|
 |
|
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.
July 6-9, 2006
Cass Lake, Minnesota
at Veterans Memorial (Pow-Wow and Camp) Grounds, held within the territories of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
This is a traditional gathering with outdoor camping, with a Sacred Fire. Indigenous Peoples and supporters are invited. Plenary Sessions will be on Sacredness of Water, Toxics & Environmental Health, Energy (Nuclear, Fossil Fuel, Dams, Renewable Energy), Climate Justice and Forests
Website: http://www.ienearth.org/
Contact: Simone "Chinoodiniwke" Senogles, 218-751-4967 or simone@ienearth.org
December 4 - 6, 2006
Atlanta, Georgia
Presented by Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health, The 2006 Environmental Public Health Conference has a theme of "Advancing Environmental Public Health: Science, Practice, New Frontiers." The conference committee is now accepting submission forms for abstracts for workshops, posters, and exhibits. The deadline is August 1, 2006.
Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/conference/abstract_submission.htm
PCHE is pleased to welcome a new member:
by Tom Yerace, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
June 19, 2006
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_458640.html
When Scott Electric started recycling electrical materials five years ago, the company shipped about six tractor-trailer loads a year to its recycler, including a few computers. Now, the South Greensburg company sends out a tractor-trailer of recyclables once a week, and discarded computers increasingly make up more of the load, according to Dick Smith, industrial sales manager. "It just keeps growing," Smith said. The lightning speed of advancing technology, combined with plummeting prices, makes the disposal of outdated and unwanted computers from homes and businesses an increasing problem and has spawned a niche industry.
Environmental risk
As the use of computers in homes and in businesses rapidly expanded in the 1990s, environmentalists began to worry about what would happen to the equipment as it became outdated. A 1997 Carnegie Mellon University study projected that 150 million computers would be recycled by 2005. Only six years before, another study predicted that same number of computers would be sent to landfills. Yet, the 1997 study estimated that 55 million would be sent to landfills by 2005, which still poses an environmental problem.
Recycling appears to be the answer. "Definitely, it's a growing problem due to the rapidly advancing technology," said Charlie Young, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. Most waste companies won't accept computers because of the hazardous materials they contain, according to Frank Corleto Jr., Scott's recycling coordinator. A typical computer monitor contains 4 to 7 pounds of lead and, overall, components can contain other hazardous materials such as mercury, silver, chromium and cadmium, according to the DEP.
There is no federal or Pennsylvania law that mandates computer recycling. However, there are laws, such as the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, that regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes found in computers. "As a business, you definitely have to be doing the right thing," Corleto said. "A lot of people just don't know what to do." Businesses and schools do not want any liability if they send computers to a landfill. Nearby groundwater could become contaminated, and the pollutants could be traced to the discarded computers. "What can you do with 17 pallets of computers?" Corleto said, referring to a load Scott recently picked up from a local school district. "You can't throw them in a landfill."
Information security
The disposal of hazardous materials is not the only issue facing computer recyclers. The possibility of compromising confidential personal information left on discarded hard drives is a concern. "Twelve years ago, you were not going to find any patient information on a PC, it was all on a mainframe," said Jim Vellella, who directs the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's program to update its computer technology. But that changed with the advent of more personal computer-based systems on local area networks and an expanding need for Internet access. "Typically ... what they would do is reformat the hard drive and give it to Goodwill," Vellella said. "They went to charitable organizations, they went to Third World countries. ... Based on the best available technology at the time, we made sure that information was not available."
But reformatting hard drives is no longer a guarantee for eliminating information from outdated or unwanted computers. "The magnetic signature of the old format is still there, so that if you have the right software, that data is still recoverable," said Eric Vorhees, security data manager of Amandi Services, a computer recycling firm based in Hallstead, Susquehanna County. He said the way to get rid of information on a hard drive is to run a program that overwrites the information, replacing it with meaningless numbers. Rita Palmer, vice president of Amandi, said that is part of the package when Amandi recycles computers. "You have to make sure that you are dealing with a reputable, proper organization that is dealing with the information appropriately," she said. "If requested, we supply a certificate of destruction."
The passage of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act, which was designed to protect the confidentiality of medical records, made the destruction of data on obsolete or discarded computer hard drives more compelling. "When HIPAA came in, it became at least a more visible thing for people to come in here and offer data disposal services," Vellella said. "They saw us as an untapped market."
Niche industry
Palmer agreed that environmental hazards, combined with the issue of customer security, have fueled the growth. "Both have really fed this (recycling) industry," Palmer said. "We live in a throwaway society. Stuff is being built cheaper and it doesn't hold up, and technology, for a while, it just soared. "Plus, you have organizations that are pushing recycling, trying to make sure that the environment is being taken care of."
Smith said recycling was started as a service to its customers, and company officials view it as a way to attract new patrons who will remember Scott when they need to buy electrical supplies. While the company does not view it as a for-profit activity, Corleto concedes that it is not losing money on recycling. Smith said anyone, including home computer owners, can bring old equipment to Scott for recycling.
Some computer manufacturers have pitched in to recycle computers. Dell, Apple and Gateway offer to take customers' old computers when they buy new ones. The service will be a growth industry as more states follow the lead of California and Washington and pass laws requiring it. "We were actually told that we could just throw them away, but it was obvious to us that is not the right thing to do, which is why we looked for a recycling program," said Chris Sherman, microcomputing and help desk manager for Seton Hill University in Greensburg. He said the university disposes of about 60 computers per year. "The pile we are getting rid of now has been piling up for years, and now we've finally found a recycling program," Sherman said.
The university is under contract with Scott and is charged for the service based on the weight of the materials being disposed. Smith said the ballpark estimate for recycling is about $5 per computer. "The plastic goes through a shredder, the hard drives are melted down, the glass gets melted down into little balls," Smith said. "Everything is completely reused," Corleto said.
by James Bruggers, Louisville Courier-Journal
June 19, 2006
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/60614027&theme=GLOBALWARMING&template=theme
Making the house a little cooler in summer may feel good in the often-toasty Ohio River Valley. But Victoria Hykes Steere of Anchorage, Alaska, wants people in the Midwest and South to know their energy use fuels global warming that's affecting the environment and the residents of the Arctic. "If there is no ice, how do you hunt seals?" asked Steere, who last fall helped organize an international conference on global warming and indigenous people. "How do boys become men? In our world, it's all connected."
Using electricity from coal-fired power plants, flying in airplanes and driving cars or trucks all produce emissions that scientist say are warming the planet, perhaps dangerously. Indiana and Kentucky are national leaders in greenhouse gas emissions. According to statistics from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, Indiana and Kentucky rank sixth and seventh respectively for per capita carbon emissions.
So, what is your contribution to global warming? The Courier-Journal posed that question to three households -- a person living alone, a couple with no children, and a family of six. Each believes climate change is a serious threat and agreed to put their energy use under public scrutiny as a way to encourage others to calculate their own impact on the climate. They used an Internet-based calculator to convert their home and transportation energy use to carbon-dioxide emissions.
The calculations were made at www.safeclimate.net, run by the World Resources Institute, a think thank that developed methods businesses use to calculate carbon contributions. Samantha Putt del Pino, who oversees the calculator, said if people get a snapshot of how their energy use produces the gases that are blamed for global warming, they might be motivated to conserve energy and reduce their effect on the climate.
Four cars cost family of six lots of points
ROBERT KLEIN, lawyer; DR. LISA KLEIN, a pediatric cardiologist; and their children: Sammy, Ian and Sidney Westervelt, ages 17, 15 and 11; and Annika Klein, 13. They failed the test, with their biggest share of carbon dioxide attributed to their four cars -- an Acura MDX SUV, a BMW 530, a Mazda Miata and a Honda Civic -- and several airplane trips.
"It was a revelation," Klein said. "I think about what (mountaintop removal) coal mining is doing to the Appalachians, but I hadn't really thought about my greenhouse gases before." Collectively, they produced the most carbon dioxide of the four households: 317,340 pounds for the year. On a per-person basis, it was 52,890 pounds. That's nearly three times the 18,000 pound national per-person average for transportation and housing. Nearly three-fourths was explained by transportation, a necessity, he said, with four children between 11 and 17 years old. "I will certainly consider (fuel) efficiency ... in my next vehicle," he said.
Klein noted that the 4,900-square-foot home already has double-pane windows, new energy-efficient doors, and new efficient heating and air-conditioning units. He said higher energy prices are going to eventually "get us out of this mess" by bringing about changes. "But that will hurt a lot of people," he lamented.
Sammy said she's concerned about climate change, but felt proud of her Honda and its fuel efficiency, which also means fewer carbon emissions. But she said she is aware of all the "stuff" she and other Americans use, which adds to the problem. "I feel really hypocritical. How am I supposed to live?"
Good score tough to get ARNITA GADSON, executive director of the West Jefferson County Community Task Force. Gadson is accustomed to urging businesses to reduce toxic air emissions. But the carbon calculator shows that it's tough to get a good household score living alone. It estimated her home and travel emissions at 55,000 pounds a year, or about three times the national per-person average.
She drives a fuel-efficient Honda Civic, leaving three-fourths of her emissions the result of her 1,800-square-foot house, built in the 1960s. She said she doubts there is insulation in the walls, and windows are single-pane. "I am sorry I am using so much energy," she said sheepishly, after the results popped onto a computer screen. "I feel so guilty." But she added, half-jokingly: "Are you saying I am supposed to be cold in the winter and hot in the summer?"
The results, she said, might prompt her to get an energy audit from LG&E and to start putting in energy-sipping compact fluorescent bulbs. Major projects will have to wait, however, because the Metropolitan Sewer District just told her that she'll have to pay about $10,000 to hook her home up to sewers.
Couple enlightened, disturbed by results
BECCA BEGLEY, a part-time fencing instructor, and BOB WEEKLY, an information technology professional. Even though they don't drive much -- a combined 10,400 miles last year -- and own fuel-efficient cars -- a Honda Accord and a Toyota Corolla -- Begley and Weekly scored poorly. The Web site calculated their per-person emissions at roughly 40,000 pounds for a year, or slightly more than twice the national average. Eighty-eight percent was attributed to their home; just 12 percent to transportation.
Begley called the process enlightening and disturbing, adding that she fears her home is an "environmental nightmare." At 2,900 square feet, the house probably needs more insulation because it was built in the 1960s, she said, and its older windows may have also been an issue. There's a large sun room too, with a lot of glass. And during the summer, the swimming pool's solar heating system requires an electric pump that runs 24 hours a day.
On the positive side, she noted she has begun to put in energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs, and allows LG&E to turn off her air conditioning automatically in the summer for brief periods so the utility can conserve energy on hot days. Next up, perhaps an energy audit and more insulation, she said. "Ultimately one person won't make a difference," she said. "Government pretty much has to lead on this issue for much to happen."
Even author isn't as green as he thought
James Bruggers is no angel -- at least when it comes to the environment. The Courier-Journal's environmental reporter was shocked to find that he has an oversized effect on climate change. He writes about that discovery today in the first installment of a Web log on science and environmental issues at the newspaper's Web site.
By using Web sites that help people calculate their contribution to greenhouse gases, Bruggers discovered that he's responsible for more than four times the national per-person average for greenhouse gas emissions from his energy use. He blamed it largely on a house that is not energy efficient and too many airplane trips, one of them needed to get to a remote Alaskan research center so he could learn more about global warming. The blog, called Watchdog Earth, will share news and observations about the local, regional and global environment. The blog also will give readers a chance to share their views on various subjects, and will direct readers to some of Bruggers' favorite Web sites. Go to courier-journal.com to read the new blog and to find a link to the Web site that lets you check your "carbon footprint."
Helping to curb global warming
Here are some of the steps people can take to help slow global warming.
Sources: LG&E, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Defense
by Robert Benzie, Toronto Star
Jun. 19, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150672506550&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
The Ontario government has quietly reneged on a national commitment to reduce the level of mercury in air pollution, the Toronto Star has learned. Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.
Canada's federal, provincial and territorial environment ministers were poised last Friday to announce a reduction in the highly toxic mercury emissions by 50 per cent from 2003-04 levels by 2010. But in a letter to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson, president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Ontario Environment Minister Laurel Broten said the province is unable to keep the commitment.
While Broten claims Ontario is "the champion for mercury and air issues" among the environment ministers' collective, she offers no timetable for when Premier Dalton McGuinty's government could actually abide by standards approved by Ottawa and the other provinces and territories. "As you know, the CWS (Canada-wide standard) for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants was approved in principle at the last CCME meeting in June 2005," the minister wrote in a letter dated last Wednesday. "As the champion for discussion on this item at the upcoming June 16, 2006, CCME teleconference, I am writing to request that the final endorsement of the standard be postponed to a future CCME meeting, where a fuller discussion and release of a communiqué would be more appropriate," Broten continued.
Her letter came after Energy Minister Dwight Duncan revealed on June 9 that the Liberals were abandoning their election pledge to close all coal-fired plants by 2007 to reduce emissions. (Last year, they extended that deadline to 2009.) The Lambton station, near Sarnia, will remain open past 2007 and the massive Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie will be churning out pollution long after 2009. Two smaller northern Ontario coal plants are still slated to close next year.
Broten's letter suggests that there is less urgency around reducing dangerous emissions than there is ensuring the lights remain on in the energy-starved province. "I look forward to taking part in discussions at the next face-to-face CCME meeting, particularly related to future CCME and federal government directions on air, and I would prefer that the discussion item on the CWS on mercury be discussed within that broader context."
Government insiders say Broten's missive caught the other environment ministers off-guard because a news release touting the national mercury reduction plan had been prepared to be distributed across Canada last Friday. Ontario's last-second manoeuvre undermined work going on since 2000 that would have dealt with industrial sectors that account for 80 per cent of Canada's mercury emissions. "Ontario has to know that this has been coming down the pipe," said one frustrated official, privy to Friday's conference call.
Environmentalists, already angry at the McGuinty government for announcing last week that at least two new nuclear reactors would be built, will likely be disappointed in this latest development. Writing in the Star last Friday, Sierra Legal Defence Fund lawyer Albert Koehl, a former Liberal candidate, warned that even the "proposed Canada-wide standard is weak (and) falls significantly short even of the low end of the recommended range." Koehl noted mercury from the coal-fired plants pollutes waterways, contaminates fish and poses health risks to pregnant mothers and children.
by Randy Lee Loftis, Dallas Morning News
June 19, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061806dnproairpollution.16a7282.html
If you want to attend a meeting about North Texas' biggest environmental problem -- pollution from cars -- you'll have to drive there. Arlington, home of the region's clean-air and transportation planning agency, has no bus service. That's just one of the numerous small illustrations of Dallas-Fort Worth's car culture that have a big effect on air pollution and people's health. More than half of the smog-causing emissions in the region come from vehicles, ranging from cars to airplanes.
Gasoline-powered passenger vehicles are the biggest slice of that vehicular pollution pie. Yet they're also the most difficult to do much about -- something that's becoming obvious as planners try to scrounge up enough emissions cuts to protect people from ozone, the lung-scarring stuff in summer smog. Nearly two decades after Congress declared war on smog and ordered reforms to make it safe for people to breathe, dirty air still plagues urban North Texas, and that's not likely to change any time soon. Cars and trucks are a big reason why.
A new smog plan for North Texas, due later this year, will reflect just how tough it is to do much about cars. It's expected to nibble around the edges: trying to ease traffic jams, pushing to get the most-polluting cars cleaned up, and making other small yet important gains. But there won't be a big bite for motorists -- no mandatory no-driving days based on tag numbers, for example. Such restrictions are seen as largely unenforceable, only angering people and spawning an illicit market in fake plates. That's because one of the biggest environmental letdowns of recent decades has been the failure to get people to drive less.
Texas's Department of Transportation says people in 16 North Texas counties drive more than 106 million miles daily -- the equivalent of driving from Earth to the sun and 13 million miles beyond. Driving has doubled since 1980 and could double again by 2012. All that driving has canceled out the improvements from decades of federal rules requiring cleaner-running engines and cleaner-burning gasoline. The trade-off of cleaner cars but more driving is like a bad diet. If you switch from full-fat ice cream to low fat but eat a gallon a day instead of your usual half-cup, you'll still gain weight.
Ozone levels
Every day, cars, SUVs, trucks and buses on North Texas roads put out a total of 368,000 pounds of ozone-causing nitrogen oxides. To see how much that is, consider that many railroad bulk-container cars can carry a bit more than 200,000 pounds of cargo. Now imagine filling up a couple of railroad cars with some harmful material, lifting the cars with a big helicopter and sprinkling the contents everywhere -- clogging the air with noxious haze -- every day, including weekends and holidays.
Planners can't figure out how to get the region's predicted ozone level in 2009 down to the federal limit of 85 parts per billion. The closest they can come: 91 parts per billion. The pollution from vehicles is so serious that if every factory or power plant in the region were shut down, North Texas would still violate the Clean Air Act -- a point that industry lobbyists make. However, the opposite is also true: Take every vehicle off the road, and the combined pollution from industries, power plants and smaller sources would still keep the air illegally dirty.
With so far to go and so few options yet identified, the region will almost certainly miss a 2010 federal deadline. Planners will aim for 2012, but even that's a long shot. North Texas has missed other clean-air deadlines without paying any federal penalty. The often-cited risk of losing federal highway money is essentially hollow; only once, in 1999, has the Environmental Protection Agency threatened such sanctions. Even then, the threat vanished a year later when state officials submitted a revised plan.
Putting off formal compliance is just an administrative move, said Mike Eastland, executive director of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, which handles regional planning. "We're not talking about delaying," he said. "We're talking about doing everything we can as quickly as possible."
Carmakers had to start phasing in cleaner engines each year starting in 2004. By 2007, all new passenger vehicles will meet the tighter standard. The most important improvement that brings is lower nitrogen oxides emissions. The average of all new cars will be .07 grams of nitrogen oxide per mile. In 2003, most new cars emitted three or more times that amount. But consumer choices can still skew the numbers toward dirtier skies. Big SUVs and pickups put out 10 to 30 times more nitrogen oxides per mile than most midsize passenger cars, and about 60 times more than the cleanest hybrids.
The federal government offers a one-time income-tax break for buying a hybrid vehicle, but Texas has no added incentive for hybrids. The Texas Emissions Reduction Program, which has been successful on commercial diesels, has never covered private passenger vehicles. A state effort helps low-income motorists clean up older, high-polluting cars. The program pays up to $600 for emissions repairs or up to $1,000 for a replacement vehicle after a car flunks a smog check. So far, more than 11,000 vehicles have gone through the program, cutting their emissions by 70 percent. The income cutoff for a family of four is $40,000. "The program stands entirely independent of any other government operation -- no IRS, no immigration or anything," said Mr. Eastland, the regional planning chief. "We don't want anybody to be afraid to come in for help."
Federal violations
In 1997, the EPA changed the way it measures ozone in the air, a step that toughened ozone restrictions nationwide. The move was meant to line up the federal health standard with new knowledge of how ozone affects people. Doctors used to think ozone was a health threat when it hit high levels for a short period, say an hour. Research has found that breathing lower levels is also a risk if the exposure lasts longer, about eight hours.
The revised federal ozone limit is 85 parts per billion -- that is, for every billion molecules you breathe in, no more than 85 of them can be ozone. Monitors measure the ozone for eight-hour periods and take an average. North Texas is nowhere near meeting that federal requirement. In 2003-05, the region violated the limit on 99 days: 31 in 2003, 25 in 2004 and 43 in 2005. Violations have come on 11 days so far this month.
Just as bothersome is how high the violations were. The highest was 130 parts per billion recorded between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. on May 31, 2003, in Dallas. That's 53 percent over the limit -- like driving 92 mph on a 60-mph Dallas freeway. For an hour during that period, from 4 to 5 p.m., the level reached 161 ppb -- like going 113 mph.
The other years also yielded high numbers: 108 ppb on two days in 2004, and 117 ppb on a late June afternoon in 2005. The high so far this year is 106 ppb on June 9. Given such figures, Mr. Eastland said, planners have been told to assume that no pollution source, from power plants to pickups, is exempt from doing something to cut emissions. What that might be, however, isn't known. "We've asked them to make sure nobody has escaped," he said.
But the fact remains that 16 years after Congress declared war on smog in its rewrite of the Clean Air Act in 1990, smog still plagues urban North Texas. That spells health problems, especially for children, the elderly, anyone with respiratory illness and, when the smog gets really bad, the general public. "That's a concern," said Wendi Hammond, executive director of the Blue Skies Alliance, a North Texas environmental group. "We've waited for decades now."
Health risk
Researchers know that ozone makes it harder for people to breathe. It ages the lungs prematurely and may cause people to develop asthma. That assertion is under study, but without question, ozone causes asthma attacks in people who have the disease. The closer a child lives to a freeway or major road, several studies have found, the greater the chance that child will have asthma. Researchers said it's due to pollution from vehicles.
A 2004 report by Children's Medical Center Dallas and other organizations listed air pollution as one of the most serious threats to local children's health. And data from urban North Texas also contributed to a recent EPA-funded study with a disturbing conclusion: Even legal levels of ozone might hurt people. Scientists from Yale and Johns Hopkins universities tracked death rates in 95 urban areas, including Dallas-Fort Worth, from 1987 to 2000, to see if more people died after a few days or a week of exposure. They found that death rates rose with every rise in ozone levels, even when the ozone didn't exceed the federal limit. That suggests that there's no safe ozone level, the scientists concluded in their study, published in April in Environmental Health Perspectives, a federal research journal.
At Children's in Dallas, asthma is usually the top reason for kids to wind up in the emergency room. And it's the No. 1 cause of chronic disease among children, said Dr. William Neaville, an allergist at Children's and at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Many things can trigger an asthma attack -- among them allergies, viruses, hot or cold air, strong odors -- but irritants and air pollution are the easiest to prevent. "You want to pick out the things that are preventable and act early," Dr. Neaville said. Staying indoors on high-ozone days is one step; indoor ozone levels are often about half what they are outside. "I see the air pollution as a piece of the problem," Dr. Neaville said. "We all can take a stand on what we can do for our patients. Our goal is to keep them out of the ER." As the doctor spoke, visible through his office window, thousands of cars and trucks snaked up and down Interstate 35.
Die-hard habits
The inability to change people's personal transportation habits is nothing new. Julius Caesar issued rules limiting wagon traffic in Rome. Traffic "jam" entered the popular vocabulary, according to several accounts, in a 1910 Saturday Evening Post article about New York City's crowded streets. Long after Caesar and the Post, planners are still looking for ideas that might work. However, every recent suggestion poses a problem. Ban idling for more than five minutes? Try enforcing that one. Put a tax or surcharge on downtown parking? Commercial parking garage owners would howl. Offer incentives for telecommuting or flexible work hours to shrink the rush-hour crowds? Many companies let workers do that now, but others are reluctant. Get people to switch to pay-by-the-mile car insurance, which saves them money if they drive less? As with telecommuting, any gain depends on millions of people's individual choices -- hard to count on. Slap gas-guzzlers with a stiff state tax? Adopt California-type state rules for cleaner engines? Texas flirted with those notions when it developed smog plans in the late 1990s, but officials chose to leave SUVs and pickups -- and their makers -- alone.
Improving technology
Since most people haven't changed their behavior, planners now depend on engineers. "The real truth is technology is going to be the answer," said Mr. Eastland, the regional planning chief. For that, North Texas has had to rely mostly on the federal government, which controls national standards on fuels and engines. The most recent improvement came when a new federal rule on highway diesel fuel took effect June 1. The rule, in development since 2000, slashes the allowable sulfur content of highway-use diesel fuel to 15 parts per million, down from 500 parts per million. Removing sulfur from diesel fuel lets modern engines' pollution-control equipment work properly.
Also important to North Texas was the switch to reformulated gasoline, which contains additives to reduce smog-causing emissions. Congress ordered the smoggiest areas -- in Southern California -- to use the cleaner gasoline, but it let other areas adopt it voluntarily. The Dallas-Fort Worth area did so 10 years ago. If the region hadn't joined up, planners say, local smog would be worse.
Cleaner engine technology also is trying to catch up with increased driving. Over time, the thinking goes, newer vehicles will replace older, high-polluting ones. That's hard to achieve with diesel engines, since they can last 10 times longer than gasoline-powered ones. The state-sponsored Texas Emissions Reduction Program gives grants to companies that switch to cleaner diesel engines, but it expires in 2008 and hasn't had all of its available money released by the state. North Texas officials vow to work on both problems during the 2007 Legislature.
by Sarah-Kate Templeton, London Times
June 18, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230764,00.html
A TEAM of doctors at one of Britain's leading hospitals wants to create the country's first "designer babies" free from autism. They are preparing an application to the fertility watchdog that would allow them to screen out male embryos to reduce significantly the chance of a couple having an autistic child. As boys are four times more likely to be born with autism than girls, couples with a family history of the condition want to ensure they have only girls. Such sex selection is not at present permitted.
The technique, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), has been used to create babies free from life-threatening illnesses such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. However, screening embryos to prevent babies being born with autism would prove controversial because children born with the disorder can live long and healthy lives. Critics claim the treatment would be a step closer to creating babies free from all imperfections.
The team at University College Hospital's assisted conception unit in London decided to apply for a licence for the procedure after they were approached by a couple with a history of autism in the family. Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London medical school, said couples would undergo the treatment only if autism had inflicted severe suffering on the family.
Couples requesting the procedure would need to go through a gruelling in-vitro fertilisation cycle, even though they had no difficulty conceiving naturally. The technique could be used only to prevent the hereditary form of autism, which affects about 10% of cases. It is not known what causes autism in many children. Delhanty said: "Normally we would not consider this unless there were at least two boys affected in the immediate family. We would be reducing the risk of autism. Couples are not going to undertake this lightly when we explain what they are going to need to go through."
Two other families have previously approached the clinic requesting pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In both cases they are understood to have had two sons with autism and hoped to have a daughter free from the condition. Delhanty hopes that now that the rules have been relaxed to allow PGD screening for breast cancer the authorities will also consider screening for autism. The team will research the pros and cons of the technique further before submitting an application to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
The development would be strongly opposed by disabled groups. Simone Aspis, parliamentary and campaigns worker for the British Council of Disabled People, said: "Screening out autism would breed a fear that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted. Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued."
Tony Blair has called for a new debate on late abortions. At a private meeting he told Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, that most MPs might now back lowering the 24-week limit. He said there were "very troubling issues" involved and that the viability of foetuses had changed since the legislation was introduced in 1967.
by Joe Nocera, New York Times
June 18, 2006
excerpted from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Despite everything -- the universal knowledge about the dangers of tobacco, the warnings on cigarette packaging, the antismoking public-service ads -- lots of people still smoke, and one of every two long-term smokers will die from the habit. In all, more than 400,000 smokers in the U.S. will succumb this year to heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema or other diseases because they smoked. Although the trend has gone steadily downward over the past two decades, some 20 percent of the adult population smokes -- that's about 48 million people. John Seffrin, C.E.O. of the American Cancer Society, calls tobacco-related diseases "the single-most-preventable cause of death in the world." Who can disagree?
You'll no doubt recall that in the mid-1990's, there was a huge public outcry about the behavior of the tobacco industry, and efforts were made to bring the cigarette companies to heel. State attorneys general sued the big tobacco companies, and private class-action suits were mounted; Congress held hearings excoriating Big Tobacco, while Dr. David Kessler, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration at the time, tried to claim regulatory authority over the industry; whistle-blowers leaked damning documents to the press. It was a moment when the cigarette companies were exceedingly vulnerable, and serious reform could have been imposed by the federal government. But that didn't happen. A reform effort failed in Congress, and 46 states and the industry wound up settling their litigation with something called the M.S.A. -- the Master Settlement Agreement -- which imposed marketing and advertising restrictions on cigarettes, financed an antismoking ad campaign and transferred a staggering sum of money ($206 billion over 25 years) from the big tobacco companies to the state governments. (Four states settled separately for an additional $40 billion.)
And then the body politic moved on. So, a final stipulation: Cigarettes aren't going away. Nobody is about to ban tobacco, nor is anybody about to put the cigarette companies out of business, much as they might like to. These days, although Philip Morris USA loses the occasional lawsuit, the litigation threat that once seemed so onerous has become quite manageable. And though the M.S.A. has done some very good things -- it's the reason you no longer see cigarette billboards -- it has both limits and unintended consequences. For one, it has resulted in the rise of about 100 small cigarette companies -- with names like Liberty Brands and Virginia Brands -- that now undercut the big boys on price. And it has given the states a rooting interest in the continued prosperity of the tobacco companies, because they now depend on M.S.A. money to balance their budgets. All the while, cigarettes remain exactly what they've always been: the most dangerous unregulated legal product in the country.
When you talk to Steve Parrish about all of this, though, he doesn't use the language tobacco executives once used. He doesn't talk about "individual choice," nor does he pretend that cigarettes aren't addictive. On the contrary: "Cigarettes are addictive and cause the disease and death of hundreds of thousands of people every year," he said in one of our conversations. "When you set tobacco on fire and inhale it into your lungs, bad things happen." In another conversation, he said, "If fewer people died from smoking, that would be good for Altria's shareholders." He says that it is important to keep kids from starting to smoke and freely concedes that tobacco can never be viewed as just another product because it is so deadly. It can be quite startling the first time you hear him say these things.
Most amazing of all, Parrish says that tobacco needs to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The industry has long fought such efforts; it waged legal war, for instance, against Kessler's claim of jurisdiction, finally winning in the Supreme Court, which ruled that only Congress could give the F.D.A. the authority Kessler had sought. Yet since 2000, thanks in large measure to Parrish, Philip Morris USA has been calling for the regulation of cigarettes. Two years ago, Altria made a serious, sustained effort to have such a law enacted, which was strongly backed by the country's leading anti-tobacco lobby, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, as well as all the other big public-health groups, and fiercely opposed by the rest of the industry, including archrival Reynolds American. Although the measure twice passed the Senate, it died in a conference committee.
Among anti-tobacco advocates, Parrish's words are treated with varying degrees of skepticism. "Parrish is different from other tobacco executives in many ways," says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "He is exceptionally bright and skillful. He has been the catalyst for Philip Morris taking a number of positions that surprise public-health advocates and that on their surface are consistent with what public-health advocates have long supported. But having said that, the jury is still out on what he really intends." Myers was quick to add, "One can look at the history here and wonder whether what Philip Morris is doing today is nothing more than a sophisticated version of what they've always done."
Read the entire 10-page article at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
by Sarah A. Webster, Detroit Free Press
June 18, 2006
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060618/BUSINESS01/606180599
Most consumers probably never stop to think about all the earthly problems being created by their Screaming Yellow Mustang or a Silver Birch Clearcoat Metallic Expedition. But priming, painting and clear coating millions of new cars and trucks every year is a stinky, complicated process that creates millions of pounds of dirty waste at assembly plants around the world.
Around the world, nearly 70 million pounds of paint fumes are collected by automakers and burned in multimillion-dollar incinerators, which devour about 350 kilowatts of energy per hour. Another 44 million pounds of paint overspray, meanwhile, are captured, treated and consolidated into nonhazardous sludge that is eventually dumped in landfills.
Dearborn-based Ford Motor Co., however, is helping to pioneer new, more environmentally friendly ways of dealing with the eco-challenges created by the painting. The automaker has been working with its suppliers to develop a fumes-to-fuel system -- now ready for prime-time use -- that converts the volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, given off by paint fumes into fuel that generates power instead of consuming it. Ford first tested the system in 2004 at its Rouge Center in Dearborn -- a test bed for environmental innovations and the crown jewel of the company's manufacturing facilities. That pilot program proved the fumes-to-fuel concept was possible.
Two years later, Ford is wrapping up another fumes-to-fuel pilot program at its Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, where the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator are built. That pilot showed how a full-scale fumes-to-fuel concept really worked in day-to-day plant life and allowed engineers to work out the kinks. Now, Ford is preparing to roll out fumes-to-fuel systems at other plants as equipment is updated and replaced. The company's minivan plant in Oakville, Ontario, which builds the Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey, is scheduled to install a fumes-to-fuel system early next year.
A cost saver
Besides saving energy, the fumes-to-fuel system costs less to install and maintain than existing furnaces. What's more, it enables Ford to use higher-quality, solvent-based paints that usually generate more VOCs. The fumes-to-fuel technology, developed in conjunction with DTE Energy, won an Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Excellence Award in 2004. Other suppliers, such as Environmental C&C Inc. of Clifton Park, N.Y., and Climate Technologies of Northville, have also played a role in bringing the system to fruition.
Tiny beads of carbon
On the rooftop of the Michigan Truck Plant earlier this month, Aaron Hula, an environmental-control engineer in Ford's Environmental Quality Office, explained how the fumes-to-fuel system works: In the first stage, air and the VOCs from the paint booths at the plant are funneled into a concentrator. The concentrator separates the VOCs from the air -- cleaning it -- by using tiny carbon beads that look like poppy seeds. The dirty air is forced up into a chamber, where it collides with the tiny seeds that are working their way down the chamber. The porous seeds trap the VOCs in their rough little surfaces. The clean air is released into the sky, and the seeds are then scrubbed of their VOCs in another chamber by being heated to more than 600 degrees. The clean seeds are reused to capture more dirty VOCs. But the rich hydrocarbon exhaust created by the VOCs can be used for fuel. (Hydrocarbon is the same component that gives natural gas its punch.)
Ford has been experimenting with different ways of using the fuel created by the process. At the Ford Rouge Center, the hydrocarbons are converted into a hydrogen-rich gas that is turned into power in a fuel cell, where a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen molecules is used to create electricity. At Michigan Truck, the gas is fed into a regular combustion engine, which uses the fuel to generate about 55 kilowatt-hours of electric power every hour -- enough for an average city block. The power is then put back into the power grid for the plant and could power the massive lighting system in one of the plants' extensive paint lines.
The fumes-to-fuel system scheduled for the Ontario plant will use a fuel-cell generator, as Ford continues to experiment with different modifications of the system. Mark Wherrett, Ford's principal environmental engineer, said the program has been a complete success. "We're very pleased with the results so far," he said. "It's a pollution-control system that uses less energy than the old system."
by Glenn Yoder, Boston Globe
June 18, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/06/18/for_some_breathing_is_never_easy/?page=3
Linda Hillyer is in her mid-50s, but she doesn't go out much anymore. She doesn't ride in cars often, and certainly doesn't take public transportation. She can handle the occasional walk around her Jamaica Plain neighborhood, but she brings a filtered mask in case she starts to have trouble breathing. The one place she feels truly comfortable, Hillyer said, is in her apartment. Even though that's where her troubles began. Eight years ago, said Hillyer, a freelance editor who works from the apartment, she began having breathing problems that she attributes to a leaky furnace in the basement. Matters got worse. She developed migraine headaches, digestive problems and insomnia, spurred by "anything that wasn't neutral in the air," she said. "I had already been sensitive for some time," she said, "sensitive to people wearing perfume, documents from publishing house s that were hard for me to have near my face, but this kind of tipped the balance when I had the exposure over several weeks."
Doctors and researchers say low-level exposure to irritants or allergens over an extended period of time can lead to the condition Hillyer was diagnosed with: multiple chemical sensitivity , a.k.a. hypersensitivity or chemical hyperreactivity. Those suffering from MCS -- and there appears to be no authoritative estimate of their numbers from US health officials -- describe symptoms ranging from headaches and nausea to short-term memory loss after the slightest contact with triggering irritants.
And city living can exacerbate the condition, as chemical sensitivities and asthmatic complications continue to show up in different ways in urban life, said Dr. Christine Oliver , who practices occupational and environmental medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. "I think in general that living in an urban environment is worse, because air pollution is worse, vehicular exhaust is more concentrated, and there's more people on the streets wearing fragrances," Oliver said, noting that city dwellers have little control over their environment.
The health issue is beginning to attract local notice. The Boston City Council recently backed a proposed state initiative to improve air quality in schools and public buildings. But City Councilor Chuck Turner cautions not to expect a change for the hypersensitive too soon. In order to fit the clinical definition of the syndrome, the symptoms must affect multiple body systems, Oliver said. Most often, the neurological and respiratory systems are hardest hit, but the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems can be affected as well, she said, and any chemical encounter, including fragrances or pesticides, can trigger the symptoms. "It's important to get a neurological evaluation before deciding that it's attributable to MCS," said Oliver, who has diagnosed the condition since the late 1980s. Oliver said her primary suggestion after making a diagnosis is to have the patient try to identify the chemical source or sources of their symptoms, and eliminate it from their surroundings.
The debatable nature of the syndrome is what creates true problems in finding adequate housing, said Barbara Lybarger, general counsel for the Massachusetts Office on Disability. "Allergies are a little less simple to prove than some of the more obvious things. If you don't have a leg, you don't have a leg," she said. What constitutes fair treatment for those with sensitivities "is a case-by-case basis."
Although MCS has been recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act since 1991, as well as by the Social Security Administration, US Department of Housing, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, landlords often must comply with the Fair Housing Act and make "reasonable accommodations" for tenants. The definition of "reasonable," however, is unclear, said Jack Spengler, a professor of environmental health and human habitation at Harvard's School of Public Health who has conducted extensive research on indoor air pollution. "In public housing, it's reasonable that the landlord take care of those things," he said, listing notification of painting and cleaning projects and the use of different products as concerns that should be high on landlords' agendas. "But where does the line of reasonableness come in?"
The Fair Housing Council of Greater San Antonio's website, accessiblehousing.org, which urges tenants to understand their housing rights, states that under current federal law a reasonable accommodation is a modification that doesn't impose "an undue financial or administrative burden on a housing provider" or require "a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program." But even so, it's not clear-cut, and the gray area that surrounds a diagnosis of the condition makes it difficult for landlords, said Skip Schloming, executive director of the Cambridge-based Small Properties Owners Association. "It's a tricky issue because if it's not clearly diagnosed, then you have people who may be paranoid, that fear these things, and one would hope that a landlord would still do what they can and assume that the person is right," he said.
Marilyn Hoffman, 75, who said she has suffered from MCS for more than half a century and who moves from hotel to hotel downtown in search of relief, knows the pain of misinterpretation better than most. Hoffman, has a list of demands that includes some she admits seem unreasonable. Every minuscule element of her life needs attention: the paint on walls, the type of wood in furniture, scents in the air. For five decades, she has battled to prove there is something sickening her. However, she said, what the eye doesn't see, the mind often doesn't believe. "It's not just the physical hurt, but the psychological, emotional impact that family members, friends, people you work with, how they treat you," she said. "They're afraid of something they don't understand."
The scientists are out there
Chemical sensitivities seem to be diagnosed in tandem with well-publicized incidents, Oliver said. Physicians saw a boom in cases in the early 1990s when sick building syndrome (which many doctors say can lead to MCS) and chemical illnesses in Gulf War veterans grabbed headlines. In May 2004, the condition again made the papers when Dan Allen, a former Boston University and Holy Cross football coach, died at age 48 from complications stemming from MCS. As awareness of chemical sensitivities has slowly crept into the public consciousness, quiet changes have accompanied it. In March, the superintendent of the Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School in Bourne publicly discouraged students from wearing colognes, perfumes, and body sprays. And advocacy groups have pushed to ban fragrances from public areas with mild success -- this spring, the state Department of Conservation and Recreation agreed to stop using four out of five pesticides in state parks after pressure from a group that Hillyer is active in, Jamaica Plain's Neighborhood Pesticide Action Committee.
More is occurring out of the public eye. The director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's technology and policy program, Nicholas A. Ashford, who teaches courses in environmental law and policy and has written numerous books on the subject, said in the six years between the first and second editions of one of his books in the 1990s, twice as much peer review was conducted as had been performed in the previous 50 years. Translation: scientists are looking into it more. There's been a real acceleration of scientific work related to the condition," Ashford said.
But the problem is far from solved, or even accepted, said Jean Lemieux, the president of an Andover-based statewide support network, the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured. "It's never enough, wheels turn very slow, but I would say progress is being made," she said, noting that her group passes information to the housing bank MassHousing so landlords can learn about the effects of chemical sensitivities. "Housing is the most difficult" aspect of the condition, she said. "We don't have a listing that I can go down and say, `Try here and here and here.' It's about putting in legwork, and when people are sick it's very hard going out and looking at an apartment."
In Canada, where by one estimate about 25 percent of the population suffers from some form of allergy or chemical sensitivity, the national housing agency built model homes in the 1990s specifically for the hypersensitive, said Harvard's Spengler, who toured one of the houses in Ottawa. Canada "recognized this as a national problem and worked toward a demonstration that would be available to other builders on how to approach this," Spengler said. But he stopped short of saying the designs should be put into common practice.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
June 16, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060616.wxhasthma16/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
The elevated incidence of asthma in wealthy Western countries has long puzzled researchers seeking to explain why affluence would be associated with a debilitating respiratory ailment. Now, a handful of studies suggests at least part of the answer may be the exposure of young children to the heavily polluted air emanating from chlorinated indoor swimming pools. This so-called "pool chlorine hypothesis" has received a boost from these papers, including one study that found the incidence of the disease among European children closely tracks the number of pools in a country, and another based on a survey in Belgium that found the most consistent predictor of whether a child would develop the disease, after a family history of allergies or asthma, was high pool use.
The reason why indoor pools might cause asthma is being attributed to chlorine, which is added to the water to keep swimmers safe from infectious diseases. While chlorine is an effective disinfectant, it has a drawback. When it destroys the bacteria and viruses found in water, and does the same to the sweat, urine, and saliva from swimmers, it produces trichloramine, the gas that is the main cause of the pungent odour associated with swimming pools. Trichloramine, also known as nitrogen trichloride, is a powerful oxidant that, when inhaled, is able to damage the surface of lung tissues, making them more permeable to substances that might ultimately trigger asthma, such as air pollution, pet dander and other allergy-causing substances, according to the researchers investigating the possible link between pools and asthma.
"In these countries where you have a very high prevalence of asthma, you also have a lot of swimming pools, and because of the weather, the swimming pools are indoors," said Alfred Bernard, a toxicologist at the department of public health at the Catholic University of Louvain, in Brussels, and co-author of two studies issued earlier this month. "We suspect this chemical affects the lungs, making the lungs more permeable to these allergens," he said. The finding may also explain why competitive swimmers and lifeguards at indoor pools also have elevated asthma risks.
A third study, published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that heavily chlorinated whirlpool baths might be harmful to those suffering asthma. There are currently no standards for the amount of trichloramine allowed in the air around pools, except in Brussels, and Dr. Bernard said concentrations can attain such high levels that the gas often is the most intense indoor air pollutant to which young children are exposed. He is particularly worried about the recent popularity of baby swimming programs, which expose the very young to high levels of pollutant and may contribute to asthma later in life.
The rise in the incidence of asthma and its peculiar international distribution has long perplexed researchers. The respiratory ailment is often 10 times more prevalent in wealthy industrialized countries than elsewhere, making it a disease of affluence. Canada has one of the world's highest rates -- asthma strikes more than one in 10 children -- a rate that has made it the most common chronic disease of childhood in this country. Although asthma was once rare, the prevalence has soared in recent decades. In the United States, where good statistics are kept, the incidence rate has doubled in only the past two decades.
Genetic changes wouldn't happen quickly enough to be the reason for such a rise. This has led investigators to look at what has changed in the environment that might be linked to asthma, such as exposure to secondhand smoke, pesticides, and the fumes given off by some plastics -- pollutants that are all able to irritate the lungs and are found in indoor air. Researchers have also speculated that industrialized countries might be too hygienic, producing such a clean and sterile environment that children don't come into contact with enough germs early in life to strengthen their developing immune systems, leading to allergies, and to asthma attacks when youngsters are exposed to pollutants later in life. There are disputes about whether excessive cleanliness is the real cause because of the timing of the increase in asthma incidence. The big advances in hygiene occurred before the 1940s, while the asthma incidence rate began rising in the 1960s.
Mr. Bernard said that one intriguing factor in the asthma incidence is that English speaking countries, including the U.K., Ireland, Australia and Canada have the highest rates of the disease, something he says may be linked to the earlier development in these jurisdictions of indoor swimming pools. Pools can avoid the chlorine problem by increasing the amount of ventilation in their buildings, something that can be costly in cold countries, such as Canada.
However, it is not clear how much extra ventilation would be needed to get pollutants to low levels. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, a professional body based in Atlanta, is currently funding research to find out how much fresh air would be needed to remove or dilute swimming pool pollutants. Currently, it is recommended that pool areas have six to eight complete changes of the air each hour to maintain adequate ventilation. Mr. Bernard said pools can also be disinfected using better filtration, ozone, and ultraviolet light, among other ways, avoiding the off-gassing problem from trichloramine.
by John Johnston, Boca Raton [Florida] News
June 16, 2006
http://www.bocaratonnews.com/index.php?src=news&prid=15875&category=Main%20Headline
Eighteen months ago, County Administrator Robert Weisman told the Boca Raton News it was "unlikely" that an upcoming National Research Council (NRC) study would resolve the issue of whether or not to put fluoride into public drinking water. The NRC study is "just a study of all pre-existing studies," he said.
What a difference 18 months makes. Last week Weisman did an about face, saying that the since released NRC study suggests that the "perceived dental benefits" of fluoridation may not sufficiently exceed the possible negative effects of using it. Further, Weisman said, there was "sufficient evidence" in the NRC study about potential negative effects for him to write a memo to County Commissioners, urging that fluoridation cease in all unincorporated territory public water systems.
Water fluoridation is the practice of adding fluoride compounds to water with the intended purpose of reducing tooth decay in the general population. Many American municipalities fluoridate public water supplies, believing that this practice will reduce tooth decay at a low cost. Currently about 65 percent of the United States residents in urban areas have fluoridated water.
Opponents Gather
Weisman, who began his career as an engineer in the county Engineering and Public Works Department, won't get any argument from Patricia Moreell of Boca Raton about his recommendation to stop fluoridation. "Why is it that the very cities crying dental crisis are those which have been fluoridated the longest and still have the greatest tooth decay?" Moreell asks. She cited the cities of Boston, New York, Cincinnati and Washington DC. Moreell's group, South Florida Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, has been fighting the addition of fluoride to drinking water, claiming it is toxic and actually does little, if anything, to help tooth enamel.
County Commissioner Mary McCarty has also steadfastly opposed fluoridation. "I'm pro-choice when it comes to fluoridation," she said, arguing that putting fluoride in public water supplies is violating individual choice because "water is something you can't live without.""Fluoride works when it's applied topically," said McCarty, "and we get what we need from our toothpaste. Why do we need it in our water?"
Long-time opponent Palm Beach County fluoridation opponent Naomi Flack takes a different approach. The climate in South Florida -- and to prevent dehydration -- causes many persons to consume far more water than is consumed on average. As such, she said, adding fluoride to public water supplies "is medically unsound because, and regardless of the dose of fluoride in the water, you can't control how much someone drinks." "This is not about tooth decay," she also argued. "It is naive to think that a substance powerful enough to alter tooth enamel will have no effect whatsoever on all other organs and tissues in the body." Flack said, "Money saved by no fluoridation could be used to buy enough fluoridated toothpaste to deal with the entire population."
ADA Disagrees
Hold on to your floss says the American Dental Association (ADA). Despite the NRC report, and with two days of it being issued, the ADA said that fluoridation "remains the model for dental disease prevention." The ADA also said that using the NRC study as a basis for making decisions about public water supplies is inappropriate because "community water fluoridation was not part" of the study. According to the official ADA report following the NRC study used by Weisman to make his recommendations, "the American Dental Association supports community water fluoridation as a safe, beneficial and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay.
Past comprehensive reviews of the safety and effectiveness of fluoride in water have concluded that water fluoridation is safe and the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay among populations living in areas with adequate community water supply systems," the ADA says, adding: "In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proclaimed community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."
Then what does the NRC report in fact say? According to the ADA, the NRC report was "part of a routine, periodic review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, the ADA says, the study doesn't even address public water supply questions. Rather, it examined "whether the amount of naturally occurring fluoride allowed in drinking water poses a health risk." And the report concluded, according to the ADA, "that the EPA's maximum level goal for naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water should be lowered."
The report cites "severe dental fluorosis, also known as enamel fluorosis, as one of the reasons for the new recommendation," according to the ADA. Severe fluorosis, where teeth appear discolored and sometimes pitted is found in about 10 percent of children in communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near 4ppm, according to the NRC report. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) 32 percent of American children now have some form of dental fluorosis, with 2 to 4 percent of children having the moderate to severe stages (CDC 2005). However, the ADA says, the concentration of fluoride cited in the study "is nearly four times the optimum amount recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC and ADA to prevent tooth decay."
But the fear that adding fluoride to possibly existing natural occurring fluoride in Palm Beach County's unincorporated areas, prompted Weisman to err on the side of caution, causing him to recommend ceasing public water fluoridation there.
Vote Split
The vote eighteen months ago to approve fluoridation was 5-2 -- with Commissioner Tony Masilotti arguing that fluoridation removes citizen "choice, and Commissioner McCarty arguing that "medicating of water" is inappropriate. In February of 2004, Commissioners approved fluoridation of water for about 420,000 people living in the communities in the western part of the county, most of them west of Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Boynton Beach and Lake Worth. The 2004 vote was split 4-2, with Commissioners McCarty and Karen Marcus voting no. Commissioners Burt Aaronson, Addie Green and Warren Newell, led by its major proponent, Commissioner Jeff Koons, supported fluoridation. Chairman Masilotti did not attend the February 2004 meeting. Because the approval vote was not unanimous, Commissioners in 2004 directed last year that actual fluoridation would not be implemented pending review of the since released NRC study.
The ADA and other fluoride proponents say the additive has proven itself an effective anti-cavity substance through a half-century of use in municipal water supplies and in toothpaste.
Changes Mind
What a member of the NRC study board said, however, calls into question that long-standing belief. Dr. Hardy Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of fluoride. He now says flatly: "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming." Limeback lists four primary reasons for his opposition to fluoridation:
Dr. Limeback concludes his comments in the NRC study by saying: "Policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation." Commissioners will reexamine the question, and Weisman's memo, at Tuesday's county commission meeting. County Health Department head Dr. Jean Malecki, along with some county dentists, is expected to clash with Flack, Moreell, and others.
news release from the World Health Organization
June 16, 2006
http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/
GENEVA -- As much as 24% of global disease is caused by environmental exposures which can be averted. Well-targeted interventions can prevent much of this environmental risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) demonstrates in a report issued today. The report further estimates that more than 33% of disease in children under the age of 5 is caused by environmental exposures. Preventing environmental risk could save as many as four million lives a year, mostly in developing countries.
The report, "Preventing disease through healthy environments -- towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease", is the most comprehensive and systematic study yet undertaken on how preventable environmental hazards contribute to a wide range of diseases and injuries. By focusing on the environmental causes of disease, and how various diseases are influenced by environmental factors, the analysis breaks new ground in understanding the interactions between environment and health. The estimate reflects how much death, illness and disability could be realistically avoided every year as a result of better environmental management.
"The report issued today is a major contribution to ongoing efforts to better define the links between environment and health," said Dr Anders Nordström, Acting WHO Director-General. "We have always known that the environment influences health very profoundly, but these estimates are the best to date. This will help us to demonstrate that wise investment to create a supportive environment can be a successful strategy in improving health and achieving development that is sustainable."
The report estimates that more than 13 million deaths annually are due to preventable environmental causes. Nearly one third of death and disease in the least developed regions is due to environmental causes. Over 40% of deaths from malaria and an estimated 94% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases, two of the world's biggest childhood killers, could be prevented through better environmental management.
The four main diseases influenced by poor environments are diarrhoea, lower respiratory infections, various forms of unintentional injuries, and malaria. Measures which could be taken now to reduce this environmental disease burden include the promotion of safe household water storage and better hygienic measures; the use of cleaner and safer fuels; increased safety of the built environment, more judicious use and management of toxic substances in the home and workplace; better water resource management.
"For the first time, this new report shows how specific diseases and injuries are influenced by environmental risks and by how much," said Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO's Department for Public Health and Environment. "It also shows very clearly the gains that would accrue both to public health and to the general environment by a series of straightforward, coordinated investments. We call on ministries of health, environment and other partners to work together to ensure that these environmental and public health gains become a reality."
This research, which involved systematic review of literature as well as surveys of over 100 experts worldwide, identifies specific diseases impacted by certain well-known environmental hazards -- and by how much. "It brings together the best evidence available today on environmental links to health in 85 categories of disease and injury. Since the research focuses strictly on environmental hazards that are amenable to change, we can also see where preventive health measures combined with better environmental management and cleanup can have the biggest impact. In effect, we now have a 'hit list' for problems we need to tackle most urgently in terms of health and the environment," noted Dr Neira.
Diseases with the largest total annual health burden from environmental factors, in terms of death, illness and disability or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)1 are:
Most of the same environmentally-triggered diseases also rank as the biggest killers outright -- although they rank somewhat differently in order of lethality. Diseases with the largest absolute number of deaths annually from modifiable environmental factors (these are all parts of the environment amenable to change using available technologies, policies, preventive and public health measure). These diseases include:
The report shows that one way or another, the environment significantly affects more than 80% of these major diseases. Moreover, it looks to quantify only those environmental hazards that are modifiable -- that is, those that are readily amenable to change through policies or technologies that already exist. The report also spells out us how much environment-related disease is preventable.
By acting assertively and setting priorities for measures aimed at curbing the most serious killers, millions of unnecessary deaths can be prevented every year. Working with sectors such as energy, transport, agriculture and industry to ameliorate the root environmental causes of ill health is crucial.
1 DALYs = Disability Adjusted Life Years: The sum of years of potential life lost due to premature mortality and the years of productive life lost due to disability.
The report and executive summary -- Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: towards and estimate of the environmental burden of disease can be found on http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/index.html
Radio link: http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/prevdisradio/en/index.html
Video link: Message by Dr Maria Neira, Director, Public Health & Environment, http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/previdsvideo/en/index.html
by Tom Pelton, Baltimore Sun
June 16, 2006
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.lawsuit16jun16,0,401369.story
Four environmental groups sent notice to Maryland's largest power plant yesterday that they intend to sue its owner over thousands of air pollution violations linked to heart failure and asthma attacks. The Environmental Integrity Project, the Patuxent Riverkeeper, Environment Maryland and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network said they hope to force the Atlanta-based Mirant company to install pollution-control equipment at its Chalk Point power plant in Prince George's County. The Chalk Point plant was a focus of an investigation by The Sun of Maryland's failure to penalize companies for repeated violations at the state's seven oldest and largest coal-fired power plants.
Eric Schaeffer, director of the Washington-based Environmental Integrity Project, said the groups are taking action because the Maryland Department of the Environment has failed to enforce clean air laws. "We are filing the lawsuit because the state hasn't acted," said Schaeffer, former director of enforcement for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The soot discharged from this plant does all kinds of bad things for public health, including cause heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis and premature deaths."
Chuck Gates, a spokesman for MDE, said the agency is reviewing Schaeffer's claims and could take enforcement action against the plant if it concludes the complaints have merit. "Eric's group has the same intent that we do, in that they are trying to keep the air clean," Gates said.
The Sun reported last month that Maryland environmental officials have for years been ignoring most air pollution violations at the state's dirtiest power plants and have become less aggressive about imposing penalties under the Ehrlich administration. The environmental organizations said they conducted their own review of Chalk Point's records and found even more violations of opacity limits, which are restrictions on the darkness of smoke allowed to escape from the plant's stacks. The groups also said they discovered releases of toxic metals into the air -- 15,471 pounds of nickel and 8,882 pounds of vanadium, which the groups say can cause lung cancer, sore throats and other illnesses.
A Harvard School of Public Health researcher, Jonathan Levy, estimated in 2002 that the pollution from Chalk Point causes 110 deaths and 4,000 asthma attacks a year. Since then, the total amount of air pollution coming from Chalk Point has risen 26 percent, according to state records. A Mirant spokeswoman would not comment on the allegations. "Mirant is committed to doing its part to protect the environment, while providing reliable electricity for the residents of Maryland," spokeswoman Corry Leigh said in a written statement.
The violations at Chalk Point should have triggered millions of dollars in penalties from the state, Schaeffer said. They were frequent enough to cause enforcement actions under both state and federal policies. The groups pointed to 14,062 violations at the plant -- each representing six-minute periods when smoke from the plant was darker than allowed. They added up to opacity-limit violations almost 9 percent of each quarter since 2002, Schaeffer said. That was almost triple the 3 percent standard for consecutive quarters that the EPA considers a "high priority" violation.
The MDE "just waived the standard and said they weren't going to enforce it," Schaefer said. "It does raise questions about what Maryland is doing." Gates, the MDE spokesman, said the agency hasn't taken action against all opacity violations at power plants "because of the sheer volume" of them. But he said the state, since 1990, has consistently tried to act against plants that have exceeded their opacity limits more than 5 percent of the time in a quarter.
by T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-toxic16jun16,0,4975357.story
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Thursday accused the Bush administration of withholding key details about toxic waste sites that present risks of exposure to nearby residents. At a congressional hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the Environmental Protection Agency had designated as confidential the details of about 140 Superfund sites where toxic exposure remained uncontrolled. Boxer and other Democrats said the secret data included information about how much money and time it would take to clean up the dangerous sites, including one site where the EPA predicted it would take 26 years to close off access to toxics. "This isn't a question of left or right," Boxer said, waving a document marked "Privileged" by EPA officials to prevent its release to the public. "This is a question of right and wrong."
The EPA said that it had blocked only information related to law enforcement and that the public had access to all relevant health-risk data for the sites, seven of which are in California. "There is far more information available for each [high-priority] site than has ever been available before," said Susan Parker Bodine, the assistant administrator responsible for the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up toxic waste sites such as chemical dumping grounds and contaminated factories.
Republicans said Democrats were trying to manufacture a political issue, and noted that Senate tradition had long prevented the release of sensitive information. They also said they feared that Democrats were seeking to reinstate a controversial tax in which chemical manufacturers and other companies were forced to pay a fee to contribute to cleaning up waste sites, even if the firms played no role in creating the mess. "This tax would fall on businesses already paying for their own cleanup or that had never created any kind of a Superfund site," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate environment committee. "It would put a burden on those companies."
Democrats have routinely accused the Bush administration of restricting access to information designed to protect the public. One Republican-sponsored bill moving through Congress would limit data available on toxic substances released into communities, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has blocked information on flooding dangers in Florida.
Thursday's hearing of the Superfund and waste management subcommittee was the first in four years. The Superfund program was created almost three decades ago in response to environmental disasters such as Love Canal, a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, N.Y., where chemical contamination forced the removal of 800 families and led to $200 million in remediation costs. The cleanup effort has drawn criticism ever since, from environmentalists who claim it is underfunded and too slow, and from industry officials who say it is costly and punitive.
Bodine said that the agency had made significant progress, but that larger, more costly projects -- including many of the 140 sites at issue at Thursday's hearing -- take more time to remediate. Those sites are areas where the public still faces some possible exposure to toxic substances -- such as a building near buried radioactive waste that was not surrounded by a fence. A skateboard park built over the site, however, was protected by a layer of dirt.
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he was disturbed by some of the answers from Bodine, who at times appeared flustered and at a loss for words under the Democrats' questions. New Jersey, with 20, has the highest number of sites with uncontrolled exposure. The EPA's decision to withhold information is "nonsense, and everybody knows it's nonsense," Lautenberg said. "It's deceptive."
by John M. Moran, Hartford [Connecticut] Courant
June 15, 2006
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-depot0615.artjun15,0,118447.story?coll=hc-headlines-business
The Home Depot will pay $425,000 and change the way it handles pesticides and fertilizers as part of a settlement of allegations that it violated numerous environmental regulations at stores in Connecticut. The settlement, announced Wednesday by state Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy, calls for the company to pay a civil penalty of $99,000. The Home Depot will also contribute $326,000 to a fund that will be used to help educate other state retailers about environmental laws and regulations that govern the handling of hazardous materials. Other elements of the settlement call for Home Depot to establish an environmental management system to avoid future problems and to pay for a third-party audit of compliance.
"Today's announcement reminds retailers that you cannot break the law," McCarthy said. She said the settlement would lead to changes at Home Depot stores nationwide and help change practices at other major retailers. Home Depot released a statement saying it is "committed to compliance" with environmental laws, but would not answer questions about the settlement or the alleged violations.
According to environmental officials, violations found at 13 Home Depot stores included "the improper display, handling and disposal of products -- such as pesticides and fertilizers -- that contain hazardous materials." Violations were cited at stores in West Hartford, Enfield, Middletown, North Haven, Berlin, Norwalk, Fairfield, Southington, Danbury, New Hartford, Lisbon, Derby and Waterbury. The company was also cited for failing to comply with hazardous waste, pesticide and storm water management programs, the DEP said.
Environmental officials noted the settlement's potential to create benefits that extend beyond the state's borders. Home Depot, they said, is working with manufacturers about the possibility of stronger bags that would resist punctures that lead to spills. Curt Johnson, a senior attorney for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, a nonprofit group, called the settlement "a strong shot across the bow" of other retailers that may not handle hazardous products carefully. McCarthy said her agency was willing to work with retailers to help them comply with laws and regulations designed to protect customers, employees and the environment.
According to the DEP, changes planned for Home Depot under the settlement include:
It was not immediately clear how much the changes would cost Home Depot or whether those additional expenses would affect prices or profits.
by Kellyn Betts, Environmental Science & Technology
June 14, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jun/science/kb_deca.html
Research published today on ES&T's ASAP website documents that microbes can break down the large molecules of the widely used Deca PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether) flame retardant. The paper raises concerns about the Deca flame retardant's safety by showing that various bacteria can work in concert to remove the bromine atoms from the Deca compound to produce the smaller PBDE compounds that have been banned in the EU and discontinued in the U.S.
The Deca mixture is found in electronic products such as computers and televisions, and it is the only PBDE formulation currently in use. Because of the Deca-BDE molecule's large size, it is considered relatively inert, but the smaller PBDE compounds, or congeners, that have been banned and discontinued are persistent and bioaccumulative. The levels of these compounds have been rising throughout the world, especially in North America, and their neurotoxic effects are similar to those of PCBs, which they resemble chemically.
Some of the smaller PBDE compounds are associated with tumors and thyroid hormone imbalances, and some have been shown to impact developing rodent brains and impair male hormones. The PBDE compounds with 5 bromine atoms, which are considered the most toxic, recently have been found to alter the development of male gonads in rats.
In the new paper, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen and her colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, describe research they conducted with bacteria known to be able to break down large molecules containing chlorine. Sulfurospirillum multivorans are able to break down trichloroethylene, and the different species of Dehalococcoides used in the experiments can attack dioxins and vinyl chloride. The new study firmly establishes that the Dehalococcoides bacteria can break down brominated compounds, says Lorenz Adrian, who is with the Technical University of Berlin's Institute for Biotechnology and who first showed that the bacteria could attack dioxins. Alvarez-Cohen's team documented the S. multivorans bacteria's ability to decompose the Deca-BDE molecules into smaller PBDE compounds containing 8 and 9 bromine atoms.
The Dehalococcoides bacteria could not attack the large Deca-BDE molecules, but they could break down PBDE compounds containing 8 bromines to produce PBDE compounds with 6, 5, and 4 bromines. The breakdown products included BDE-99, which contains 5 bromines and is often found to bioaccumulate in people and animals. Although these tests took place in a laboratory, Alvarez-Cohen says that "it is highly likely that we'll see this kind of sequential transformation in the environment."
Other researchers agree. "We saw this same type of sequential breakdown [by bacteria] with PCBs," points out Linda Birnbaum, director of the experimental toxicology division at the U.S. EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. The research raises the question of whether "continued production and use of the Deca may lead to ongoing exposure of wildlife and people to the lower brominated congeners for which we have toxicity concerns," she adds.
Andreas Gerecke, a project leader in the analytical chemistry department of Switzerland's National Materials Science & Technology Laboratory (EMPA), was the first scientist to report that Deca-BDE was being broken down in sewage treatment plants. He says he thinks that it is likely that microbes are breaking down the Deca-BDE molecule in oxygen-free environments such as contaminated underwater sediments. However, he points out that the rates documented in the paper are quite slow. Alvarez-Cohen acknowledges that this is true but says that she is currently involved in studies with additional bacteria showing "much [more rapid] rates of degradation."
However, scientists from the Bromine Science and Environmentalal Forum, an industry group, point out that "no degradation was found without TCE being added as a fuel, along with other substrates. Since TCE is not normally present in the environment at high concentrations (it oxidizes to another substance), the environmental relevance of this study is questionable; i.e., the conditions under which degradation was forced to occur are not likely to be found in the environment."
Even so, scientists interviewed for this article agree that the paper's findings are significant. "High levels of Deca-BDE have been detected in aquatic sediments and anaerobic environments such as Baltimore Harbor," points out Heather Stapleton, an assistant professor of environmental sciences and policy at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. Deca-BDE is also "detected at elevated levels in sewage sludge [and] biosolids, which can be home to multiple strains of bacteria. Considering that land application of biosolids and soil amendment is an increasing practice, [this new paper's findings warrant] further investigation."
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe & Mail
June 14, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.RADON14/TPStory/Environment
Canada needs to tighten its radon exposure guidelines dramatically and should cut by 75 per cent the amount of the deadly radioactive gas considered safe in homes and schools, says an advisory panel of health experts drawn mainly from Health Canada and the provinces. Canada has one of the most permissive radon exposure standards in the world, higher even than those of some developing countries. The panel is proposing a lower limit to reduce the incidence of lung cancer, the primary health threat from the gas.
In its report to the federal and provincial governments, the panel estimates that radon exposure causes about 10 per cent of all lung cancers. Based on 2005 figures, that would mean about 1,900 deaths. This makes radon the second largest contributor to the deadly disease after exposure to tobacco smoke. Radon is one of the reasons non-smokers are often stricken with a deadly disease usually associated with cigarette use. "The number of radon-induced lung cancers is about one-half of the deaths due to automobile accidents, and is equal to the combined total of deaths due to accidental poisonings, homicides, drownings and fires," the panel said in a report. "In any other situation, this number of deaths would certainly justify a major public health initiative."
Radon is a colourless, odourless gas released by the decay of uranium in the ground, and is found in almost every region of the country. Radioactivity emanating from the soil can slip into the basements of homes through foundation cracks and plumbing. Among the areas with the highest levels are Sudbury, Halifax and Sherbrooke.
The panel estimates that about 2.5 per cent of homes, a total of 175,000, have radon levels above the proposal, and the owners would be advised to take actions to get their levels down. About 450 schools and 20 hospitals across the country -- in all provinces and territories -- would need about $560-million in alterations to meet the new standard, according to the panel.
The Canadian standard is 800 becquerel per cubic metre of air. A becquerel is a measure of radioactive decay. The panel recommends the figure be lowered to 200 Bq/cubic metre, the same as in Britain, Sweden and Norway, and new construction in China. The current Canadian standard was set in 1988, and is considered dated because it was based on the amount of danger posed by radon exposures for uranium miners. A new study conducted in 2004 in Europe and a second in 2005 based on North American research indicated that radon can be deadly at the lower amounts found in homes.
These studies prompted the governments to review the adequacy of Canada's standard. The panel's proposal is open for public comment until June 22, after which the country's health authorities will decide whether to adopt it. Canada's exposure limit is expected to change because it is more than five times higher than that of the United States, and four times higher than for a new home built in China.
Independent radiation experts welcomed the proposal, saying it is overdue. "We have been actually advocating for this for years," said Reza Moridi, chief scientist at the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada, a national body that promotes radiation safety. He says the current standard is "far too high."
In the United States, health authorities have taken aggressive action against radon, and even have a map showing the counties with the highest readings. A total of 800,000 homes with elevated radon have taken mitigation steps since the mid-1980s in the U.S., at an average cost of about $1,200 (U.S.). Some U.S. states require testing of private homes when they are sold, an approach the panel said should be considered, along with a requirement that new homes have equipment installed to reduce levels. "A combination of radon-resistant requirements in new homes and mandatory testing of existing homes could lead to virtually complete compliance with the new Canadian radon guidelines within a decade," the panel's report said.
Canadian health authorities currently cannot tell residents where the threat posed by radon is most severe, and are working on a U.S.- style radon map -- an outline of parts of the country with the highest risk -- and expect to have one available in one or two years. But Mr. Moridi said radon is found everywhere, and the only way to determine for sure whether a building has the problem is through a test. He said the institute conducted an extensive test of Toronto schools in the early 1990s, and found two were above U.S. standards. The institute used U.S. standards because Canadian guidelines were considered too lax to protect the city's children. Tests cost about $50 per home.
The most common way to reduce radon entering a house is to install venting pipes through basement floor slabs and seal gaps and cracks in basement walls. Exposures to radon are worse in winter, when Canadian homes have the least ventilation. Although radon is a big danger to non-smokers, it also enhances lung cancer risk among those who smoke. According to the report, the lifetime risk of lung cancer for a smoker who has only low, outdoor-level exposures to radon is 12 per cent. That figure jumps to 30 per cent for smokers exposed to radon at the current standard. The new proposal, however, would reduce the risk to 17 per cent.
by Michael G. Mooney, Modesto [California] Bee
June 13, 2006
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12312477p-13046087c.html
A San Francisco jury last week sided with Modesto in the city's quest to make chemical companies pay forsoil and water pollution caused by dry-cleaning solvents they manufacture. The jury will decide how much to award the city in punitive damages from three companies that produced the solvents, which have been linked to cancer in people.
It could announce its decision today or early Wednesday, said Mike Axline, an attorney representing Modesto. He declined to comment further until the jury reaches its next decision. At stake is as much as $100 million to clean soil and groundwater polluted by perchloroethylene, or PCE.
The case featured complex claims, counterclaims and 17 defendants, including Michigan chemical giant Dow Chemical, Illinois-based R.R. Street & Co. and Alabama-based Vulcan Materials. Those three companies are responsible for the punitive damages the jury might award. The jury indicated the companies acted "with malice" because their officers were aware of PCE's potentially harmful effects.
Modesto Steam Laundry and Cleaners, and Halford's Cleaners also are defendants. Unlike the makers of the chemicals, the Modesto dry cleaners do not face punitive damages. Halford's owner Bob Bhukan had not heard of the verdict Monday afternoon. He said he was surprised by the jury's decision. "That's so many years ago that this thing happened that they shouldn't be responsible," he said. Bhukan said he did not participate in the trial beyond letting investigators inspect his property. A Modesto Steam Laundry owner could not be reached for comment.
The jury held the chemical makers responsible for contamination of two city wells and damages to a Coffee Road shopping center. Its verdict indicates the companies should have notified the city of the damages their products could have caused. The verdict also says the Modesto dry cleaners used the chemicals in a way their makers should have foreseen. The jury cleared the companies of wrongdoing at a third well.
Ramifications of the jury's decision likely will extend far beyond Modesto. There are an estimated 30,000 dry cleaners around the country that use PCEs in their cleaning process. Axline previously told The Bee that more than 10 percent of the nation's water supply has been polluted by PCE or TCE (trichloroethylene), another suspected carcinogen.
Modesto filed the lawsuit against various chemical and dry-cleaning companies in December 1998. It took more than seven years to bring the case before a jury. The nearly four-month trial got under way Feb. 6 in San Francisco Superior Court.
Liver, kidneys can be affected
Some experts say PCE and TCE can cause health problems even in the smallest concentrations. The industrial solvents can do serious damage to the body'scentral nervous system, experts contend, as well as the liver and kidneys. People can ingest PCEs by breathing contaminated air or drinking contaminated water. Experts for the city's legal team have estimated citywide cleanup costs at $100 million. Most of that money, Axline hassaid, would cover the costofremoving PCE and TCEfromthe soil and groundwaterat more than 30 locations around the city.
Bee staff writer Adam Ashton contributed to this report.
by Simon Doyle, Ottawa Hill Times
June 12th, 2006
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/june/12/carcinogens/&c=1
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act calls on the government to use 'precaution' in its risk management of toxins, but the principle has not been used. As the federal government comes under criticism for failing to properly regulate toxins and carcinogens in consumer products and the environment, the Standing Committee on Environment heard last week that government departments have relied on a faulty approach of using "sound science" to determine the risks associated with toxins.
In recent weeks, pressure has mounted on the government to ban a number of harmful and toxins that do not break down in the environment and that are sold in consumer products, such as flame retardants, found in furniture and carpets, or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is used to make non-stick pans and other non-stick materials. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, gives regulatory powers to Cabinet to define chemicals as toxic if they are considered to pose significant health risks.
But last week, environmental advocates told the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development that government departments have been influenced by industry groups that have successfully argued that the government needs to use a "false principle" of "sound science" in its decisions to ban substances. A brief submitted last week to the committee by Bruce Lourie, president of the Ivey Foundation, an environmental charitable foundation in Toronto, says that there is no such thing as "sound science" because it implies absolute evidence or consensus when all science contains uncertainty. The brief calls the phrase an invention of industrial stakeholders to slow down and delay the regulatory process toward banning chemicals.
In his appearance before the Environment Committee last week, Mr. Lourie said he conducted an informal survey of about 30 sources in the government, manufacturing industry, advocacy groups, and academics, and only government officials viewed "sound science" as a valid phrase. Even the industry officials surveyed acknowledged the term as a strategy for undermining or delaying government action, he said. "We see sound science referenced in federal documents. Sound science, if you read any of the literature on it, was a term created by industry, deliberately, to interject uncertainty, to interject doubt into decision-making. So the fact that we have sound science in our federal documentation suggests that we're really lining ourselves up with the kind of language the industry uses, deliberately, to undermine action. That's problematic," Mr. Lourie said.
The Canadian Cancer Society says that 50 per cent of cancers are preventable, and although most preventable cancers can be attributed to smoking, people can unknowingly accumulate carcinogens and other toxins in their bodies through inhalation, ingestion or skin contact. They can be found in pesticides and weed killers, household cleaners and detergents, personal care products, fruit with traces of pesticides, beef with growth hormones, composite wood products and plastics. In the 1970s, one in five Canadians could expect to develop cancer in their lifetimes, according to Health Canada cancer statistics. Today, the chance for men is one in 2.4 and for women one in 2.7, and the rate is predicted to rise.
CEPA includes a provision mandating that the government use a "precautionary principle" in its approach to determining whether some substances are harmful, but witnesses at the committee said a "sound science" approach does not allow for such precaution. Larry Stoffman, from the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control, who appeared before the committee with Mr. Lourie, said that in the absence of using the precautionary principle, cancers that could be prevented, are not. Mr. Stoffman and Mr. Lourie pointed to mercury as an example of a well-known toxin with multiple health hazards, but which has not been banned and is still used in thermometers in public school labs. If "sound science" had been applied in the risk management of smoking in public places, Mr. Stoffman said, smoking would still be allowed in the very committee room where they met in West Block.
Mr. Stoffman said the European Union uses an effective precautionary principle, which says that wherever reliable scientific evidence shows there may be adverse health effects from certain substances -- even if there is uncertainty about the extent of the effects -- there is a requirement to use precaution and ban or virtually eliminate the substance.
The House Environment Commons Committee is currently conducting a statutory review of CEPA. Liberal MP John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Ont.), a member of the committee, told The Hill Times that the committee could use the opportunity to look at redefining CEPA's precautionary principle, to ensure that it is properly used. "What happens is that these things become politicized. If there's a substance where a group of stakeholders have some economic interest in defending it, and they don't want this particular substance replaced -- they own the patent on it or whatever else -- if the debate reaches a Cabinet committee, the danger is that the economic interest of the stakeholder trumps the precautionary principle," Mr. Godfrey said.
The issue appears to be gaining some political momentum. Last week, two Liberal MPs, Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Ont.) and Maria Minna (Beaches-East York), held a joint news conference to tout two private members' bills. Ms. Kadis' bill, Bill C-274, would ban brominated flame retardants by adding them to the toxic substances list. Ms. Minna's bill, Bill C-298, would ban PFOS, found in non-stick pans, which is linked to various types of Cancer and can damage the brain and the immune system. Ms. Minna, former minister for International Cooperation under Jean Chrétien, said the issue is becoming increasingly important because, while studies have increasingly shown the health hazards of the chemicals, children are increasingly accumulating them.
However, under the regulatory powers of CEPA, the former Liberal government had several years to ban the substances, and when asked why it did not, Ms. Minna said the regulatory process -- which observers say can become bogged down in consultations -- is slow. "I, quite frankly, think we need to change the regulatory system to make it easier and a little faster, so that these kinds of changes can be made fairly quickly," Ms. Minna said. She said that she hopes to see committee's current review of CEPA come up with a streamlined way to ban substances through regulations. "I think that maybe we should take a look at the regulatory system as we review CEPA, and really change the onerous time that it takes to designate substances. Other countries are doing it much faster," Ms. Minna said. "In the meantime we should pass this through the House of Commons. Let's do it now," she said of the bill she introduced.
Ms. Kadis added that increasing pressure is only now creating awareness about harmful environmental toxins. "The media has played an important role, the public has, we're trying here today, and I think collectively, we're at a point in time that it really begs for that type of action to take place and serious investigation by our officials," Ms. Kadis said. Ms. Minna's bill is at first reading and will be debated on June 15, but she said Minister Ambrose has indicated the government will not be supporting the bill because such matters are the responsibility of the Environment Department.
John Moffet, a director general at the Department of the Environment, also appeared before the committee last week, and when asked why the government has not banned substances such as mercury, Mr. Moffet said CEPA gives the government the power to do so. The issue is really one of political will, he said. "Why haven't we? Fundamentally? I would argue that those are political decisions. On the issue of federal leadership, the act gives us the authority to address a wide range of issues, the extent to which we've chosen to exercise that authority, has been and will continue to be a political decision," Mr. Moffet said. Mr. Moffet said stakeholder consultations on banning substances can become "circular" and slow the process down. "Nothing in CEPA impedes the minister from saying, 'I don't care what that process says, this is the decision,'" he said.
A study released this month by Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy group in Toronto, tested seven children and six parents to find harmful toxins in all of them, such as stain repellants, flame retardants, mercury, lead, DDT and PCBs. Some children were found to have higher levels of chemicals than their parents. The study tested for 68 chemicals with a 68 per cent success rate. They found eight chemicals linked to reproductive disorders, 38 suspected cancer-causing agents, 23 chemicals dangerous to the hormone system, 19 neurotoxins, and 12 toxins associated with respiratory illnesses.
Last week, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) announced an initiative to prevent nearly 10 tonnes of mercury from entering into Canada's air over the next decade. Ms. Ambrose also announced that she would have her blood tested in another study by Environmental Defence to raise awareness of the toxins in the blood of children and families.
