|
 |
|
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.
June 9 - 11, 2006
Baltimore, Maryland
Join with groups across America who are applying the precautionary approach to environmental hazards by shifting the focus to "how can we prevent harm?", instead of asking "what level of harm is acceptable?" This national event will bring together people working on conservation, disease prevention, environmental justice, environmental health, green purchasing, precautionary business practices, toxic and nuclear pollution prevention, worker safety and more to build a stronger movement to protect our health and environment. The conference will include sessions on 1) model policies and successful campaigns from Europe and U.S. national, state and local initiatives; 2) precautionary tools like assessments of safer alternatives and full cost-accounting on pollution's hidden costs; 3) crafting effective messaging, countering the critics and building a broader movement for precaution; 4) collaborative opportunities, with sessions on water, land use and ecosystems, trade, energy, and a cross-fertilization session with groups working on children's health, environmental justice, health professionals, chemical, nuclear and pesticide reforms; and 5) skills trainings on organizing, campaign strategies, media outreach, partnering with tribes and more.
Website: http://www.besafenet.com/
Contact: Anne Rabe, CHEJ, 518-732-4538 or annerabe@msn.com
June 13 - 17, 2006
Siena, Italy
At Footprint Forum 2006 you will have the opportunity to 1) learn about practical tools developed by ecological footprint practitioners; 2) hear leaders from Europe, Asia, the US, and Australia share about the results they are achieving in their communities and companies; 3) receive basic and advanced training in the application of the ecological Footprint; 4) be inspired by our keynote speakers including Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director, European Environment Agency; Simon Upton, Chair of the OECD Roundtable on Sustainable Development; Mick Bourke, Chair of EPA Victoria, and more; and 5) participate in Global Footprint Network's partner meeting to develop our strategy for the next 5 years. The highlight of the public forum will be a free public conference in Siena on Friday, June 16th.
Website: http://www.footprintforum.org/
Contact: Carrie Wynkoop, 503-307-5604 or carrie@mandatemedia.com
from Keith Chanon, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has just released a new report titled "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Health in North America: A Call for Efforts to Determine the Sources, Levels of Exposure, and Risks that Industrial Chemicals Pose to Children's Health.
The report by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation profiles children's health and the relative risk of industrial chemicals. Using pollution data from Canada and the United States, the report focuses on chemicals associated with cancer, neurological and developmental damage, and learning and behavioral changes. The report utilizes a toxicity weighting methodology to highlight the relative risk of these chemicals compared to standard volume information. This report is available on the CEC website: http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=1965
from the Associated Press, Cincinnati Enquirer
June 5, 2006
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/NEWS01/606050336/1056
COLUMBUS -- Methamphetamine has transformed Ohio drug raids into toxic dump cleanups. Instead of raiding a home, making arrests and seizing evidence with little more than rubber gloves and plastic bags, law enforcement officers find themselves tiptoeing around potential explosives, waiting hours for hazardous cleanup crews and spending money and time on cleanup with no suspects in sight.
Federal, state and local governments have spent millions of dollars hunting and cleaning up labs that make the drug from toxic ingredients that can explode or, with longtime exposure, cause cancer. "Used to be, we bust a guy with some dope, whether it was pot or crack or whatever, and we bag it and tag it as evidence and go about our business," said Scioto County sheriff's detective John Koch. "Now, I wrap myself up like a storm trooper and become a hazardous-materials handler."
Meth is made by grinding an over-the-counter cold medication and using various chemicals to extract ephedrine, which produces a high like speed or cocaine. The chemicals include battery acid, sulfuric acid and anhydrous ammonia, a highly caustic fertilizer ingredient. In attempts to stem meth production, state lawmakers have restricted sales of the medicine, pseudoephedrine, and heightened penalties for stealing the fertilizer. Ohio is seeking federal money for locks to protect farmers' ammonia tanks from thefts.
About 500 meth labs are raided yearly in Ohio, up from 36 in 2000. The attorney general's office has spent about $2 million running a specialized unit focusing on the labs since establishing it two years ago. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has spent another $2 million on hazardous meth waste cleanup. The state also has paid for specialized training in handling toxic chemicals for 135 officers, each of whom gets about $1,300 in gear for handling hazards. The trained officers agree to leave their jurisdictions to help other departments that find meth labs, which are usually in rural areas.
In February, state agent Chuck Bell led a team of trained officers to a 12-foot trailer abandoned near a home in New Lebanon in Montgomery County. The cold pills and ammonia were already used up, leaving behind about 1,000 pounds of toxic waste including sludge and camp fuel. Federal cleanup crews worked through the night to empty the site. "This is the most I've ever seen," Bell said. "To someone driving by, this would have looked like any other junked-up backyard you can see everywhere. But imagine a kid getting around here and playing with this. That's why it matters."
But officers couldn't link the waste or the trailer to the couple who lived in the house, and there were no arrests. "That happens a lot," Bell said. "We end up finding the waste in the middle of nowhere, and we have to spend time and money to clean it up and no one gets arrested. It's frustrating, but part of our job is to keep people safe."
by Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor
June 5, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0605/p02s01-sten.html
For as long as people have cared what wafts from vehicle tailpipes, diesel motors have had the rap as the dirtiest, smelliest, noisiest engines on the road. That could soon change. In a move that may presage diesel's Cinderella-like transformation, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday required US refineries to begin making ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD), a fuel with 97 percent less sulfur than ordinary diesel that, as a result, slashes soot emissions.
The rule, which mandates that 80 percent of the diesel produced for highway use be ULSD-compliant, was just the first step. By Oct. 15, all filling stations now selling diesel will be required to sell ULSD instead of or in addition to diesel. All who drive diesel vehicles -- which account for only about 3 percent of sales of light-duty vehicles -- will immediately emit about 10 percent less pollution upon shifting to ULSD. But the biggest pollution abatement -- as much as 90 percent cleaner -- will come with the EPA-mandated debut of "clean diesel" engines, probably late next year or early in 2008.
That moment, say environmentalists, is the transformation everyone is waiting for. The new EPA rule "is the biggest step toward cutting vehicle pollution since lead was taken out of gasoline two decades ago," says Richard Kassel, director of the Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group based in Washington. Though environmentalists say they've not had much to cheer about during the Bush administration, they give credit to the EPA for pushing past political obstacles to cement a major antipollution rule.
Heavy-duty trucks and buses will be first to take full advantage of the new fuel, with new clean-diesel engines slated to hit the road in early 2007 -- cutting soot and nitrous-oxide (smog-forming) emissions by 90 percent, Mr. Kassel says. Some city bus fleets, like New York's, already use ULSD. Off-road diesel vehicles -- including farm and construction equipment -- won't be required to shift to ULSD immediately. Their emissions requirements will be phased in from 2007 to 2010.
Diesel engines have always had their virtues: high torque, durability, and good mileage. They also produce less greenhouse gases per mile than do gasoline-powered engines because of their greater fuel efficiency, says Kassel. But the clouds of soot particles that spew from buses, garbage trucks, and 18- wheelers have been an environmental and health hazard, officials say. The new clean-diesel vehicles are expected to be no louder or dirtier than gasoline engines, but they get 20 to 40 percent better mileage per gallon.
Will that put more diesels on the road? Perhaps. They may account for 7 to 15 percent of vehicle sales by 2010, some analysts say. But diesel vehicles no longer have a fuel-cost advantage, the factor that propelled more Americans to buy them after the 1970s oil embargo. Today, diesel fuel sells for about what gasoline does. As the number of clean diesels on the road grows, so might the number of drivers filling up with even cleaner biodiesel fuel from organic sources. The hope is that more fuel options will help put a big dent in US dependence on foreign oil. "We're learning that we need all these options -- ethanol, hybrids, fuel cell, and a clean-diesel option," says Allen Schaeffer of the Diesel Technology Forum, an industry group. "There's no silver bullet for reducing reliance on imported oil, but there are silver pellets -- and clean diesel is one of those."
One caveat is that because diesel motors are long-lasting, it may take decades for older, more-polluting vehicles to be replaced by new clean-diesel ones. Another is that old-technology diesel vehicles are now seeing a sales spurt. It all adds up to slow-motion change.
Once the new diesel rule is fully implemented in 2030, it is expected to yield a 90 percent cut in pollution from the nation's 13 million diesel trucks and buses. That would mean more than 8,000 premature deaths averted each year and about $70 billion annually in health benefits as a result of cleaner air, the EPA estimates. For some, such as Robert Issem of Roanoke, Va., the move to clean-diesel engines can't come soon enough. The tennis-tournament administrator drives a diesel Volkswagen Golf that gets 60-plus miles per gallon on the highway -- and he's been going out of his way to make it burn clean by using biodiesel. The trouble is that the nearest biodiesel outlet is three hours from home, so Mr. Issem fills five-gallon jugs with the fuel and totes them in his back seat.
Now, with clean-diesel fuel coming to nearby filling stations, he plans to use a mix of biodiesel and ULSD for a lower- pollution ride. He also plans to be at the showroom to take a look when clean-diesel cars arrive in a year or so. "We'll definitely be looking at clean diesel."
by Greg Clary and Jorge Fitz-gibbon, White Plains [New York] Journal News
June 5, 2006
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/NEWS02/606050333/1025/NEWS09
Gene Meredith doesn't put much stock in the PCB controversy that has dominated Hudson River discussions for much of the past 30 years. That's just about as long as the 71-year-old Blauvelt resident has been fishing the Hudson, in and around the Tappan Zee Bridge. Meredith can grab 30 blue crabs at a sitting, merely by tossing herring-baited traps off the Piermont Pier in a slow rhythm that gives him about 15 minutes between throws. "They don't bother you," Meredith said of the polychlorinated biphenyls that the General Electric Co. is responsible for cleaning up in the coming two years. "If they did, there'd be a lot of dead people around here."
Other fishermen might agree, but most of the scientific community doesn't. Researchers say the millions of pounds of PCBs dumped by GE in 30 years have continued to affect fish and other wildlife as the chemicals have filtered down 200 miles of the Hudson to the Atlantic Ocean since 1977, when the practice was banned. Downstream from the manufacturing plants in the Fort Edward area, PCB levels in fish and other animals have been higher than normal, with the strongest concentrations closest to the site.
Now GE is set to begin in the fall to build a mini city along the Champlain Canal near Fort Edward to dredge and properly dispose of 265,000 cubic yards of the polluted sediment in 94 acres of river bottom. Including construction and dredging, the work could take at least three years. The sediment to be dredged represents about 10 percent of the total contamination area. Federal Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Leo Rosales said the second phase should pick up an additional 50 percent.
The cost estimates for the entire cleanup range as high as $700 million. As recently as last month, GE officials said they wouldn't know what the cost of the first phase would be until they got bids back for all the potential contractors. That should happen during the summer.
Downstream of Fort Edward, the remaining PCBs are spread too far and thinly to be removed in a cost-effective way. Even those who have long called for dredging say further cleanup wouldn't produce significant benefits. "There's no way to get back to normal -- what's normal anyway?" said Richard Bopp, a geochemist from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who has been analyzing the Hudson River ecosystem for nearly 30 years. "Pre-dumping, PCB levels were essentially zero. We'll never reach pristine."
Federal regulators would be happy to get back to safer levels. A comprehensive study done at the end of the 1990s for the EPA points to an increased risk of cancer for those exposed to PCBs, an oily chemical compound used by the GE in electronics plants some 185 miles upstream from the Tappan Zee. The EPA said long-term health effects in laboratory animals included a reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights and learning problems. Based on those findings, the EPA said children and pregnant women are considered especially vulnerable.
Clearly, the primary way that PCBs get into humans and animals is through the consumption of fish. A swimmer can also be exposed, either by swallowing contaminated water or being in polluted river sediment. Eating fish from areas with PCBs shows a possible cancer risk for 3 in 100,000 people, while the swimming risk is 1 in 100 million. Sediment exposure is higher, but still comes in at 4 in 10 million.
Michael Harris, a 45-year-old correction supervisor from Croton, watched his two young sons, Michael and Matthew, swim recently at Croton Point Park. He said he was comfortable with the kids being in the water despite the presence of PCBs. "I wouldn't have them out here now if I thought there was a problem," Harris said. "Once they start dredging though, I might keep the kids out of the water until it's over. I want to give the river a little time to naturally filter itself."
After three decades of natural filtering, the question of whether digging up contaminated sediment in and around Fort Edward will create additional water quality problems in the Lower Hudson Valley remains to be answered. "The downstream impact of the dredging is totally controllable," Bopp said. "It's all a matter of engineering design, monitoring during the dredging and planning so that you don't dredge during high- flow events. You monitor suspended matter and transport downstream."
Bopp has been taking sediment core samples of the riverbed since 1977, and fellow scientist James Simpson of Columbia University said Bopp's doctoral thesis remains the "most important work done on the Hudson River and PCBs." Bopp, a Rensselaer Earth and Environmental Sciences professor, said that at one point before the dumping was banned, General Electric was purchasing 15 percent of all PCBs produced nationally for the Fort Edward plants.
GE officials say they plan to carry out the dredging with almost surgical precision, using digging equipment that encapsulates the sediment in water-tight clamshell buckets that lessen the likelihood of stirring up PCBs. The clamshell will then empty its contents into a barge that will carry the water and sediment to the 110-acre dewatering facility on the Champlain Canal. Company officials say the entire contents of the barge will then be disposed of according to EPA guidelines, with the dirt going to a certified landfill out of state and the water being treated before it is returned to the river.
"The (EPA's) performance standards are the ultimate system that governs this project," said Mark Behan, GE's spokesman. "We've invited the contractors, within that system, to tell us if there are ways they think this can be done better, as long as the performance standards are met." There will be a half-dozen monitoring sites from the dredging area south to Poughkeepsie, and regulators have vowed to shut the operation down if PCB levels rise to unacceptable levels. There will also be a 30-day shakeout period as the digging begins, to test each part of the operation before ramping up to full speed.
Bopp said he's comfortable with the plan for monitoring; he helped design the long-term version. He and other scientists say the project has the potential to set the standard for conducting this type of work -- from operational safety to collecting data far into the future. "As the work goes forward, it's a real opportunity to get the definitive case on environmental dredging," said Steve Chillrud, a Columbia University environmental geochemist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Rockland who has studied river contaminant issues since the early 1990s. "It would be a real opportunity lost if the analysis isn't done on PCB movements downstream and the change in PCB composition," he said.
Chillrud said most environmental dredging projects don't have anywhere near the pre-digging data that this project does, and gathering data about ecosystems after the disturbance will allow scientists to draw new conclusions. Whatever the final results, Bopp doesn't underestimate the impact. "No matter how you look at this, this is a disaster we're dealing with," Bopp said. "It's not like we're going to be able to clean it up enough that today you have PCBs, and tomorrow you don't. The whole thing is an issue of the patience of generations."
By Megan Gillis, London [Ontario] Free Press
June 5, 2006
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/06/05/1614691-sun.html
OTTAWA -- Linda Nolan-Leeming and her daughter Allison lived in a string of new houses as beautiful as the award-winning interior designer and her builder- husband could make them. But their lovely homes had ugly health effects.
Nolan-Leeming remembers what it was like before the family fled the last of three new houses. "It hurt to breathe in the house," she says. "I spent a whole winter sleeping on the living room floor in a sleeping bag in front of a partially open door." She lost weight and couldn't work. Allison, seven at the time, was too sick to go to school. "I was desperately ill and so was my child," Nolan-Leeming says. "We finally had to leave our home."
Nolan-Leeming blames typical construction materials -- particle board, carpets, paint -- all oozing chemicals such as volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde. "I believed if those products were on the market, they must be safe," she says.
Surveys show we consider outdoor smog a threat to our health, but we don't think about the air we breathe at home. Experts say the air inside can be far more polluted than the air outside -- even in the smoggiest city. Our homes are tighter than ever, sealing us in with pollutants that are both biological -- mould, dust mites, animal dander and bacteria -- and chemical -- cigarette smoke, heating or cooking appliance gases, building materials, furnishings and cleaning and hobby products.
It was a Canadian study a decade ago that turned attention inside, says Ontario Lung Association air quality manager Brian Stocks. Researchers put portable air monitors on Windsor volunteers and had them log where they went. The volunteers were exposed to more formaldehyde, a potential carcinogen, indoors than out. "That got people thinking about indoor environments and exposures," Stocks says.
Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have since found levels of a dozen common organic pollutants double to five times higher indoors than out. The EPA also found that 80 per cent of pesticide exposure happens inside because they're tracked inside, poorly stored and found in everything from bug spray to disinfectants. "We spend 90 per cent of our time indoors -- a study in Canada showed that," says Nicolas Gilbert of Health Canada. "We spend 65 to 70 per cent of our time in our own home."
The problem isn't energy-efficient new homes, which are often designed to bring in fresh air; it's homes retrofitted without adding ventilation. "The more you insulate your home, the more you have to care about the air quality of your home," Gilbert says. "Several indoor air pollutants matter more if your home is well-insulated. If your home is not airtight, natural ventilation will take care of excessive humidity and the chemicals that will off-gas from building materials and consumer products."
The Health Indoors Partnership has pressed Health Canada to take the lead on indoor air quality and fund research to probe the link between indoor air and illnesses such as asthma. It has successfully lobbied for the revision of exposure guidelines for substances like cancer-causing radon. "The government is very reluctant to regulate indoor environments -- particularly homes, a bastion of personal freedom," says partnership executive director Jay Kassirer. "You have an agency like Environment Canada that has a responsibility for the outdoor environment. No one department has been given the responsibility to ensure indoor environments are healthy and safe. Workplaces are regulated, homes are not."
Last month, Health Canada revised residential guidelines for formaldehyde, found in products from medium-density fibreboard to permanent-press drapes. The one-hour guideline remains 100 parts per billion, but the long-term limit was reduced to 40 ppb because of research linking formaldehyde in homes to health effects, including the hospitalization of babies and pre-schoolers with asthma. The department reports that formaldehyde levels ranged between two and 81 ppb in tests of homes in Prince Edward Island and Ottawa three years ago.
But critics say the impact of the guidelines is questionable. "There is no regulator on residential indoor air," Gilbert says. "The exposure guidelines are just guidelines. It would be very difficult to enforce such regulations."
Experts stress it's up to us to improve indoor air by butting out, maintaining appliances, stopping mould-causing dampness and examining what we do and buy. Even seemingly benign products can be serious pollutants, says Dr. Deniz Karman. The Carleton University engineer spends most of his time studying pollution from cars but says we're more likely to be exposed to pollutants at home.
Candles or a smoky fireplace can create more fine particulate -- like in smog -- than diesel buses on a downtown street. "I get up to 150,000 particles per cubic centimetre in my dining room with a single candle over the course of an hour. On Slater Street, 150,000 is the peak I measure there," he says. Smoky fireplaces are even worse. "There's always some seepage," Karman says. "Your fireplace is probably the No. 1 source of pollution."
Hobbies or home-based businesses can be dangerous, too. Stocks had one client who was woodworking in his basement without a mask. Another used silica powder to make ceramics at her dining room table. A third cleaned car parts inside with gasoline. "People think their home is their castle," Stocks says. "We do things that put our respiratory health at risk without even thinking about it."
The good news is we can improve the air we breathe at home. The not-so-good news is that experts admit there isn't a lot of research to prove clean indoor air improves our health. Dr. Judy Leech, a respirologist at Ottawa Hospital, has patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who gasp when their house is painted or full of dust. Avoiding toxic paints or construction dust can head off their asthma attacks or wheezing.
The indoor air link is less clear for healthy people, Leech says. "If you do a drug study, you can do a double-blind study, but if I change something in your house, how can we measure how it affects your health? And how do I blind it? We make suggestions for things that will lower indoor air contaminants with the jump that less indoor air contaminants equals better health. It's a tough thing to prove."
For Nolan-Leeming, the link is clear. Now the president of the Allergy and Environmental Health Association, she says her symptoms and those of her daughter lifted when they moved to an older home that had stopped off-gassing chemicals. "We literally have our lives back," she says.
by John Downey, Charlotte Business Journal
June 4, 2006
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13140004/
A federal researcher's unpublished study lurks at the center of a dispute between the state Environmental Management Commission and its critics over reducing mercury emissions from North Carolina's coal-fired power plants. And it could have direct implications for Duke Energy Corp. and the Charlotte region.
Duke says it has spent millions of dollars on mercury-control plans based on the best information available from the Environmental Protection Agency. It supports the state commission's proposed regulations for a 70% cut in mercury emissions from Duke plants in North Carolina. That proposal, based largely on EPA guidelines, would allow some individual plants to have no controls, as long as the 70% reduction is made systemwide. It calls for a study in 2013 to determine whether additional controls are necessary. "We have been trying to skin this cat for years," Duke spokesman Tom Williams says of company efforts to control mercury emissions. "We are doing an enormous amount, and we are doing it faster than the federal requirements."
But that's not enough, says John Suttles, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "The Steubenville study turns the EPA assumption about mercury on its ear," he says. Or at least it might. The two-year study of mercury accumulation in the town of Steubenville, Ohio, completed a year ago by EPA researcher Matt Landis and the University of Michigan, may be published this summer. But as yet, no one involved in the battle over mercury in North Carolina has seen the full report. Most of what is known comes from a presentation made to top EPA officials in April 2005. It's an incomplete picture, but it raises serious questions.
The study's key finding disputes a basic building block of the EPA's policy on mercury. The EPA contends only about 8% of the mercury from coal-burning plants, incinerators and boilers settles to the ground locally. The Steubenville study, according to the presentation, contends nearly 70% of the mercury found in the Steubenville area came from local sources. The difference is important. If mercury spreads widely, as presumed by the model used by the EPA, communities near coal-fired plants face no greater risk than those elsewhere. If large amounts of mercury from those plants settle within 60 to 120 miles of a plant, then communities with many plants in that range -- such as Charlotte -- face increased risks.
The presentation, made by a key manager at the EPA's National Environmental Research Laboratory, called the findings "scientifically and politically significant." And it even mentioned Charlotte by name. One slide in the presentation notes "emerging but limited empirical evidence of very high (mercury) concentrations ... in urban areas" including "Chicago, Charlotte, St. Louis and Detroit." Suttles says that argues for stricter regulations. He says the latest technology can clean up about 90% of mercury emissions from power plants, and that should be the standard. And it should be applied to all plants, he contends.
But for Duke, arguments over the study are like shadow boxing in the dark. "We've been anxiously awaiting" the study's findings, says Chris Knutson, an engineer with Duke who works on environmental issues. "Our research group has certainly been looking for that report so we can see what's in there."
George Everett, Duke's vice president for environmental and public policy, says it is unclear whether the Steubenville results will relate in any significant way to Charlotte and the Carolinas. He says the study area -- where Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania meet -- is well known for high concentrations of mercury. He points to EPA standards and calculations that Duke has carefully built into its plans for mercury control. "As to the question of whether Steubenville changes all that or not, I just don't know." But he points out that tests of fish at Belews Lake, built for Duke's massive Belews Creek plant, have mercury levels well below the levels the state considers dangerous. "Where is all that mercury from that plant?"
Everett and Knutson say they understand the study has not yet completed the peer-review process to determine the validity of its findings. But Suttles believes it has, and he says the report will be published this summer.
Martha Keating, a former EPA researcher, operates Keating Consulting, an environmental consulting group that works for advocacy groups such as the Southern Environmental Law Center. She contends the Steubenville results show that regulators need to rethink mercury-related issues. "My position is we should not wait until 2013," she says. "We should be telling utilities now to get mercury out and get the biggest bang for their buck." Keating acknowledges the costs to do that are high. While different plants could require different equipment, she estimates it would cost about $24 million to install mercury-trapping processes at a typical 500-megawatt plant. And that's just the capital expense.
One of the leading technologies for removing mercury -- and one Duke says it has conducted successful experiments with -- involves injecting carbon into a plant's towers to trap the mercury. That requires large purchases of carbon for constant injection. But Keating says the costs are not so large when compared with power-company revenue. Using figures from the EPA and Duke, she estimates the Charlotte-based utility would spend about $32 million per year at most on mercury controls -- including the installation costs. If residential customers bore the entire expense (exempting industrial users), the average bill would go up less than $10 per year, she says.
Williams says Duke has not calculated the costs of mercury control. The scrubbers being installed at many Duke plants to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Act, which reduce emissions of sodium dioxide and nitrous oxide, have the side benefit of controlling much of the mercury. The commission and Duke expect that program alone could get Duke to the 70% systemwide reduction required by 2010. And most of Duke's plants will have scrubbers online well before the deadline. Beyond that, Williams says, the company has taken no position on the issue. But he says Duke supports further study before requiring additional cuts in mercury emissions. "We burn 18.5 million tons of coal a year," he says. "And all of that produces about one ton of mercury."
by Alexander Lane, Newark Star-Ledger
June 3, 2006
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1149308874261020.xml&coll=1
A scientific journal has decided to retract an industry-funded 1997 study that downplayed the risks of toxic chromium, which plagues Hudson and Essex counties. The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine will tell readers that "input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed," according to an advance copy of the retraction released by an environmental group yesterday. Those outside parties are widely believed to be industry-paid scientists who helped write the study but left their names off it and their conflict of interest undisclosed.
The revelation comes amid mounting questions about whether New Jersey's cleanup standards are strong enough to protect the thousands of people who live near chromium sites. State chromium limits are based on the assumption that the chemical does not cause cancer by ingestion, but two recent papers -- and the retraction -- support suspicions that it does. Eileen Murphy and Alan Stern, chromium experts at the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the department has never relied on the 1997 paper. At least one DEP scientist has disputed that, however.
Questions about the study have been raised for years, including in The Star-Ledger in 2004 and the Wall Street Journal in December. "The implication of this case is to make us wonder how much stuff that is published in peer-reviewed journals is in fact corporate-sponsored science, bought and paid for by corporate clients," said Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization. Walker said the federal Environmental Protection Agency cited the study in a 2000 decision allowing a wood preservative containing chromium to stay on the market. He said the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry had also cited it in a fact sheet.
The study's purported authors were two Chinese scientists, Zhang JianDong and Shukun Li. It essentially reversed Zhang's finding 10 years earlier that chromium-tainted water caused stomach cancer and other problems in 155 Chinese villagers. Critics have long alleged that ChemRisk, a consulting firm that worked for major chromium polluters in New Jersey and California, ghost-wrote the 1997 paper. ChemRisk's founder, Dennis Paustenbach, has acknowledged he helped revise it. Neither Paustenbach nor Columbia University professor Paul Brandt-Rauf, editor of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, responded to requests for comment yesterday. Zhang is now deceased.
If chromium is found to cause cancer by ingestion -- as compared to only inhalation -- it would be regulated much more strictly, requiring more costly cleanups. The primary means of ingestion in New Jersey would be children putting objects covered with chromium-tainted dust in their mouths.
New Jersey is home to some 200 known chromium sites, where waste from three long-shut plants in Jersey City and Kearny was used as fill. The state relaxed its chromium cleanup standards dramatically in the past 15 years as the companies responsible for the pollution and their hired scientists argued it did not cause cancer by ingestion.
Other scientists have long questioned that, especially recently. A paper by California regulators published in April found "oral exposure to this agent appears to pose a carcinogenic risk." A March paper by New York University professor Max Costa found chromium "can likely be considered a human carcinogen by ingestion."
Joe Morris of the Interfaith Community Organization, which represents churches in Jersey City, said his group would petition Gov. Jon Corzine next week to revisit chromium regulations. "We knew 15 years ago in Jersey City just from talking to people in our congregation there was an odd number of stomach cancers," Morris said.
A task force of New Jersey regulators looked in 2004 at whether to regulate chromium more strictly. They decided against it, but acknowledged the ingestion issue was a lingering question. Two members of the task force dissented. One, chemical engineer Zoe Kelman, criticized the DEP last year for relying on a literature review based partly on the 1997 study. Kelman's superiors countered that the DEP cited the literature review only "incidentally."
Stern and Murphy of the DEP said they are waiting for a federal study of chromium dangers due out this fall, and may strengthen standards based on that. In the meantime, any final approvals of chromium cleanup require review by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, according to DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura. The only approval issued in the past year was under Jackson's predecessor, Bradley Campbell, Makatura said. It was at Liberty National, a championship golf course under construction at an old industrial site in Jersey City in view of the Statue of Liberty.
by Jane Kay, San Francisco Chronicle
June 3, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/03/PLASTIC.TMP
San Francisco supervisors are set to adopt the nation's first ban on some chemicals in plastic baby bottles, pacifiers and toys that may harm young children, a move that comes after a similar measure failed to pass in the California Legislature. The measure is expected to be approved Tuesday, two weeks after supervisors voted unanimously in favor of the Child Safety Product Ordinance. It would take effect Dec. 1.
Under the proposed ordinance, no product that is intended for use by a child under 3 years of age could be manufactured, sold or distributed in San Francisco if it contains bisphenol A, or BPA, an ingredient in hard, clear polycarbonate plastic. Some forms of phthalate, a chemical that softens plastic, including polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, would also be banned. "We have a precautionary principle here in San Francisco. It says if there's a possibility of harm or damage, then we should err on the side of caution," Supervisor Fiona Ma, who wrote the ordinance, said Friday. "The studies have shown that these toxic chemicals can cause permanent harm to our young people." Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Michela Alioto-Pier co-authored the measure.
The widely used industrial chemicals of bisphenol A and phthalates are virtually unknown to the public. But in the last five years, studies have indicated possible damage to the human reproductive system, particularly if exposure occurs during early development. Scientists at the forefront of laboratory animal experiments, as well as environmental and consumer groups, are urging controls as a precautionary measure. At the same time, representatives of chemical manufacturers and retailers argue that no state or federal agency has indicated there are problems. The chemicals occur at levels too low to cause health problems, and banning them would cause negative impacts on businesses, they say.
The chemicals have been at the center of intense lobbying in the Legislature for the past year as Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, tried and failed to pass a bill to keep them out of children's products. The proposed San Francisco ordinance mirrors her original bill. Ma, a candidate for state Assembly, has promised to work on children's safety issues if she is elected to fill the seat of outgoing Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. In January, Yee voted against the Chan bill in the Appropriations Committee, where it died by vote.
On Thursday, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group for manufacturers, and the California Retailers Association, which oppose the bans, wrote to Ma asking her to delay Tuesday's vote. Tim Shestek, director of public affairs at the American Chemical Council, said the Board of Supervisors should solicit comments from all affected parties before making a final decision, given the impact the measure could have on businesses that sell plastic toys and dolls, baby bottles and drinking cups, pacifiers, safety gear, flotation devices, bath toys, books and crib products.
Ma said Friday that the vote was expected to go forward. She and the other supervisors have read and weighed the correspondence on all sides, she said. "We've all decided that this is something that is important. San Francisco is never scared to be a leader," Ma said.
The ordinance, drafted by the city attorney's office, doesn't include provisions for fines. The city's Environment Department would begin educating retail stores about the law and the possible replacement by safer products, and would ask for compliance. Penalties could be added later, according to Ma's staff.
Baby bottles made of polycarbonate plastic are an obvious target of the ordinance. They look like the hard, clear, sometimes tinted Nalgene water bottles, also made of polycarbonate. The chemical is also used in liners in metal food cans, microwave ovenware, epoxy resin and as a coating in children's dental sealants. Products containing phthalates include soft plastic PVC products such as children's raincoats and hats, toys and plastic wrap.
If the law is approved, nonprofit groups plan to start testing baby products if government agencies don't, said Rachel Gibson, an attorney with Environmental California in San Francisco, which has lobbied for both state and local bills. Her group worked with an independent lab last year, which found detectable levels of phthalates in 15 out of 18 toys tested.
A laboratory study on rats, reported Wednesday in the journal Cancer Research, provided the first evidence of a direct link between low doses of bisphenol A and natural human estrogen exposures and cancer of the prostate gland. Researchers at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Illinois at Chicago noted that bisphenol A was initially developed for use as a synthetic estrogen before it was later used in products. So, bisphenol A mimics the human body's natural estrogen, which alters the function of the endocrine system and can raise the risk of developing cancer.
The scientists concluded that at low levels, bisphenol A can affect the behavior of prostate genes and promote prostate disease in aging. Bisphenol A leaches from food and beverage containers under normal use, increasing with temperature and with aging, and from dental sealants, the study said. It is found in humans -- and at higher levels in placental and fetal tissue.
by Claire Ainsworth, Nature
June 2, 2006
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/060529-10.html
A simple vitamin supplement in a pregnant mouse's diet can make her offspring fatter, according to research presented on 1 June at the Human Genome Organisation meeting in Helsinki, Finland. The effect is thought to be due to chemical changes made to the mother's DNA, which can be passed down the generations. The study adds to the debate over whether it's a good idea for expectant mothers to up their dietary intake of folic acid, a common supplement used to help lower the incidence of spina bifida.
Rob Waterland and his team at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas studied the effects of certain compounds in food, including folic acid and vitamin B12. These compounds are known to add chemical constituents called methyl groups to DNA, which affects the activity of genes: part of a phenomenon called 'epigenetics'.
Other researchers had already shown that adding methyl donors to a female mouse's diet can influence gene activity in her pups. In mice with a mutation in a coat-colour gene called agouti (the mutation is called agouti variable yellow, or Avy), supplementing the diet of pregnant females turns their pup's coats from yellow to brown. Waterland's team later showed that the supplements did this by methylating a bit of DNA that regulates the agouti gene, which effectively turns off the abnormal gene activity caused by the mutation. Avy mice are also obese. So Waterland's team wanted to see whether this too could be altered by epigenetics.
Feed me
The researchers fed Avy females methyl-donating chemicals in the form of folic acid, vitamin B12, betaine and choline. They collected and weighed their pups, and then repeated the experiment: feeding methyl donors to the female pups and then looking at their offspring. They expected to find that pup weight decreased over the generations as the animals inherited and acquired more and more methylation of their Avy mutation, which would be expected to turn down the agouti gene's activity. Instead, they found the opposite: the mice got heavier down the generations. What's more, when they repeated the experiment with non-Avy mice, they got similar results.
Vitamin supplements wouldn't be expected to affect the weight of pups, particularly not in a way that accumulates from one generation to the next, just from their nutritional value alone. So methylation of some as-yet-unknown gene, the researchers say, is the most likely explanation for the heritable weight gain.
David Barker of Southampton University, an expert on the fetal origins of adult disease, says the findings give new insight into how maternal nutrition could affect the fetus. "This rapid rise of epigenetics is making sense of what we have been working on for the past 20 years," he says. "We know that the human embryo is extremely sensitive to the nutritional environment."
The doses of methyl donors given to the mice were comparable to those taken by people who use vitamin supplement tablets, says Waterland. "This raises the question, can too many vitamins be bad for us?" he asked the conference.
Fortified diet
Women planning a pregnancy are advised to take folic acid supplements because they drastically reduce the chances of having a baby with neural tube defects such as spina bifida. Some countries, including the United States, have introduced mandatory fortification of grains and flour to bump up the folic acid levels in women across the board.
Neural tube defects in the United States have dropped sharply thanks to mandatory fortification. But there is fierce debate over whether this is a good idea. There is a complex relationship between dietary exposure to folic acid and the risk of developing certain cancers, for example.
The emerging picture from studies of how methyl donors in a mouse's diet can influence her offspring's gene expression and weight will add an extra dimension to this debate. Waterland emphasizes that there is currently no evidence that folic acid can have these sorts of effects all by itself. All the studies so far have used combinations of different methyl donors, and they have all been in mice. So it is too early to draw any conclusions about the effects of folic acid in humans. "I think it's premature at this point," he says. Waterland's team is investigating further.
by Anne Harding, Reuters
June 2, 2006
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-06-02T182858Z_01_HAR266536_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-LEAD-DAMAGE-DC.XML
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) -- The cumulative exposure to lead can cause degeneration of the brain's white matter, which may explain the previously reported progressive decline in brain function in these individuals, the results of a study of organic lead workers shows. The brain's white matter contains nerve fibers, with many of these fibers, or "axons," surrounded by substance called myelin, the source of the whitish appearance. Myelin acts as an insulator and it increases the speed of transmission of all nerve signals.
The more a worker was exposed to lead on the job, as measured by the amount of the metal found in the bone, the worse the brain damage was many years later, Dr. Walter Stewart of Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pennsylvania and colleagues report in the journal Neurology. "It's one of the first studies that shows that an exposure in the distant past can affect the brain and cause what we call progressive changes," Stewart told Reuters Health in an interview.
Stewart and his team had previously found a link between past lead exposure and progressive decline in mental function. To investigate whether lead exposure might also be associated with structural changes in the brain, the researchers conducted MRI brain scanning in 532 men who had worked manufacturing lead gasoline additives at a New Jersey chemical plant. On average, the last lead exposure the men had experienced on the job was 18 years previously. The greater a worker's lead exposure, the researchers found, the more severe and extensive were the white matter abnormalities in the brain. Greater lead exposure was also associated with a smaller brain volume, while specific regions of the brain also appeared to have shrunk after greater lead exposure.
There are a number of possible explanations for the findings, Stewart and his team note. Lead exposure could accelerate normal aging-related changes in the brain. Exposure to the metal also has been tied to high blood pressure, which has been linked to brain deterioration, including white matter abnormalities. And finally, lead itself could have a direct harmful effect on brain cells. Stewart said he and his colleagues are hoping to separate out these potential causes in future research.
It is difficult to extrapolate from the current findings to the general population, Stewart said, because these men were exposed to both organic lead and inorganic forms of lead. Most of the subjects, who lived through the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, were also exposed to lead in gasoline emissions or paint. "There's a common belief, although nobody ever proved it, that inorganic lead does not affect the adult brain," Stewart said. However, he added, "We have evidence to suggest that inorganic lead is probably toxic to adult humans" as well as to children.
In an accompanying editorial, Drs. Andrew S. Rowland of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and Robert C. McKinstry of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis call the current study "a major contribution" to the knowledge of the long-term effects of lead.
SOURCE: Neurology, May 23, 2006.
by Spencer Hunt, Columbus Dispatch
June 2, 2006
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/02/20060602-E1-00.html
A group of government scientists won't back off its finding that a chemical DuPont uses to make Teflon poses a "likely" cancer risk to people. That decision, in a final report issued yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was a setback for company officials. They argue that perfluorooctanoic acid, or C8, isn't harmful. Robert Rickard, science director of the DuPont Haskell Laboratory for Health and Environmental Studies, said the EPA report relied on old research on lab animals. "There is absolutely no information to indicate that this causes cancer in man," Rickard said.
The Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a longtime DuPont critic, praised the scientists' work. Spokeswoman Lauren Sucher said she expects the EPA to more aggressively study C8's health effects. "They more often than not follow the advice of their science panels," Sucher said. EPA officials, however, warned that it still is too early to draw any conclusions about C8. "The agency is working as quickly as possible to develop a complete understanding of the sources and pathways of (C8) and what risk, if any, it poses," spokeswoman Enesta Jones said.
DuPont has used the chemical for decades to help make Teflon and other water- and stain-resistant coatings for pots, pans, clothes and carpets at its sprawling Washington Works plant along the Ohio River near Parkersburg, W.Va. The chemical has been detected in the blood of animals and humans around the globe. Some of the highest blood levels were detected in southeastern Ohio and West Virginia residents who live near the plant.
The EPA's science advisory board assessment declares C8 a likely carcinogen based on research linking it to tumors in lab rats. The finding is the conclusion of 12 of the panel's 16 members. Rickard and other DuPont officials urged the board to change its assessment from "likely cancer risk" to "suggested cancer risk." In a June 2005 draft report, a majority of its member scientists called it a likely risk. Though C8 can remain in humans for years, male lab rats clear it out of their bodies within weeks. Rats' health problems began at doses of C8 hundreds of times higher than the average 5 parts per billion in people.
Rickard said the EPA's Science Advisory Board relied on old studies, the most recent of which were completed in 2004. He predicted new research, both recently completed and under way, will show C8 isn't harmful. Sucher said she expects future studies will lead the EPA to conclude that its scientists were right.
In the meantime, DuPont faces new lawsuits that say C8 released from Washington Works threatens the health of nearby residents. Attorneys filed a lawsuit last week on behalf of 33,000 Parkersburg residents whose well water is contaminated with C8. The suit was filed by the same team of lawyers that last year settled a similar lawsuit against DuPont for an amount that could reach $343 million.
Another recently filed suit seeks damages for the Little Hocking Water Association, a nonprofit water company in southeastern Ohio that owns and operates wells contaminated with C8 and similar compounds. In January, DuPont and the U.S. EPA announced an agreement to eliminate the company's global releases of C8 by 2015. That will happen, Jones said, even if the EPA decides the chemical is not harmful.
from the Canadian Press, Toronto Star
June 1, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149159248666&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
OTTAWA -- Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has accepted a challenge from an environmental group to have her blood and urine tested for toxic contamination. Ambrose agreed to be tested at the request of Toronto-based Environmental Defence, which has been raising alarms about contamination of Canadian children.
On Thursday, the group released results showing that the bodies of seven children tested are contaminated by a cocktail of toxic chemicals ranging from PCBs to flame retardants. "The minister cares about that and that's why she's going to take up the challenge," Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for Ambrose, said in an interview. The study found an average of 23 known or suspected toxins -- including carcinogens, hormone disrupters and neurotoxins -- in the bodies of the children tested.
The researchers tested 13 individuals from five families, six adults and seven children. The families live in Vancouver, Toronto, Sarnia, Montreal and Quispamsis, N.B. "Our children are being poisoned every day by toxic chemicals that surround them at home, school and play," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. He said Ambrose will be tested using the same methodology, and results should be available in the fall. Health Minister Tony Clement and NDP Leader Jack Layton have also volunteered to be tested.
Smith said the study was intended to change the pollution issue from "a theoretical, abstract debate to a highly personal discussion of health," said Smith. He said most environment ministers in Europe have been tested, and this has contributed to a strong push to control toxic chemicals.
The adults in the Canadian study were contaminated by 32 chemicals, and had higher concentrations of some products no longer in use, such as DDT and PCBs. But the children had higher levels of newer chemicals such as brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), used in stain repellents and non-stick coatings. "It is common to expect adults to be more contaminated by harmful chemicals than children because they have had a longer time to accumulate chemicals in their bodies," says the report. "The results of this study, however, show that this is not always the case." A decreased presence of banned chemicals in children is evidence that bans do work, says the report. But effects linger long after a chemical is removed from use -- DDT was banned years ago but can still be detected in children as young as 10.
Health Canada responded to the findings by promising a national study in which 5,000 people will be monitored for toxic contamination over a two year period from 2007 to 2009. "The government of Canada takes very seriously the exposure of Canadians to environmental chemicals," said Health Canada spokeswoman Carolyn Sexauer. She said children are at greater risk of contamination than adults because of their physical size, immature organs, physiology, behaviour, curiosity and lack of knowledge.
Vivian Maraghi, a study volunteer from Montreal, said she was astounded to learn she had 36 industrial chemicals in her body. "But when I saw the toxic chemicals in my son's body, I was angry. Our children deserve better protection."
Environmental Defence says Canada's regulation of toxic chemicals is weak and ineffective. However, similar levels of contamination have been found in the United States. Many chemicals now on the market were never screened for health effects because they were introduced before awareness of the hazards of industrial pollution.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
June 1, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060531.wxchemicals01/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
one in a series by this reporter included in this week's and last week's bulletin
In Barbara Harris's home, you won't find air fresheners, non-stick pans or mattresses containing harsh flame retardants. That's by design: Ms. Harris tries to create a lifestyle that minimizes the chances she'll come into contact with harmful chemicals found in everyday products. "I have a very simple, very scent-free, and very low-chemical household," she declares. Ms. Harris, who lives in Springhill, N.S., is part of a grassroots effort to minimize exposure to chemicals contained in dozens of consumer items, substances that a growing body of research suggests may pose health risks.
Along with others at the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, she's used her experiences to help put together an Internet self-help guide (http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca) for those who want to cut potentially harmful substances out of their lives, and may be confused about how to go about it. "It's more than a full-time job for individuals to try to figure out what's in the products that they're using," Ms. Harris says of the difficulties.
Efforts to minimize exposures to chemicals in ordinary products are arising because many everyday household items contain substances such as a bisphenol A, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and perfluorochemicals, compounds that recent research has linked to a host of health problems, ranging from cancer to attention-deficit disorders and declining sperm counts. The use of these chemicals wouldn't be a problem, except for another recent discovery. The chemicals used to make many consumer goods are migrating from products into the environment, and are now being detected in practically the entire population.
PBDEs, for instance, widely used in mattresses and computers as flame retardants, are found in the bodies of Canadians at the second highest level in the world, just after readings in the United States. Almost all Canadians also carry in their bloodstreams measurable quantities of perfluorochemicals, very persistent pollutants that are used to make non-stick pans and stain-repellant clothing.
The federal government is also looking at many chemicals in long-term use, and is expected to declare later this year that about 4,000 of them may present enough of a threat to either human health or to the environment that they should be given detailed safety reviews. The chemicals are among 23,000 substances grandfathered in 1988 when the country adopted its modern anti-pollution rules. At the time, Canada decided to require in-depth safety evaluations only for new substances as they were introduced into the marketplace, and put off a decision on reviewing chemicals already used in commerce.
Worry about exposures to poorly regulated chemicals is why, in her home, Ms. Harris has looked at practically every consumer item, trying to select products with the lowest health risk. In her bed, is "a very expensive organic cotton mattress. There is really no choice in between for me," she says, a step that has avoided PBDEs. For household cleaners, she uses mild soaps, baking soda and vinegar. In the kitchen, forget about non-stick pans and the perfluorochemicals that are used to make them; she cooks on cast iron or stainless steel pots and pans, after finding that the fumes from non-stick cookware made her ill. When she pops food into the microwave, it's never in a plastic container. She uses glass or pottery, a step taken to minimize the chances of chemicals from the hot container leaching into food.
She also advises consumers to relax a bit about the standards they set. For instance, she doesn't buy stain-resistant clothing, and was miffed recently when one of the large U.S.-based mail-order clothing companies began advertising T-shirts with chemical coatings that make them more impervious to dirt. "You know, stains above brains," she says. "I think it's absurd that we put stain-resistant coatings on things where we don't need them."
The federal chemical review effort could have wide-ranging implications for common products in homes and offices because of the thousands of potentially harmful substances under review, many which are used in consumer products. One of the most commonly used substances that is expected to be reviewed is bisphenol A, a chemical that resembles a synthetic version of the female hormone estrogen. It's used to make polycarbonate, the hard plastic found in water bottles and compact discs, as well as the dental sealants commonly used on children's teeth. Other common chemicals to be placed under additional scrutiny are some perfluorochemicals used to make stain-resistant and non-stick coatings for cookware, fast-food packaging, clothing and furniture, along with substances used to soften plastic in children's toys.
Even when the federal government announces its decision on the chemicals selected for review, it will likely be a lengthy process before assessments are done and harmful substances banned or restricted. Ms. Harris says one of the common beliefs held by consumers is that if products are in stores, all the chemicals used to make them must automatically be safe because regulators have vetted them. The fact that thousands of chemicals need detailed reviews suggests to her that this view is mistaken. "There is this misconception that Health Canada is protecting us from anything that could be toxic," she says. "We think it's not true."
Another approach some environmentalists are using to help people minimize chemical exposures is to monitor what companies say is in their products, then disseminate this information widely. Clean Production Action, an environmental organization based in Montreal, has set up a website (http://www.safer-products.org) to do just that. It evaluates products that may contain potentially harmful chemicals, ranking them by corporate name. "We often get calls from people saying, 'Well, what am I supposed to buy and who can I trust to buy from?'" says Beverley Thorpe, a spokesperson for the organization.
By its rankings, some of the best companies are IKEA, the Swedish-based home-furnishings chain -- which was one of the first to pull PBDEs from its products -- and Dell, the big U.S.-based computer maker that also distanced itself from the chemicals. PBDEs have been linked in laboratory animal experiments to behaviour changes similar to attention deficit and hyperactivity in human children.
For cars, it ranked Volvo the best because it has prohibited the use of several PBDEs in its vehicles, along with phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastic. There are also listings for furniture companies, cosmetics makers and retailers. In the retail clothing sector, Ms. Thorpe considers H&M Hennes & Mauritz to be a cut above because the Swedish-based chain doesn't allow solvents or other hazardous chemicals to be used in the production of its garments, and all suppliers must sign a statement confirming that they don't use any of the substances that it prohibits.
Although many environmentalist are urging consumers to take matters into their own hands, some researchers say there is a limit to what an individual can do. Dr. Ana Soto, a breast-cancer researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston who is one of the world's leading authorities on bisphenol A, says many chemicals are almost impossible to avoid. The only way to be sure of eliminating exposures is "don't eat, don't drink and don't breathe, and you cannot do that," she says.
Although consumers can take steps to cut exposures, she doesn't know how successful these efforts will ultimately be because of the wide range of products involved. "When you're being extremely careful, at the end of the day did you decrease the exposure by 5 per cent or 95 per cent? I cannot answer that," Dr. Soto says. In her view, the most effective way to reduce exposures would be better regulation.
by Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe
June 1, 2006
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/06/01/tech_firms_face_eu_toxics_test/?page=2
A tough European Union law that limits toxic substances in electronic devices takes effect on July 1, and US companies that want to do business across the Atlantic are racing to comply, spending billions of dollars to redesign their products. "This is probably the biggest change in electronics in 50 years," said George Wilkish, senior quality engineer at M/A-Com Inc., a business unit of Tyco Electronics Corp ., in Lowell that makes a variety of radio and microwave components for communications gear.
Many electronic devices, like computer circuit boards and cathode ray tubes, are crammed with substances that can cause serious health problems if ingested. Lead can cause brain damage and pregnancy complications, for example, and cadmium can cause kidney disease. To prevent these poisons from ending up in landfills, EU regulators took a two-tiered approach. A law that took effect last year requires electronics firms to recycle their products, and the EU also enacted RoHS -- the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive-- to eliminate lead, cadmium, mercury, and three other toxic chemicals from electronic devices.
The federal government sets no limits on the chemicals used in electronics, but the power of RoHS extends far beyond Europe. US companies must comply to retain their European customers. And after spending millions to eliminate the substances, companies like M/A-Com, which makes about 20 percent of its sales in Europe , plan to sell their cleaner products not just to European clients, but also to customers in the rest of the world. Dick Anderson, senior principal engineer at M/A-Com's research and development group, said the approximately $1 million cost of complying with the European law will be good for business. "In addition to doing this because it's the law, we're doing it because it differentiates us," Anderson said. He figures that even US customers will choose M/A-Com's components over those made by rivals who haven't been as quick to clean up.
Other Massachusetts technology firms don't think they'll profit from obeying the European standard because they expect their competitors to comply as well. "There's no economic benefit we can derive from this," said Denny Lane, director of product management at Stratus Technologies Inc. of Maynard, a maker of computers and data storage systems. "We can't say, 'We're green and you're not.'" Still, Lane, who holds a degree in environmental biology, favors the EU standards, even though compliance has cost his company "hundreds of thousands" of dollars. "This is important," said Lane, "maybe not for my kids, but my kids' kids."
America's biggest consumer electronics firms are also committed to compliance. Leading desktop computer maker Dell Inc. says its product line is almost all Euro-ready. Apple Computer Inc. said that its iPod Nano and Shuffle music players meet the European standard and that all Apple products will comply with the EU regulations by July 1.
Many businesses won't reveal exactly how much they've spent on RoHS compliance. But Pamela Gordon, president of Technology Forecasters Inc., a consulting firm in Alameda, Calif., estimates that US electronics firms will spend a total of $3.5 billion. Kenneth Stanvick, senior vice president and co-founder of Design Chain Associates LLC in Pelham, N.H., said that some smaller electronics firms haven't complied with the EU regulations, and hope to slip past European regulators undetected. "It's risk management," he said. "What are my chances of getting caught?"
But the odds against scofflaws will only get worse. China plans to enforce an even stricter law beginning next March; South Korea will set similar standards starting next July. And California has enacted its own standards, which take effect in January. Attempts to evade government regulations are a waste of time, said Gordon of Technology Forecasters, "The astute electronics industry executive realizes that environmental requirements are here," Gordon said. "They're not going anywhere -- they're going global."
Compliance with the new EU rule has not been easy. Boston modem maker Zoom Technologies Inc. had to cancel a new product planned for the European market because it couldn't be made in compliance with the law. "It turns out there's this one chip that we can't get," said Zoom president Frank Manning . The only available version of the vital chip contained toxic chemicals, and Zoom's order wouldn't have been large enough for its maker to justify making a clean version.
A half-century ago, new soldering techniques enabled the mass production of today's cheap electronic equipment. Today, the challenge is to keep producing a vast array of electronic devices without depending on lead solder. The alternatives, mostly based on tin, require far hotter temperatures, which in turn can cause circuit boards and other components to melt or crack. Switching to tin solder not only requires new soldering gear, but also product redesigns, and exhaustive testing of the finished components. At M/A-Com, engineers test the lead-free components under vibration and extreme heat and cold , then study the results under microscopes, in search of fatal defects just a few microns in size.
Even so, tin solder isn't still as reliable as lead. So lead solder is still permitted in devices with military and aerospace applications, and in heavy-duty computer servers made by companies such as Stratus. Even these exceptions will be reviewed every four years -- and eliminated when European authorities judge that lead-free solders have become more reliable.
by Jeff Nesmith, Cox Washington Bureau, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
June 1, 2006
http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_44e708c7d189e14a008c.html
Washington -- Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they are "besieged" by pressure from farm and chemical interests to approve license extensions for more than 20 pesticides suspected of disrupting brain growth in unborn babies and children. "We are concerned that the agency has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates," officials of three unions that represent EPA employees said in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
The May 24 letter stated that agency scientists and risk assessors were concerned about the effect that two classes of pesticides --- carbamates and organophosphates --- could have on children and fetuses of women who come in contact with the substances. The chemicals, including Orthene, Trithion, Nemacur and Dursban, are generally sold for use on farms rather than in homes. The chemicals work by inhibiting an enzyme crucial to nerve function. Animal studies suggest many of them may have "developmental neurotoxic" effects on animal fetuses.
Separately, an environmental organization charged that a tentative EPA decision two weeks ago to approve a common household insecticide was preceded by "an illegal backroom deal" with the manufacturer. The pesticide, known as dichlorvos, or DDVP, is the active ingredient in pet flea collars and pest strips for mosquitoes, ants, flies and roaches. An organophosphate, it has been banned in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark.
The Natural Resources Defense Council charged that while reviewing the license for DDVP, officials of the EPA held several dozen private meetings over the last four years with representatives of the manufacturer, AMVAC of Newport Beach, Calif. "Years ago, EPA acknowledged that DDVP poses a significant threat to health, but it negotiated an illegal, backroom deal with the manufacturer to keep in on the market," said Aaron Colangelo, a lawyer for the environmental group.
Colangelo also charged that despite the developmental neurotoxicity concerns, the EPA had waived a requirement that a tenfold margin of safety be imposed on pesticides deemed dangerous to children. That means uses can be approved only if they lead to exposure that is one-tenth of the level the agency finds safe for adults. The agency acknowledged that it waived the margin-of-safety rule, saying it had decided that "children are not more sensitive than adults" to DDVP.
The EPA's announcement on May 16 that it was going to renew the DDVP license was worded to say that Amvac had requested that the agency "further restrict where the pest strips can be used in homes."
In a written statement on the pressure issues raised by the EPA employee unions, the agency said Johnson would provide a "timely and thoughtful response." The agency also denied that it had "approved" relicensing DDVP but had merely proposed doing so and was seeking public comment. Colangelo said private meetings between agency officials and an industry to discuss any pending regulations are illegal under open government laws. EPA contends it had "docketed" its talks with Amvac and that records were available for public inspection. However, dates on the agency's Web page indicate the records were placed there last month, rather than several years ago, when many of the meetings occurred.
AMVAC spokesman Howard Berman said the company's meetings with EPA "were the same types of routine meetings many (pesticide manufacturers) have with EPA." "AMVAC and EPA conducted their meetings in accordance with all applicable requirements," he said in a statement. He said the company had conducted all studies required by EPA and did not believe the studies showed any indication that DDVP increased the risk of developmental toxicity. He added that it did "not necessarily agree with all of EPA's conclusions regarding DDVP" but believed the agency's decisions were based on sound science and responsible regulatory procedures.
by Douglas Fischer, Oakland Tribune
June 1, 2006
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_3887148
Exposure to a common plastic additive before birth permanently changes DNA signaling in laboratory animals, scientists have found, predisposing infant male rats to prostate cancer later in life and offering tantalizing clues to how cancer gains a foothold in our bodies. The groundbreaking results, published today in the journal Cancer Research, do not mean baby boys exposed to this additive -- known as bisphenol-a and found in the plastic used to make shatter-proof bottles and line tin cans -- will develop prostate cancer as old men. But for laboratory rats exposed to amounts of bisphenol-a that reportedly contaminate the blood and amniotic fluid of pregnant U.S. women, the results were clear: Prostate glands healthy at birth became predisposed to cancer much, much later.
The finding, by scientists at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Illinois at Chicago, offers some of the strongest evidence to date on a new line of thinking that chemicals we use daily affect how genes turn on and off, with unknown consequences. "There's reasonable evidence ... that precancerous lesions can result from these brief, low-dose exposures," said Gail Prins, professor of urology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a coauthor of the study. "The message here is we should proceed cautiously with our exposures. This puts (us) on notice, if you would, that there can be negative impacts with regards to prostate cancer."
The results should not scare consumers away from plastics containing bisphenol-a, cautioned Steve Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate plastics unit of the American Plastics Council. Nearly 6 billion pounds of bisphenol-a is added to plastics annually, ending up in the plastics that line food cans, shape Nalgene sports bottles and make shatter-proof plastic baby bottles. Hentges said the study used higher doses than those typically found in humans, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. And most exposure comes orally, whereas researchers injected bisphenol-a directly into the animals' blood, bypassing protective defenses in the stomach and kidneys. Prins disputed both points.
"It's too far away to draw any major conclusions about human health," Hentges said. "There's no black-and-white standard, certainly. But for me, it certainly hasn't reached a standard where I'll change any of my consumption patterns. "But I'm very interested in seeing more research. That is for sure."
Other researchers called the results striking, particularly because they show for the first time how a genetically clean organ can become cancerous. "It's the first real evidence that early exposure to an agent like bisphenol-a can predispose you to cancer," said Karen Knudsen, an associate professor of cell and cancer biology at the University of Cincinnati who works with tumor cells but was not involved in the study. "It's priming the prostate for tumor growth," she added. "It's essentially saying you're changing the DNA. That in itself is very remarkable."
The research is part of a relatively new field known as "epigenetics." Researchers increasingly suspect endocrine disrupters such as bisphenol-a and many common pesticides act not by mutating genes but by jamming the signal: A gene programmed to fight cancer, for instance, might never turn on because it was permanently locked in the "off" position before birth. The effect is subtler than a gene mutation, scientists say, but has the same devastating result.
"This paradigm" -- that gene mutations trigger disease -- "doesn't fit," said Michael Skinner, director of the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University. "Epigenetics may be a major factor in disease development, which we haven't appreciated." To grasp genetics, Skinner visualizes a city map. Buildings and homes are the individual genes, or genome, while the DNA is the network of streets and highways. A gene mutation is akin to a fire at a particular building, altering traffic, though traffic and DNA alike generally have ways to get around it and move on.
The epigenome -- hormones and other chemicals that tell portions of the DNA to replicate or not -- are the traffic signals and signs and in some ways can create more chaos when tweaked. Hold a signal at a key intersection red for 30 minutes and, as any Bay Area commuter can testify, traffic gets bollixed for miles.
Except in this case, the effect lasts a lifetime. Or longer. "If you expose an individual during the developmental phase of an organ -- in this case it's the prostate -- you've reprogrammed the epigenome," Skinner said. "And that, later on in adulthood, will cause disease." Skinner's group at Washington State has seen this ripple through generations: Pregnant female rats exposed to common pesticides gave birth to males with low fertility rates. Males able to reproduce spawned offspring with the same disease -- and so on for four generations. Skinner now is finding that those animals, as they live longer, develop a host of diseases, from prostate and kidney disease to breast cancer and immune dysfunction. "There's a whole series of new genes that become permanently changed."
This newspaper's special investigation on environmental chemicals, "A body's burden: Our chemical legacy," is available on the Web at http://www.insidebayarea.com/bodyburdens.
by Rebecca Renner, Environmental Science & Technology
May 31, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/may/science/rr_mislead.html
At water conferences across the U.S., scientists and engineers are talking about lessons learned from the record levels of lead in Washington, D.C., drinking water that caused panic in the city in 2004. Government agencies describe the lack of harm from the incident; this has prompted many water and public-health professionals to argue that the D.C. experience shows that lead in drinking water is not a health threat. As a result, some experts now question the need for complex and costly technologies to control corrosion and keep lead levels low.
But are the water experts being misled? An extensive 2-year investigation by Virginia Polytechnic and State University corrosion engineer Marc Edwards, who initially identified the severity of the D.C. problem, and further ES&T reporting reveal that the federal and local agencies charged with overseeing the D.C. water system used flawed science to try to quiet public concerns.
Lessons in lead
In March 2004, John Morrow, director of the Public Health Department in Pitt County, N.C., had a mystery on his hands. His office had identified a 1-year-old child in Greenville with elevated blood lead levels, but extensive investigations in the boy's home and the nearby environment failed to turn up a contamination source. Then, a water sample taken as part of an unrelated investigation revealed high levels of lead in the family's drinking water. As the child's blood lead level climbed above 20 micrograms/deciliter (µg/dL) -- two times the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) level of concern for children under 6 years old -- Morrow turned to experts in D.C. for advice.
Just 3 months earlier, D.C. residents had learned from a Washington Post story that hazardous levels of lead had been present in their drinking water for several years. The problem was caused by a switch from free chlorine to chloramine disinfectant in order to meet new U.S. EPA regulations. D.C. officials pointed to old lead pipes called service lines, which bring water to homes, as the source of the lead. Like D.C., Greenville's water provider, Greenville Utilities, had switched from free chlorine to chloramines for disinfection in 2002. The switch seemed to be related to the elevated lead levels. But none of Greenville's 565 miles of water pipes contained lead.
Faced with what appeared to be a similar problem, Morrow found materials on the web from Tee Guidotti, health adviser to D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), the capital's water provider, and director of occupational medicine and toxicology at George Washington University. Guidotti downplayed the role of water. "These all indicated to me that drinking water lead and blood lead are not correlated," says Morrow.
Indeed, on March 31, 2004, D.C. Department of Health (DOH) interim chief medical officer Daniel Lucey told the Washington Post, "We are not seeing any widespread lead toxicity attributable to the water in D.C." Lucey's comments were prompted by a preliminary CDC study that concluded blood lead levels had not risen appreciably as a result of D.C.'s tainted water, even in homes where concentrations were unusually high -- 300 parts per billion (ppb) or more. Meanwhile, sampling data from local schools and day-care facilities suggested that drinking-water lead concentrations in these places were not extraordinarily high. On the basis of these findings, many accepted the statements of agency experts, that the "D.C. lead crisis" was much ado about nothing and that "drinking water is at most a minor source of lead for children" (The Washington Post, May 9, 2004, p B1).
But a careful investigation of the D.C. studies gives a different picture. The crucial assumption that the lead service lines were the only major source of the toxic metal, along with the surveys for lead in blood and in drinking water at D.C. schools and apartments, is deeply flawed and misleading, say experts familiar with the work. The change in disinfectant did cause mineral scales inside D.C. lead service lines to dissolve, says corrosion expert Michael Schock with EPA's Office of Research and Development. However, the more-corrosive water also eroded lead solder, which sent particles down the pipes, and leached the metal from brass plumbing in homes. He points out that brass faucet bodies and necks, shutoff valves, water meters, and other plumbing components usually contain lead, even if the brass is labeled lead-free. That is because Congress defined in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments that "lead-free" plumbing pipes and components could have up to 8% lead.
Edwards can document at least two children in one D.C. family whose high blood levels are due to exposure from drinking water. And in Greenville, particles of lead solder were eventually identified as the source of the contamination for the 1-year-old boy and another child with elevated blood lead levels. However, misconceptions from the D.C. lead crisis persist, even as other water utilities switch from chlorine to chloramines disinfection to comply with EPA's Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Experts warn that problems with lead in water -- and perhaps further cases of elevated blood lead levels -- could be avoided if scientists, regulators, engineers, and public-health officials fully realized the true lessons of the D.C. lead crisis.
Lead service lines are the source
Early on, officials in D.C. decided to focus on lead service pipes as the only significant source of contamination. Through numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, Edwards has pieced together a partial chronology of the discussions that focused attention on the lead service lines. Despite repeated requests, officials at DOH and WASA declined to speak to ES&T for this article.
From the start, some at DOH expressed the hope that the data supported a focus only on lead service lines, because this would limit the problem. Of the about 123,000 residences in D.C., only about 23,000 are estimated to have lead service lines. On February 8, 2004, James Collier, DOH's water-quality division director, emailed his colleagues: "I believe that if we can get away from old lead-soldered copper plumbing and isolate on the lead service lines, we can calm down all of the public except for the 23,000. If we stay with the old copper lead-solder plumbing, we have 123,000. Just make sure that the data supports this because we can not afford to be very wrong."
A day later, WASA mailed an information letter on the lead crisis, which emphasized the problem of lead service lines, briefly mentioned solder, and ignored brass plumbing components. But within the agencies involved, a very different discussion was taking place.
On Feburary 12, EPA Region environmental scientist Lisa Donahue emailed agency colleagues: "We continue to miss a 'teachable moment' by maintaining the emphasis on the service lines as a perceived sole source of lead contamination. The first draw [sic] samples that put WASA into this situation came from plumbing containing brass faucets, fixtures, and valves. Until the water has been tested below 15 ppb, shouldn't those high risk populations be particularly cautious? If the water is corrosive, the brass will leach lead."
At that time, Donahue suggested that future public information letters warn pregnant women and children in all homes that tested above 15 ppb -- EPA's action level -- not to drink the water. This would have expanded the city's focus to homes without lead service lines. Donahue's language was never accepted. And throughout the crisis, DOH focused its public-health intervention efforts almost exclusively on those homes with lead service lines.
Schock was the corrosion expert on the technical evaluation work group assembled to advise authorities on the crisis. In response to questions about the source of the lead, he replied on March 22, 2004, "What I find hard to believe is why, with the known contamination potential from leaded brasses currently being certified by NSF [for plumbing standards] and sold, plus some old solder around, does there seem to be so much effort to just focus on the service lines?" Richard Rogers, chief of EPA's Region 3 drinking-water branch, replied, "This is being driven as much by public relations and politicians as by what makes sense most other ways." Indeed, later data published by WASA showed that 15% of the homes with very high (above 150 ppb) lead did not have lead service lines. But only residents with lead pipes received the special health warnings, bottled water, and filters from WASA.
D.C. schools and apartments
On April 29, DOH and WASA released the results of sampling for lead in D.C. public schools. Only 4% of the 1976 water samples tested from 130 schools had lead levels above 20 ppb, the action level specified by the 1988 Lead Contamination Control Act, which covers drinking water in schools and day-care centers. Given the high levels of lead in drinking water at the time, experts say that these results were surprisingly low and had the effect of reassuring people. But there are strong reasons to think that the sampling strategy was flawed. For instance, a neighboring utility that used the same water source as D.C., but which has extremely good lead-corrosion control, did not have a single home sample above the EPA action limit. Yet 23.5% of the water taps in schools served by this utility were more than 20 ppb, says Edwards.
The school sampling was ordered by EPA Region 3 administrator Donald Welsh, who added that "Sampling must follow EPA protocol." The agency's protocol for sampling schools calls for first-draw samples to be taken after the water has been in contact with pipes for 8-12 hours. But a very different protocol was followed in D.C. schools. The day before sampling, staff were directed to remove the aerators and flush all of the drinking-water lines in the entire building from top to bottom. After letting the water sit overnight, they were directed to slowly fill sample bottles.
"If I did not want to find a lead problem where a serious problem existed, this is the protocol I would write," Edwards says. Because these schools do not have lead service lines, the principal source of lead leaching would be from solder or brass. EPA's own literature notes that particles trapped in the aerators serve as a key source of lead and that flushing sediments from the lines can reduce lead exposure. Collecting the water slowly minimizes the chance of mobilizing lead particles.
Edwards has followed the standard EPA protocol and the modified one used in D.C. schools to sample for lead in buildings that do not have lead service lines. The modified approach decreases lead levels in faucets with aerators by 2-3 times the values from the EPA protocol; in some situations the decrease is as much as 200 times. Edwards and his students have been unable to get permission to collect samples in D.C. schools using the standard EPA protocol.
A consulting engineer familiar with sampling in schools agrees with Edwards that the D.C. procedure was odd. "They flushed the devil out of those schools," the expert says. A Region 3 EPA official who spoke on condition of anonymity tells ES&T that the sampling was not meant to reflect what children were being exposed to at the time. "That study was designed to look at exposure in the future, not exposure in the past."
Another scientist sums up these criticisms: "The survey of lead in D.C. school drinking water was unlikely to reveal both the actual previous situation to which children and teachers were really exposed, not to mention the worst-case scenario, which is the intention of the law." The same modified protocol was eventually used by WASA to assess problems with lead in D.C. apartments -- and found relatively low levels of lead. This observation was used to justify WASA and DOH's exclusive focus on homes with lead service lines.
CDC's survey
When asked to list some of the most important lessons from the D.C. lead crisis, Guidotti says that "Drinking water is a minor contributor to lead exposure, but takes on huge significance because people become worried when they hear that drinking water, which they depend upon, may be contaminated." Guidotti has emphasized this point many times when he has spoken at scientific meetings throughout the country.
Everyone agrees that any exposure to lead is detrimental to children, and a growing number of studies quantitatively assess the effect of low-level exposure to lead, says John Rosen, a pediatrician and national expert on lead poisoning at Montefiore Medical Center. Last year, a study by Bruce Lanphear at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and colleagues associated a drop of almost 4 IQ points with blood lead increase from 2.4 to 10 µg of lead per dL of blood. This study is consistent with other reports, say experts.
In the midst of the lead crisis, EPA's Office of Water asked the agency's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) to evaluate the effects of lead in drinking water on children's blood lead levels with an exposure model. In March 2004, NCEA delivered its assessment [130KB PDF]: The blood lead levels of infants up to 1 year in age who drink formula made with tap water "are sensitive to drinking water lead concentrations." The model predicted that infants' blood lead levels would increase to approximately 6 µg/dL for a water lead concentration of 50 ppb, for 11 µg/dL at 100 ppb, and to a dangerous 20.8 µg/dL for a concentration of 200 ppb. However, Guidotti, Wasa and DC DOH have frequently noted in presentations that when CDC measured blood lead levels in the residents of approximately 98 homes with drinking-water lead of more than 300 ppb, the study did not find elevated blood lead levels.
But Mary Jean Brown, head of CDC's lead poisoning prevention branch and the principal author of the study, doesn't agree with this analysis. She tells ES&T that up to a year separates collection of the water samples and the blood samples. "This study does not say that 300 ppb lead in drinking water is safe," says Brown. As Edwards points out, many of those tested by CDC had been notified that their water contained lead at more than 20 times the EPA action limit months before their blood was drawn. It is likely that many began drinking bottled water or using water filters. Since the half-life for lead in the blood is about a month, this was more than enough time for blood lead levels to drop, he adds.
When asked by ES&T, Guidotti agrees that the CDC study is not conclusive. "This was an ecological study, and ecological studies are weak at proving associations," he admits. "All of D.C. was intensely aware of the lead problem -- not just through newspaper reports but through public meetings and announcements in churches. People rapidly started using filters or bottled water," he says. "It is a major misinterpretation of the data to say that this study shows that 300 ppb in drinking water is not associated with an increase in blood lead levels." Brown tells ES&T that she intends to look into the issue of the study's interpretation and seek ways to clarify its significance. "If misinterpretation is widespread, we'll have to do something, because that's not what this study is saying."
Brown may have to work quickly. Catherine Karr, director of the Northwest Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at the University of Washington, has recently been investigating lead in Seattle schools' drinking water. According to Karr, CDC's study is "very influential because it is one of the only studies that presents data on water lead and blood lead." She was surprised to learn from ES&T about the study's limitations. "The study is misleading," she says. "They could have made the sampling gap [between exposure and measurement] clear by just adding one small sentence saying that there was a sampling gap. Why didn't they do that?" "At a minimum, it seems easy to understand how otherwise responsible public-health officials believed that the takeaway lesson of Washington, D.C., is that more than 300 ppb lead in drinking water did not significantly elevate blood lead or otherwise harm the public," says Edwards. "It may take years to correct this mistaken belief," he adds.
Russian roulette
The Greenville incident illustrates that under some circumstances, the corrosivity of drinking water can be altered so that it aggressively attacks lead solder. Pieces of solder from the water pipes can then detach sporadically and contaminate the water. This is difficult to monitor because multiple samples can be collected from a tap with relatively low lead, but occasionally a sample can be collected that contains more than 15,000 ppb -- as much lead as could be consumed in paint chips. Edwards terms this disconcerting problem "Russian roulette" and says that it explains sampling data collected by EPA and his own research group in D.C., Greenville, and other locations. "I would like to know how common it is for lead in drinking water to elevate blood lead levels," says Morrow. "We've tried to get parents to bring in their kids. We've tried to get doctors to test all 1- and 2-year-olds. But we've only tested about 45% of the kids, so we just don't know."
Neither Edwards nor any of the experts contacted for this story claim that drinking water is the major source of lead for children nationally. Public-health experts are much more concerned about chips and dust from leaded paint, says Brown. But Edwards has assembled enough evidence to indicate that lead in water can sometimes be a key source of elevated lead in children's blood. And that may be the real lesson of the D.C. water crisis.
by the Associated Press, Environmental News Network
May 31, 2006
http://www.enn.com/today_PF.html?id=10578
SHANGHAI, China -- Chinese investigators have seized baby bottles made from recycled compact discs containing dangerous levels of the toxic chemical hydroxybenzene, official media reported Tuesday. Police have traced the bottles to the eastern province of Zhejiang, where factories bought junked compact discs at one-third the price of new plastic certified safe for use in food containers, the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported.
Tests showed the bottles contained twice the permitted levels of hydroxybenzene, a chemical that dissolves in heated milk and can damage the liver and kidneys, the report said. The report follows other scandals involving fake or substandard food products, including baby formula blamed for the wasting deaths of newborns and quilts stuffed with filthy cotton and fabric leavings.
Bottles have been seized from wholesale markets in various parts of eastern China, but none have yet been found in Shanghai, the paper said. Investigators carrying out routine inspections deemed the bottles suspicious because of their irregular coloration and lack of certification, the paper said. The reports didn't say whether bottles had been recalled from consumers, or whether any injuries had been attributed directly to them.
by Richard Harris, National Public Radio
May 31, 2006
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5415315
Billions of tons of dust blow off of arid lands every year -- and blow around the world. These dust storms make people sick, they kill coral reefs and they melt mountain snow packs. In the Southwestern United States, dust storms are largely the result of tires and hooves, which are destroying natural biological barriers that once kept dust on the ground. But there are people studying, and trying to protect, the layer that can protect the planet from dust storms.
Jayne Belnap is one of those people. She's an ecologist, and you might call her Doctor Dust. She works for the U.S. Geological Survey in Moab, Utah. Recently, she gave Colorado dust researcher Thomas Painter a tour of the red-rock desert she calls home. They meet in a parking lot off Interstate 70. Painter rolls down the window. "Did we hit this day right, or what?" he proclaims. "Yeah, this is a perfect day, except it rained, " Belnap says. "Which is why the soil is only sort of dusty."
She then whips out a photo of the local highway during a real dust storm. "You really can't see anything. And the only thing they did was put 'Warning: dust storm' signs on the highway," Belnap says. "What exactly does that mean? What am I supposed to do when I hit this wall of black, knowing full well that if you slow down you're going to get rear-ended, and if you speed up, you're going to die!"
Belnap is a natural optimist facing a pretty grim situation. She says blowing dust actually leads to deaths on the local highway -- and it creates havoc around the world. "That havoc can cause the death of coral reefs in the Carribean. That havoc can be people in Beijing dying of respiratory diseases," Belnap says. "There's a lot of things in dust that are not great things to have floating around in the air."
And dust also settles on the snow. In fact, that's what Painter studies, and what has drawn him out of the Rockies to meet Belnap. "This year we had a major dust deposition event across Colorado and into Wyoming, that created snow melt at a time that snow melt doesn't occur," Painter explains. Dust makes the snow melt faster, and that affects how fast the water pours out of the mountains and feeds the rivers and reservoirs of the West. Belnap says dust is the desert's little gift to the mountains. "Isn't it nice of us to share?" she jokes.
Belnap takes Painter down the road to look at the geological formation known as Manco shale. It was a sea bed in the time of the dinosaurs. It's loaded with naturally occurring mercury and arsenic, and other nasties that blow when the wind picks it up.
Heading toward Moab, a one-time uranium mining center that is now a tourist town, there's a lot of dust in the air. "We just had a jeep safari this weekend, which is when 10,000 jeeps show up here, and ATVs, and they run all over the place," Belnap said. "When we have activities like that, and it doesn't rain for a while, we get huge dust production off the area."
Jeeps are still streaming out of town as Belnap drives down the road. When they're off road, Jeeps break up a living barrier in the soil, a biological crust, that normally keeps dust from blowing. Cattle break up that crust, too. So do deer, which are much more abundant these days because cattlemen have made water available everywhere. And a prolonged drought in the area has made a bad problem even worse.
Belnap pulls off the highway and drives to a place that's a natural experiment in restoring these lands. It's a buffer zone around an airport, so it's been fenced off from cattle and jeeps for the past 20 years. "This area is actually pretty stable," Belnap said. "You can see the physical crust on the surface. It looks like a mudflat, but it's not blowing away." But the surface is still missing something important. It was disturbed many decades ago, but before then, it was crusted with lichens and mosses and held together by a kind of soil bacteria called cyanobacteria. Belnap has a nickname for these life forms. "Let's go see crusties. They're the cutest things ever," Belnap says.
It's not as dramatic as the natural arches nearby, but the red and green striped rock is still a classic scene of the American West. This rocky hillside has somehow managed to escape the onslaught of cattle and jeeps. Taking care not to disturb the soil, Belnap scrambles up the rocks and picks up a sample. "So here's a nicely developed soil crust. All those different colors are different lichens," Belnap says. "We have mosses in here as well, we have cyanobacteria in here as well, and this is absolutely stable from both wind and water erosion."
The cyanobacteria themselves are microscopic, but they create strong threads. Belnap holds up a clump of dirt. Another clump dangles from a tiny thread. These threads do an amazing job of holding the soil together, she says. The cyanobacteria grow quickly, but the mosses and lichens do not. Belnap says it has taken hundreds of years for them to grow here. And in the Mojave Desert, it took more like a thousand years.
That has huge implications for what Belnap really cares about: restoring the biological crust on these disturbed lands. She wants to stop the blowing dust. "I hate giving up all my friends, and I'm giving up a lot of them by saying this, but if we're going to use these lands, we're going to have to find some happy medium," Belnap said. That happy medium would be to let the fast-growing cyanobacteria return to the soil and spread their threads to hold it in place, but not to expect the return of mosses and lichens. Even reaching that happy medium could be difficult.
The situation in the West has gotten much worse in the past five years, since drought set in. And climatologists say there are signs this is just the start of a 30-year pattern known as a megadrought. The research on crusties was based on their life during wetter years. "We don't have any idea of how what we now know applies to the future, if it's going to be a lot drier," Belnap says. But, she adds, if we are going to do something about dust, the biological crust here really does need a break from hooves and tires.
by Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail
May 31, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060531.wxchemicals-plastics/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth
one in a series by this reporter included in this week's and last week's bulletin
Frederick vom Saal is a respected American biology professor who keeps a running tally of the scientific literature investigating the health effects of bisphenol A, a chemical used in one of the world's most widely used plastics. By his count, 130 papers have been published on the effects of low-dose exposures to the chemical. Dr. vom Saal, a professor at the University of Missouri, found that more than 90 per cent of the government-financed studies noted adverse effects from the chemical, but not one of the 11 industry-backed ones.
The subject is of more than just passing academic interest because practically everyone is exposed to bisphenol A -- or BPA, for short -- on a daily basis. It is used to make a range of things, from tinted Nalgene bottles, to dental sealants for children's teeth, to coatings on compact discs and the sealants on the inside of most tin cans. The widespread use of BPA wouldn't be a problem, except that the chemical doesn't stay put in products. It leaches out and gets into people, and trace amounts are now found in almost everyone. This worries many researchers because BPA, besides being good for making plastic, is a chemical that mimics the female estrogen hormone.
Experiments on lab animals exposed to small doses of BPA have linked it to low sperm counts, the earlier onset of puberty, insulin resistance and diabetes, prostate abnormalities and skewed mammary gland development, among other effects. Some researchers, such as Dr. vom Saal, worry that these sorts of adverse effects, if they occur in people, seem to mirror recent human disease and health trends.
This view is not shared by the chemical industry. "BPA is not a risk to human health at the extremely low levels at which people might be exposed from use of, for example, polycarbonate plastic," said Steven Hentges, a spokesman on BPA at the American Plastics Council, based in Arlington, Va.
Dr. vom Saal, one of the world's leading authorities on hormones and synthetic chemicals that act like them, begs to differ. "The chemical companies think they can lie with impunity about the published scientific literature," he said. For academe, those are fighting words and they reflect the controversy enveloping BPA. Although humans carry trace amounts of many industrial chemicals in their tissues, there is intense scientific interest in contaminants such as BPA because they have an unusual property: When absorbed by living things, they act like hormones.
Because BPA has a shape similar to the estrogen hormone, it is able to fit into the same receptors that estrogen uses to signal cells to turn biological functions on and off. For Dr. vom Saal, the idea that the entire population is being given a dose of a synthetic estrogen through plastic "is supported by hundreds of published articles" and is "an extremely critical public health issue." At the heart of safety disputes over BPA are the results of the low-dose experiments with animals and test-tube cell cultures.
The general public is most familiar with high-dose research, the traditional and rather crude tests in which lab animals are stuffed with large amounts of compounds to see how much it takes to kill them outright, to produce effects such as weight loss, or to induce cancer in them. Based on the results of high-dose U.S. experiments in 1982, BPA was not found to be excessively dangerous. At the time, researchers noted that the chemical caused weight loss in rodents at the lowest dose used; based on this observation, an exposure standard was established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It set a safe daily exposure standard of 50 micrograms per kilogram of weight -- which would be about the size of two grains of sand consumed by an average-sized man. This may seem like a small amount, but Dr. vom Saal said 40 animal studies have found adverse health effects either at, or below, that EPA dose level, and some of them have been run using amounts similar to the exposures humans receive from consumer products. He believes the safety standard is completely outdated and needs to be lowered sharply.
According to Dr. vom Saal, the traditional tests did not capture the full range of BPA's possible effects because hormones, and synthetic chemicals that act like them, exert influences at extremely low exposures that, paradoxically, do not occur at higher levels. This is because natural hormones don't have what scientists call a traditional "dose response curve," in which increasingly high exposures cause increasingly more pronounced effects.
The response curve for a hormone, instead, looks more like a horseshoe shape, charting how effects appear suddenly, continue for a time, and then drop off sharply. This is because as hormone doses increase, many biological functions they trigger simply shut down temporarily. What is more, hormones also exert influence in exquisitely minute quantities, typically in parts per trillion. One part per trillion is the scientific equivalent of almost nothing.
BPA's ability to cause effects at extremely small amounts presents a major challenge to health standards based on high-dose tests. The U.S. experiments that set the standard, for example, used exposures more than a million times higher than the levels researchers have since determined can harm lab animals.
Health Canada has developed a "provisional," or temporary standard for BPA, at 25 micrograms daily for every kilogram of weight. The department believes this standard protects Canadians from all the PBA likely to be absorbed from cans and bottles, and it dismisses the amount leaking from such items as dental sealants and beverage containers as of no consequence. However, the Canadian standard was based on scientific evidence available up to 1999, before the avalanche of research showing low-dose effects.
In a statement in response to questions about BPA, Health Canada rejected the scientific papers showing low-dose effects because some experiments have not been successfully duplicated by other laboratories. It said the current standard is more than safe because Canadians typically ingest in their food an amount of BPA that is about 100 times less than the safety limit.
That may seem like a good margin of safety, but it isn't when considering the exposures scientists found are able to cause adverse effects. The lowest dose to date was at exposures 1,000 times lower than the amount Health Canada deems safe. The results of that experiment, published last year by researchers at Tufts University in Boston, involved exposing pregnant mice to 25 parts per trillion of BPA, a minute amount that was still enough to skew the development of mammary gland tissue in their female pups when they reached puberty. The mice developed an abnormal profusion of buds that grow into milk ducts. The same effect, if it occurred in humans, would lead to an increase in the number of sites where breast cancers may occur, leading to an increased cancer risk for women whose main exposure to the chemical was in utero while their mothers were pregnant.
But Mr. Hentges of the American Plastics Council discounts any implications for humans, saying that because the mice were exposed to BPA by injection, the experiment doesn't apply to humans, who typically ingest the chemical through food and beverages. Dr. Ana Soto, a medical researcher at Tufts's department of anatomy and cellular biology who led the mouse experiment, said the doses used on the mice were similar to those people receive from consumer products.
by Jake Rupert, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
May 30, 2006
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=a9a6b4c7-ca02-4dfc-8999-26dad5cc0110
OTTAWA -- Ottawa city politicians will begin debate this week on a program to get people to stop using perfume, scented soaps, cleaners, and deodorants and possibly ban them altogether in public places. Backers of the program say more and more people are becoming allergic to the chemicals used to make scents, and that the chemicals are known to trigger asthma attacks.
Under the proposal made by a citizens' committee on the environment, a public education program aimed at getting people to voluntarily stop using the scents would be followed by a mandatory ban in all city buildings, on transit, and at sports and community centres. The third, and most controversial, phase would be a citywide bylaw banning scents in all public places. This would include bars, restaurants, malls, and all work places.
The citizens' committee provided no timetable for bringing in the three phases. City staff examined the issue and say they are open to starting an information campaign among municipal employees, and switching cleaning products to the unscented type. But, they are urging municipal politicians to reject all the citizens' committee's proposals dealing with the public. "A public awareness program is not supported ... at this time, and there is presently no budget to support such a campaign," says a report by city staff going to politicians.
According to staff, a public advertising campaign on buses alone would cost around $87,000 per year with signs for the city's roughly 400 municipal buildings being about $10,000 just to produce. A small price to pay for people's health, according to the citizens' committee. "Everyone should have safe and healthy places in which to live and work," says the citizens' committee report. "People have the right to breathe clean air and not to be exposed to chemical fragrances causing unnecessary health problems." The committee points to a 1999 survey of Canadians that found 2.5 million people suffer from asthma. Two other studies show that fragrances can trigger attacks in 72 per cent of people who ha
