, state records show.
MDE officials declined to discuss their enforcement policies with The Sun in person or over the phone. The agency responded via e-mail to questions submitted in writing. Julie Oberg, spokeswoman for the agency, said officials declined to be interviewed by The Sun in part because officials were "not 100 percent happy" with the newspaper's coverage. The newspaper reported in December that the department had worked closely with Constellation Energy last year to kill a pollution-control bill that would have cost the power company hundreds of millions of dollars.
A version of the legislation, the Healthy Air Act, was approved by the General Assembly this spring and signed into law by Ehrlich, though the governor had lobbied against it earlier in the legislative session. The law will require the state's seven oldest -- and dirtiest -- coal-burning power plants to reduce their pollution by more than two-thirds by 2010. But it gives the MDE a great deal of discretion in enforcement. The state's two other coal-fired plants were not included in the law -- one because it is very small and the other because it is new and uses modern pollution-control technology.
In the MDE's written statement to The Sun about enforcement of current state and federal law, Aburn said it can be misleading to compare emissions with enforcement actions, partly because power plants often release more pollution in years when demand for electricity is higher. In one case, he said, his agency penalized a power plant without fining it. In June 2003, the MDE required the R. Paul Smith plant in Western Maryland, owned by Allegheny Energy, to sacrifice pollution trading credits that could be worth $40,000. The same plant drew the $20,000 fine in March.
Although the department did not dispute figures showing increased air pollution from the seven plants, Aburn said overall air quality in Maryland has improved substantially under Ehrlich. "Air quality is improving every year," he said, noting that ozone levels measured by state monitors are down significantly.
The power plant records examined by The Sun detail emissions of soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants regulated by the federal Clean Air Act and state law. Those pollutants have been linked to heart attacks and other health problems in people and contribute to low-oxygen "dead zones" in the Chesapeake Bay. Most of the coal-fired plants in Maryland lack modern pollution-control devices, such as sulfur-reduction systems called scrubbers and soot filters known as "bag houses," because they were built before the 1970 Clean Air Act required the best available equipment on all new power plants.
Under state and federal law, power plants and factories are required to have permits that specify the amount of pollution they are allowed to release. The MDE, with primary enforcement responsibility, inspects the plants once a year. But the agency also requires the plants to police themselves by conducting tests and maintaining monitors inside their smokestacks that continuously register pollution levels. The companies send quarterly reports to the MDE that detail their compliance with the legal limits. The MDE is supposed to notify the federal EPA when plants are seriously in violation.
The Sun's review found that the plants routinely inform the state they are violating pollution limits, but the state seldom takes action. Some of the worst problems have been at the Chalk Point, Morgantown, Dickerson and Brandon Shores power plants. "You would think that the state would do everything it can to reduce air pollution, but it's like the fox watching the henhouse," Hunter said. "The MDE is not a neutral agency; they see it as their job to help the power companies and facilitate their expansion."
by Alex Nussbaum, Bergen County Record
May 27, 2006
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTQwMTkw
Congress is moving to block a plan that would cut the information New Jersey industries have to disclose about their toxic emissions. The Bush administration and industry groups want to overhaul the Toxic Release Inventory, saying it would cut costs, especially for small businesses, while still requiring reports from large companies that account for most of the chemicals.
But the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan vote, ordered the administration not to spend any money on the proposal for the next year, potentially killing the plan. "The idea that people should be able to find out in a community what potential toxic wastes are coming out of industrial plants, I think that that argument really made sense to a lot of people," said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-Long Branch, who co-sponsored the measure.
The proposed changes to the release data drew criticism from environmental groups and regulators around the country. New Jersey officials warned they would eliminate much of the information reported by 100 companies in 30 towns statewide. The inventory covers releases of 650 hazardous chemicals, including asbestos, arsenic, mercury and dioxin. About 500 New Jersey companies file the reports, which are available to the public online.
The House ban takes effect only if the Senate passes its own version. Pallone said he has been talking to several senators who are interested in introducing the measure. "People on both sides of the aisle understand that all we're trying to do is keep the status quo," he said. "This is working. People have this information. Why do you want to deny it to them?"
The amendment passed, 231-187. Among North Jersey congressmen, Democrats Steve Rothman of Fair Lawn and Bill Pascrell Jr. of Paterson and Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen of Harding voted to support Pallone's move; Republican Scott Garrett of Wantage was opposed.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the inventory, defended its proposal. "EPA sets a very high environmental bar for companies to meet and will continue to keep the bar high," the agency said in a statement. "The proposed changes in TRI reporting would in no way affect the amount of chemicals facilities are allowed to release." The agency is considering two changes: One would let companies report every other year instead of annually. The other would let more companies file a short report that still lists the chemicals they use but not specific amounts. The latter move would save businesses nearly 160,000 hours of paperwork but 99 percent of chemical releases would still be reported in detail, the EPA said.
Critics in New Jersey and elsewhere, however, said less reporting would remove the incentive the program gives companies to reduce emissions. Local activists and firefighters said they would have less of an idea of what was happening at small manufacturers in their neighborhoods.
A spending ban would effectively kill at least the alternate-year proposal. The EPA has until September 2007 to decide on that idea, and the ban would run through the end of that month. North Jersey manufacturers told The Record last year that they didn't consider toxic reporting a major burden, but they also welcomed less paperwork. The Chemistry Council of New Jersey, which represents 2,300 businesses, supported the changes. "It would probably save some of our smaller guys some money," said Executive Director Hal Bozarth. "But the other side has gone to war against it."
by John Myers, Duluth News Tribune
May 27, 2006
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/14681758.htm
ON LUM LAKE, BWCAW -- What goes up must come down, and toxic mercury is no exception. The metal is spewed into the sky worldwide by power plants, volcanoes and oceans. Mercury can travel half the globe and then fall in rain or snow back to Earth, where it's soaked up by soil, plants, trees and sediment. And fish. And people who eat fish.
Once mercury has settled on a forest, it can be released again when, for example, a fire burns. That's why Donna Olson was holding a Ziploc bag full of little perch on this little Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness lake on a recent brilliant May morning. Even here, among the most pristine waters in the nation, mercury is in the fish.
Olson was bagging the fish in the stern of a Kevlar canoe while Brent Flatten operated a battery-operated shocking device in the bow. "There's one! Grab it!" Olson shouted as Flatten stretched to scoop it up, one of several dozen they bagged that day for later study in a lab. Olson and Flatten are part of a U.S. Forest Service fisheries research team trying to determine the impact of forest fires on mercury levels in fish. Crews are testing fish, water, soils and more.
The fish in Lum Lake and others across the Northland don't get mercury only from rain that falls into the lake. They also get an unknown amount from mercury that falls on nearby forests and eventually flushes into the lake. That land-locked mercury can build up for years in forest trees and plants and then suddenly move into nearby waterways when it's released, including when forest fires burn through the area. Fires don't generate new mercury. Instead, they rerelease it into the environment.
Scientists with the Forest Service and other agencies are, for the first time, trying to determine how much mercury is released by those fires, whether wild fires or intentional fires. They're also finding interesting relationships between mercury on the land and mercury in the fish.
The Forest Service effort is joined by the University of Minnesota and the U.S. Geological Survey. The coalition won a $423,000 grant from the national fire sciences program to study fish from 10 Superior National Forest lakes before and after fires. "We'll be able to see if there's a pulse of mercury in the fish after the fires," said Ken Gebhardt, aquatic specialist for the Superior National Forest.
Picking Perch
Perch are the perfect species to study because they are widespread across the region and their young are easy to capture in shallow water. Tiny fish are preferred so their mercury load, or exposure, can be traced to a single season. Perch also are a common snack for walleyes, bass and pike that people eat -- a key element in the food chain that passes mercury to people.
The BWCAW is the perfect place to look because dozens of intentional fires have been and will be lit on thousands of acres. The study lakes were picked near those fires. Scientists won't have to wait for wildfires that may never come in order to gather their post-fire data. The intentional fires are intended to reduce the amount of dead wood on the ground after the July 1999 windstorm that ravaged parts of the BWCAW.
So far, researchers primarily have gathered pre-fire data, and they hope more intentional fires are lit this summer so post-fire data flows in. They also hope for another grant to continue the study for several more years, until more post-fire data is available. Known more for their work with trees, the research is part of the Forest Service's beefed-up fisheries program. While state agencies usually manage fish within national forests, the feds are taking an active role in protecting fish habitat and the forest's impacts on fish. The project is so different from others that it recently won a national award among Forest Service fisheries projects.
Trends Emerging
While data is preliminary, scientists already have made some observations after two summers in the field. As expected, they found that mercury in fish is related to mercury levels in nearby soils. They also found that the higher the organic matter in the soil, the higher the mercury level. "If mercury is high in the soil, it's high in the fish," Gebhardt said. "We were assuming from the start that there's a direct tie between the soil and the water and the fish. What's in the soil is in the fish."
Scientists also have used soil samples to prove that the mercury in the forest is coming from the sky, not from bedrock below. The mercury levels are highest near the surface and drop as researchers look deeper. "There's no doubt this is airborne deposition. It's not coming from the rock," said Trent Wickman, air resources specialist for the Superior National Forest. "We didn't ask to get this mercury, but we have to deal with the mercury burden that's on the land now."
Scientists also have found a surprising relationship between lake size and mercury. "The smaller the lake, the higher the mercury level" in the fish," Gebhardt said. "We don't exactly know why... but it's a pretty dramatic correlation so far."
In the end, the research may help determine if there's a short- or long-term mercury impact on fish from fires, if and where intentional fires are used in the future, or if some actions are needed to mitigate a fire's impact on fish. "It won't be the factor, but it will be another factor to consider with fire management," Wickman said.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
May 27, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060527.CHEMICALS27/TPStory/Environment
TORONTO -- Federal regulators have determined that about 4,000 chemicals used for decades in Canada pose enough of a threat to human health or the environment that they need to be subjected to safety assessments. The sheer number of chemicals needing review means there is probably not a person in Canada who hasn't been exposed to some of them. While many are industrial compounds, others are widely used to make everyday products found in practically every home and office in the country, ranging from hair dryers to water bottles, fast-food wrappers, TVs, computer casings and the inside of tin cans.
The chemicals needing review were culled from a list of 23,000 substances grandfathered from a detailed safety study because they were in widespread commercial use before Canada adopted its first comprehensive pollution legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in 1988.
Although federal officials are publicly playing down the huge number of substances that they've deemed need a review, an environmentalist who participated in the federal effort to place chemicals into safe and risky categories was surprised by the magnitude. "We didn't expect that many chemicals to come through," said Fe de Leon, a researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a non-profit organization that uses existing laws to protect the environment and advocates environmental law reforms. "I don't think Environment Canada and Health Canada did, either."
The review has become a pressing health and ecological issue because research is indicating that many substances once thought to be benign could be dangerous. In the past 20 years, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have linked chemicals in long-term use to a host of health problems and modern disease trends, including learning disabilities, hyperactivity disorders, low sperm counts, altered thyroid function, and breast cancer, among others. Surveys have also found that many of the chemicals causing adverse effects in laboratory animal tests are found in human tissues and in wildlife.
Ms. de Leon has seen a preliminary copy of the list of chemicals to be reviewed and said it contained around 4,000 substances she characterized as including "the baddies of the bad." They include bisphenol A, the basic building block for polycarbonate plastic, which is used to make such things as 20-litre water-cooler jugs, coatings on compact disks, and Nalgene water bottles. It's also a component in dental sealants for children's teeth and is found in the resins that line almost all tin cans sold in North America. The list also includes some types of perfluorocarbons, which are used to make non-stick, stain-resistant or water-repellant products and are commonly found in fast-food packaging, furniture, clothing and cookware.
The approximate size of the list has been confirmed by David Morin, an Environment Canada official who has worked on classifying the chemicals. Health Canada said in a statement that it has identified "a large number of chemicals for further study," including bisphenol A. Environment Canada and Health Canada are required to make public the names of all the chemicals they believe need safety assessments by Sept. 14.
Although most substances in use today have been tested to see if they are acutely poisonous, many haven't been subjected to the kind of in-depth analyses that would determine whether they cause cancer, disrupt hormone functions, interfere with fetal development or accumulate in wildlife. Some environmentalists contend that allowing tens of thousands of chemicals to be used without full knowledge of their effects is a major regulatory lapse. "There is clearly a significant, present, growing health risk from a lot of these chemicals," said Rick Smith, spokesman for Environmental Defence, an activist group that last year found residues from chemicals in consumer products in the blood of every Canadian they monitored. He called for the government to ban or restrict the most dangerous of the 4,000 chemicals, an approach that he said would deal with "the worst of the worst."
For the past seven years, federal health and environment scientists, along with environmentalists and industry representatives, have been going over the list of grandfathered chemicals. Under federal law, these are defined as substances that were used in Canada between 1984 and 1986, so it includes many chemicals developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and even earlier. They have concluded most of their work, leading to a fairly accurate estimate of the total that will need further study. "They are essentially done," said Ms. de Leon, who was critical of the length of time it has taken to see which chemicals are safe. "It boggles my mind."
Canada is one of many countries around the world that is investigating the safety of chemicals that are in use but have never been subjected to full reviews. Most of these chemicals escaped detailed scrutiny because they were developed before modern pollution laws existed. When those laws were established, it was common for governments to exempt existing substances from the more rigorous evaluations they started applying to any new chemicals.
In Europe, about 100,000 chemicals were on the market before 1981 and were exempt from detailed reviews. European regulators say that safety information is sketchy for around the vast majority of these chemicals. Since 1981, about 4,300 new chemicals have been subjected to in-depth testing.
Canadian regulators say their evaluation of the 23,000 grandfathered chemicals is the most comprehensive such action in the world, and puts Canada ahead of both Europe and the United States in terms of chemical safety. "The government of Canada is now leading the world in addressing chemicals introduced" before modern pollution laws," Health Canada said in its statement.
Based on the new research, Canadian regulators have been going over the list of grandfathered chemicals to check for four factors that might signal they pose risks:
An Environment Canada official said that just because a substance meets the threshold for further review doesn't necessarily mean it will be found to be a health danger. The full extent of the hazards won't be known until the government conducts assessments on the individual chemicals and determines actual human or animal exposure levels. It is not known how long this process will take. "Because the substances meet the criteria does not mean that they pose a risk," Mr. Morin said.
Canadian regulators and those in other countries have been surprised in recent years to find that some chemicals they permitted to be used for decades without much scrutiny were suddenly found to be harmful. Many involved substances destined for use in consumer products.
In 2000, 3M Co. announced it would phase out perfluorooctanyl sulfonate, a substance used to make one of its signature products, Scotchgard. PFOS, as it is also known, was found to be widely present in human blood samples across the U.S., and in wildlife. Laboratory testing on rodents indicated it also killed rat pups born to mothers that had been exposed to the chemical.
In January, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and seven other big chemical producers agreed under a deal with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to sharp reductions in emissions from their products and factories of perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical used to help make Teflon brand non-stick products, among other things. The chemical has recently also been deemed a likely carcinogen.
In another case, Great Lakes Chemical Corp. agreed to phase out by the end of 2004 two chemical flame retardants accumulating in wildlife that have been found to induce attention deficit and hyperactivity symptoms in laboratory animals. The flame retardants had been widely used for years in foam mattresses and computers.
Ms. de Leon said current approaches to chemical safety haven't been adequate. "We just thought that chemicals stayed inert in products and this evidence suggests that no, they escape," she said. "We need to have a better framework to deal with them."
by Alex Pulaski, Portland Oregonian
May 26, 2006
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/114861212852260.xml&coll=7
By pandering to farmers and chemical manufacturers, the Environmental Protection Agency risks gutting a 10-year-old law designed to safeguard children from dangerous pesticides, workers within the agency charge. In a letter sent this week to agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, nine representatives of unions representing about 9,000 EPA scientists, risk managers and other workers said the agency "has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised."
Since 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act has been under attack from both sides -- pesticide makers and farmers asserting that the law is being applied too stringently, and environmentalists and consumer advocates charging that it is being undermined. The law was intended to protect children from hazardous effects of pesticides in foods and in the environment.
The letter sent Wednesday represents the second time in recent months that workers within the agency have openly questioned whether their chief is putting children at risk by bowing to industry pressures. "Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community . . ." the letter states. "Equally alarming is the belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry."
In response, the agency issued a one-paragraph written statement from spokeswoman Jennifer Wood. "EPA has been reviewing all pesticides in question and applying new, stricter standards as required under the Food Quality Protection Act, with a specific focus on their effects on children's health," she said. "EPA remains committed to its mission of protecting human health and the environment."
In a letter sent to Johnson in December, the American Federation of Government Employees, a union with members who work for the EPA, said the agency's proposed rules on accepting data from trials exposing humans to pesticides -- instead of typical animal studies -- had so many loopholes that they invite unethical behavior such as intentionally dosing children and pregnant women. Representatives of the government employees union, National Treasury Employees Union, and Engineers and Scientists of California joined in asking Johnson in the letter this week to ensure that decisions due this summer on more than 20 pesticides are made free of "outside political influences." They asked Johnson to weigh cumulative risks to all children through the food they eat and to cancel or restrict pesticide uses that might be harmful to the children of farmworkers.
Under the act, advocates on both sides have repeatedly argued that science is in their favor. But a huge hurdle in trying to determine which pesticides can be safely used and the potential neurological risks to children in the foods they consume is that much of the science is based on how animals, not humans, react to chemical exposures. Because of uncertainties between how humans and lab rats react, EPA scientists have tended to add safety factors -- reducing by as much as 1,000 times the allowable pesticide residues children can be exposed to in the food they eat. While the method sounds abstract, the result of such limitations is that particular pesticides -- and even whole classes of them -- face strict limits or extinction. For example, the EPA in recent years has banned methyl parathion and severely restricted chlorpyrifos, which had been the most commonly used insecticide in the United States. The agency also limited uses of azinphos-methyl, a bug-killer widely sprayed on tree fruits in Oregon and Washington.
With the EPA facing an August deadline to reassess human tolerances for pesticides in food and the environment, the union representatives wrote that it would be "a perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the (Food Quality Protection Act)." Dave Christenson, a Denver-based union official who signed the letter, said employees take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that publicly pressuring the agency head to do as much is "not something we do every day, but we're finding ourselves doing it more and more."
by Anthony DePalma, New York Times
May 26, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/nyregion/26mercury.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Making good on a vow that New York would act on its own if the federal government did not get tough on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, Gov. George E. Pataki yesterday proposed one of the most stringent mercury standards in the nation. Under the draft proposal, New York would cut the level of mercury from electricity-generating stations in half by 2010. By 2015, the new state mercury standard would be toughened further, requiring a 90 percent reduction from current levels.
The state rule would be significantly more restrictive than a federal mercury standard set last year by the Bush administration. Under the federal rule, power plants must decrease mercury emissions 70 percent by 2018. Another major difference is that the federal plan allows generators to trade pollution credits, while New York's does not.
Mr. Pataki, a Republican, has repeatedly disagreed with the Bush administration's environmental policies, and although he has said he would oppose regulations that could harm business in the state, he has been willing to push through tough environmental rules that have sometimes angered business interests. If the state's new mercury rule is carried out, it would complete a far-ranging and comprehensive set of controls over the four most damaging air pollutants from power plants. A 2003 state program curtails nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which cause acid rain. Late last year, seeing the federal inaction on global warming, New York and six other northeastern states joined together to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the heat-trapping gases that contribute to climate change. "By adopting these new standards, all coal-fired power plants in the state would be required to use pollution-control technologies to significantly reduce their mercury emissions," Mr. Pataki said in a statement released by his office yesterday.
But forcing eight of the state's coal-burning power plants -- many of them in the western part of the state -- to install effective pollution control technologies will push up the already high cost of energy in New York. (Four other coal-fired plants currently have some of these technologies.) Mr. Pataki's office estimates that installing the scrubbers, particle filters and other equipment necessary for the plants to meet the new standards would add less than a dollar a month to an average residential electricity bill. Representatives of the power industry in the state said, however, that those calculations are inaccurate and the true cost to residential and industrial consumers is likely to be far higher than a dollar a month, though they did not give their own estimate.
Gavin J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the Independent Power Producers of New York said the draft mercury rules could drive energy prices up so high that New York's efforts to attract and retain industry would be hampered. He criticized the governor's proposal for not allowing the trading of pollution credits, and he said the schedule for reductions is so aggressive that it could force power companies to simply shut down a coal-fired plant rather than pay to upgrade it. "If you just go ahead and close a plant, what does this do to the grid from a reliability standpoint?" Mr. Donohue said.
Environmentalists, even those who had criticized Mr. Pataki for his reluctance to include mercury controls in a package of power plant rules adopted in 2003, welcomed yesterday's announcement. "This is the proper mechanism to regulate a neurotoxin such as mercury," said Jason K. Babbie, an environmental analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group. He supports the proposed rules, but said the timetable for reductions should be accelerated and brought more in line with other states.
Katherine Kennedy, director of the Northeast Energy Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that eight other states -- including Connecticut and New Jersey -- have already moved to adopt mercury controls, and several of them cut deeper and move more quickly than the rules proposed by New York. But she said attempts to control mercury emissions by even a single state are important because mercury, unlike other air pollutants, tends to settle fairly quickly, and can be most dangerous in areas not far from the power plants that release them.
Mercury is contained naturally in coal, and is released into the atmosphere when the coal is burned. Some forms of mercury then fall from the sky relatively quickly and settle on water and land. Microrganisms in the water convert it to a toxin called methylmercury that is harmful to humans. Once in the water, the mercury is absorbed by small organisms and worms. It builds up as the worms are eaten by small fish, which are then eaten by larger fish, in a process known as bio-magnification. Because fish from polluted lakes can contain harmful levels of mercury, restrictions have been imposed on eating fish from most New York lakes.
Supporters of the national plan for trading pollution credits believe it is an effective but less costly approach than outright limits. But Ms. Kennedy said such an approach can create hot spots that pose a grave danger to local residents.
by Alok Jha, London Guardian
May 25, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1782403,00.html
Children who smoke even a single cigarette at an early age are twice as likely to take up the habit later in life, even if they spend several subsequent years not smoking, a study has found. Scientists argue that this "sleeper effect", which can be triggered by periods of stress or depression, means it is important to prevent teenagers from trying cigarettes even once.
Jennifer Fidler, of the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit at University College London, followed the smoking habits of more than 2,000 children for five years from the age of 11 at 36 schools in south London. She said that teenagers who had tried smoking just once in previous years should be considered as new targets for anti-smoking messages. "This is the first study that shows that a very brief experimentation with cigarettes is predictive of later smoking despite a period of non-smoking in between -- it's a dormant vulnerability. "We were able to show that those students who had reported smoking just once were at an increased risk of taking up smoking by the age of 14, even if they had reported no smoking behaviour in the intervening years," she said.
Of the 260 children who at age 11 said they had tried smoking just once, 18% were smokers at age 14. By comparison, only 7% of children who at age 11 said they had never smoked had started smoking by age 14. Dr Fidler's team found that the sleeper effect was still present after the usual factors that influence whether someone takes up smoking -- ethnicity, gender, social deprivation, and whether a person's parents smoke -- were taken into account. The results are published today in the journal Tobacco Control.
Why this effect is present is unclear, although it is known that nicotine affects the brain's reward centres, which release chemicals to tell the body it is doing something enjoyable. "It's plausible that the reward pathway change makes it more likely on further experimentation that the experience might be more rewarding," said Dr Fidler. That altered reward pathway might easily be triggered years later by something in the school environment, stress or depression.
Alternatively, having a cigarette early on could break down the barriers that prevent teens from smoking, such as fear of adults or concern over how they might look to their peers. The researchers said that the new study could better inform health professionals, who, in their campaigns to prevent the uptake of smoking, should be additionally targeting a new group of children. "It's a group that might be missed in smoking intervention studies or attempts to prevent smoking," said Dr Fidler. "Perhaps they don't consider themselves smokers and don't appear to be vulnerable to smoking."
She added that focusing on preventing children from trying even one cigarette might be more important than had previously been thought. "Those children who report having tried smoking, albeit very briefly, are still at increased risk and shouldn't be ignored by people aiming to prevent smoking as they grow older."
Jean King, director of tobacco control at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study is particularly important because, in 2004, 14% of 11-year-olds and 62% of 15-year-olds in England said they had experimented with cigarettes." Dr Fidler said her study did not imply that all pupils who tried an early cigarette were likely to become smokers. "It isn't the case that you're definitely going to become a smoker. But it has perhaps not been thought in the past that if you've tried one cigarette then you are at risk, even though you might have had a number of years where you haven't been smoking."
by Bruce Lieberman, San Diego Union-Tribune
May 25, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060525-9999-6m25neuro.html
San Diego scientists have identified a link between certain molecules and the symptoms seen in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. The researchers are the first to describe how these molecules, called free radicals, wreak havoc on proteins inside cells. Their findings are published today in the journal Nature. Free radicals are molecules with unstable nitrogen or oxygen atoms. They are natural byproducts of metabolism, but they are also found in environmental toxins such as cigarette smoke and air pollution. Many people attempt to fight them by eating food rich in antioxidant nutrients and taking vitamin supplements.
Researchers at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla found that nitric oxide, one type of free radical, destroys the ability of a protein called PDI to fix other proteins that have folded incorrectly. Proteins are the building blocks of cells, and they must be shaped precisely to work properly. Misshaped proteins that accumulate as clumps inside brain cells are hallmarks of Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases.
The discovery may help answer how free radicals can be as dangerous as gene defects, said Stuart Lipton, who led the study at Burnham. "There was a puzzle: How could something in the environment mimic what a genetic mutation could do?" Lipton said. "This is an important link." Scientists have known that nitric oxide might be an important player in many neurodegenerative diseases. But they did not know how free radicals could be at the root of the misshaped proteins that characterize these diseases.
In their study, Lipton and his colleagues showed how nitric oxide attaches itself to PDI -- short for "Protein Disulfide Isomerase" -- essentially disabling it. Once a cell loses this housecleaning ability, a chain reaction of cell damage by other free radicals ensues. "The trick is now to develop a drug that protects PDI or somehow limits nitric oxide's access to PDI," Lipton said.
Dr. Jonathan Stamler, who studies the effects of nitric oxide on human health at Duke University, said it's been extremely difficult to connect the dots between free radicals and the onset of disease inside cells. "I like the case he's made," Stamler said of Lipton's work. "I think it fits well with the emerging idea that nitric oxide can play an important role in. many diseases."
The human body naturally clears cells of free radicals. But antioxidants such as vitamins E and C, beta-carotene and selenium, which are found in food and supplements, also may help. However, it's unclear how effective these antioxidants are in promoting health in brain cells, Lipton said. The discovery that free radicals may cause many diseases that typically afflict the elderly makes sense, he said. As people grow older, their natural ability to clear free radicals diminishes and cell damage can follow.
by Susan Phinney, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 24, 2006
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/271370_toxics24.html
Eight months ago, 10 Washingtonians volunteered blood, urine and hair samples to the Washington Toxics Coalition to be tested for eight classes of chemicals. The results are in, and they are not pretty.
It wouldn't be kind to say that these 10 are walking toxic waste dumps, but their levels of phthalates (found in such diverse products as shower curtains and fragrances), PBDEs (found in flame retardants, mattresses and furniture), mercury, pesticides, lead and other chemicals were high enough to make both scientists and subjects sit up and take notice. All 10 tested positive for five to seven of those eight categories. Their profiles and test results have been published in a Pollution in People report, a project of the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition of Washington State.
At a news conference Tuesday, they shared their stories and reactions to the results, expressing shock, sadness, relief, alarm and opinions on what should be done. Dr. Patricia Dawson, 56, a Seattle surgeon, had the dubious honor of having 38 chemicals detected in her chemical profile. Her PBDE levels were near those found to cause reproductive problems in laboratory animals. Her levels of DDT (banned since 1972) were greater than 90 percent of the U.S. population. According to her "participant profile," Dawson, a native of Jamaica, was exposed to DDT trucks as a child. "I'm shocked. I eat organic and try to have a healthy lifestyle," she said.
Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation and a founder of Earth Day, was found to have mercury above a level deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury has the potential for causing learning deficits. "My reaction was relief and alarm -- relief that I'm not planning on having more children and alarm that I'm likely to be buried in a toxic waste dump," said Hayes, 61.
Deb Abrahamson, 51, a Native American living on the Spokane Indian Reservation, and the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, 54, of Seattle, were found to have very high levels of pesticides. Abrahamson said she had been worried about exposure to uranium, which is mined near her home. Instead, she learned that she should have been concerned about apples and grapes -- possible sources of the pesticides. She said the tribal store doesn't carry organic produce, which is too expensive for many.
Abrahamson said the EPA had already identified 28 heavy metals polluting the reservation, and pesticides are a concern because they can contaminate camas, a traditional Native America food plant, and other cultural food sources. "Practicing the cultural lifestyle leads to more exposure," she said. The deer, elk and moose they harvest and eat can also ingest toxic chemicals in the environment.
Redding, a state resident for five years, grew up in an agricultural area of New Jersey, a likely reason for her high pesticide levels. She said she was alarmed and felt powerless about the test results, but she said that as an Episcopal priest, she is in a position to alert people to toxic chemicals in the environment. She said it was the persistence of banned chemicals that bothered her most.
Karen Bowman, 53, is a Seattle-based occupational and environmental health nurse. She tested positive for 35 chemicals and had high levels of phthalates, which are found in vinyl/PVC and personal care products. It is her job to protect workers in construction and steel mills and those who work with paints, sealants and epoxies. She said her work has increased her exposure to phthalates. "It's scary. I do the right things: Change clothes, use a respirator and other barrier control measures. It demonstrates how insidious the problem of chemical exposure is," Bowman said.
Rob Duff, director of the office of environmental health assessments for the state Department of Health, was not involved in the study, but he said it illustrates "that we have these things in our bodies that really shouldn't be there." "There's something wrong with how we regulate chemicals in this country. While it's difficult for states to impact that, we can identify the worst of the worst and take action. We need to think strategically to keep from allowing the next harmful chemical to get out there and be used. We need to work with manufacturers and the federal government to change the way we put chemicals into commerce," Duff said.
Erika Schreder, staff scientist at the Washington Toxics Coalition, said Pollution in People was the first investigation of its kind in the state, but the results were comparable to those found in other, larger studies conducted biannually by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Schreder and study participants had suggestions for avoiding toxic chemicals. Contaminated fish were on the list. So were beauty products from companies not committed to toxic-free ingredients. One woman even pointed out that her toenails were painted with red, phthalates-free polish. Other products to avoid? Foods that aren't organic, and products made of vinyl, such as toys, shower curtains and food packaging.
by Sarah Gardner, Marketplace
May 23, 2006
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/05/23/PM200605237.html
KAI RYSSDAL: When he said it, Timothy Leary was talking about LSD. But the slogan, "Better living through chemistry," originally came from DuPont. Actually, the whole catch phrase was "Better Things for Better Living . . . Through Chemistry." DuPont's point was chemistry can improve our daily lives. Decades of toxic spills, pollution and Superfund sites might make you think twice about that. But the backlash has inspired something called green chemistry. And now it's moving out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. Here's Sarah Gardner from the Sustainability Desk.
SARAH GARDNER: If green chemists had their way, there'd be no need for massive toxic clean-ups or class-action consumer safety lawsuits, or company spokesmen forced to defend their most popular brands.
DUPONT SPOKESMAN: In fact, cookware coated with Teflon has been used safely by tens of millions of people for over 40 years and is safe when used properly and as directed.
That was DuPont recently, on the defensive over a long-lasting chemical used to make Teflon. That chemical may ultimately prove safe. But the point, say advocates of green chemistry, is to determine safety before products go to market, not after. Paul Anastas is one of the movement's founders:
PAUL ANASTAS: Green chemistry is the design of new products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.
Anastas and fellow scientist John Warner wrote what you might call the bible of green chemistry in 1998. The book challenged chemists to design with the environment in mind. In the past few years companies like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Pfizer are taking a stab at it.
TV COMMERCIAL: I'm back. I'm back. We're back. If you or your partner isn't living life to the fullest because of erectile difficulties. . . .
Bet you didn't know green chemistry is now behind Viagra. Pfizer figured out a new way to manufacture the little blue pill so there wasn't as much toxic waste at the end of the process. That's true for another Pfizer drug as well -- the antidepressant Zoloft. Steve Brooks is head of Environment, Health and Safety for Pfizer Global Research and Development.
STEVE BROOKS: We reexamined how we made the product. We reduced our solvent usage by tenfold. We eliminated a particularly hazardous waste material by over 400 metric tons every year.
To witness one of the biggest corporate investments in green chemistry so far you have to visit Blair, Neb. Several years ago Cargill opened a plastics plant here under the brand name NatureWorks. The "green" in Cargill's plastic is threefold: One -- it's made with a renewable resource, corn, as opposed to a non-renewable, petroleum. Two -- the resulting plastic, called PLA or polylactic acid, is biodegradeable. Three -- making PLA is cleaner than making conventional plastic. Carey Buckles is the plant's site manager:
CAREY BUCKLES: These processes, from corn kernel to finished PLA, consume about 68 percent less fossil fuel than comparable hydrocarbon-based plastic processes.
This plant is operating below capacity but Cargill recently scored a major coup when it sealed a deal with Wal-Mart. The retail giant is now packaging fresh-cut produce in containers made of NatureWorks' corny plastic. NatureWorks CEO Dennis McGrew says rising oil prices and growing consumer awareness of global warming is helping to boost business:
DENNIS MCGREW: We've seen tremendous uptake over the last two years. In 2005 our sales more than doubled over 2004. And in 2006 we will likely more than double again.
Some environmentalists remain skeptical of green chemistry and say it's more public relations than revolution. Most of the big companies involved, they argue, are still using traditional chemicals that pollute the environment and waste natural resources. But Joel Makower, founder of GreenBiz.com, says it's not just greenwash.
JOEL MAKOWER: It's clear that the combination of shareholder pressures around liability, regulatory pressures, global trade and concerns about climate and so many other things are really going to be pushing companies to do this. Whether they call it green chemistry or not, I think it's just going to be called better chemistry.
Venture capitalists have also discovered green chemistry. The small biopesticide maker AgraQuest has attracted over $62 million so far. The California company makes pest-control products made from living organisms like bacteria instead of synthetic chemicals. CEO Mike Miille:
MIKE MIILE: Hopefully they'll have the same efficacy as the chemical ones without some of the negative side effects.
Advocate Paul Anastas insists that green chemistry and corporate success go hand in hand. Companies like AgraQuest, who've yet to turn a profit, hope investors will stick with them long enough so they can prove it.
by Julie Sevrens Lyons, San Jose Mercury News
May 23, 2006
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/14646301.htm
One manufacturer promotes its pine-scented cleaning products as providing a "Clean you can smell. A clean you can trust." But a groundbreaking new study suggests that household cleaners and air fresheners -- particularly those with pine, orange and lemon scents -- may emit harmful levels of toxic pollutants. Exposure to some of these pollutants and their byproducts may exceed regulatory guidelines when used repeatedly or in small, poorly ventilated rooms, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded after a four-year study.
Among the conclusions:
The report is the first to measure emissions from cleaning products during typical indoor use, as well as the health risks associated with inhaling them. "My suggestion is don't stop cleaning, but clean with consciousness that cleaning products themselves contain materials that shouldn't be inhaled," said study author William Nazaroff, a professor of environmental engineering at UC-Berkeley.
Many consumers just aren't aware, he said, that common household cleaners can be a major cause of indoor air pollution. Some contain ethylene-based glycol ethers. Also of concern are terpenes, compounds derived from plant oils that are widely used to give cleaning products and air fresheners their pleasant, fruity scent. The scientists found that terpenes mix with ozone in the air to create formaldehyde. "On the one hand, they think 'I'm cleaning germs,' which isn't a bad thing," said Gennet Paauwe, spokeswoman for the California Air Resources Board, which funded the study. "But what else are you doing in the process? You or your family members may be inhaling toxins while you're doing that."
Brian Sansoni, a spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association in Washington, said common sense is key to the safe handling of household cleansers. Properly ventilating a room while cleaning it and using cleaners sparingly are effective strategies for those concerned about their exposure to chemicals, he said. "It's important to note that these products are used safely and effectively by Californians every single day in their homes, in their offices, in their schools and in health care settings," Sansoni said. "And what can't be lost is the fact that proper use of cleaning products and disinfectants is critical to improve public health and disease prevention."
The scientists bought 21 household cleaners and air fresheners at East Bay stores, selecting products they thought might be associated with higher levels of air pollution because of their fresh-scent claims. As it turns out, six contained ethylene-based glycol ethers and 12 contained terpenes. The researchers, however, won't reveal which products they used, and which might pose the greatest risk to human health. Household cleaners as a whole and not individual brands are the main problem, Nazaroff said.
He also cautioned against falling for deceptive marketing and encouraged shoppers to buy scent-free cleansing agents rather than those with unsubstantiated claims that they are environmentally superior or "green." "I don't want to go so far as to say we shouldn't use any terpene-containing products," he said, "but what is advertised as being organic and green and good for us isn't automatically so."
With this newfound knowledge, what does Nazaroff's family do? "In my household, we haven't stopped using products that contain glycol ethers," he said, "but we use them more cautiously now."
