Please check the CHE-WA website to stay abreast of the latest postings, news and events: http://washington.chenw.org.
To join the Collaborative on Health and the Environment-Washington (CHE-WA), please complete the form at http://washington.chenw.org/index.html#member.
September 1, 2006
Portland, Oregon
at Kaiser Permanente Internal Medicine Grand Rounds
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility's "In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Health" program educates health providers about the linkages between environmental toxins and development, in order to prevent exposure. Health care providers are uniquely positioned to provide information to parents at critical developmental stages and identify opportunities for intervention. The routine well-child exam is an ideal time for families to receive information, understand the links between environment and their child's health, and make changes necessary to minimize exposure. Through providers, information about avoiding exposures to environmental toxins can reach thousands of Oregonians of every age, class and ethnicity.
Website: http://www.oregonpsr.org/programs/InHarmsWayToxicThreatsToHealth.htm
September 7-8, 2006
Bellevue, Washington
at the Meydenbauer Center
The Puget Sound Partnership meets regularly in its quest to develop an aggressive 15-year plan to solve Puget Sound's most vexing problems. The Partnership is holding a series of general public forums and specific scientific forums throughout the summer and fall.
Website: http://www.pugetsoundpartnership.org/
Contact: Martha Neuman, 206-625-0230 or mneuman@sharedsalmonstrategy.org
CHE-Washington welcomes these new members:
For a searchable database of organizations with which CHE-WA members are affiliated, please visit http://washington.chenw.org/members.html.
by Keiko Morris, Newsday
July 31, 2006
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov4835315jul31,0,5436129,print.story?coll=ny-business-print
Kevin Schwartz is so confident in the safety of the household cleansers his company makes that he's not above taking a swig to prove his point. And for his sales reps, throwing back a shot is almost common practice in the field, he said. This is usually punctuated with the challenge to do the same with a shot of an ordinary cleaning solution. "We drink our shot, and nobody wants to drink theirs," said Schwartz, president of the Oceanside-based Healthy Home Products. ". . . All of the ingredients are noncaustic and nontoxic, which means they don't emit any fumes at all. There's zero percent risk of toxicity due to inhalation, ingestion, eye contact or skin contact."
Schwartz bills his company's new line of BabyGanics all-purpose household cleaner and tub and tile solution as vegetable-based, environment-friendly, "all-natural," nontoxic and safe to use around newborns and pets. Hence his willingness to imbibe it. Launched in April, BabyGanics joins a growing list of companies such as Seventh Generation, Method, Ecover, and Earth Friendly Products that offer what they say are kinder, gentler and "greener" household cleaners. Like Schwartz, the makers of the other nontoxic cleaners point to the conventional solutions as the major polluters of indoor air, with their harsh chemicals and fumes that can irritate airways and eyes. They say the cleaners contain chemicals linked to cancer in animals and toxic substances, some of which can damage the nervous system if exposed in high doses.
Slowly catching on
The market is still small, making up approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of all cleaning products sold in 2005, according to the Organic Trade Association. But the concept of using nontoxic, "green" cleaners for health or environmental reasons has gradually been gaining steam. Gov. George Pataki last year signed legislation to require schools to use such cleaners by the 2006-07 school year. Locust Valley and Great Neck school districts are ahead of the curve. Locust Valley has been experimenting with more environmentally friendly and less toxic cleaners for about five or six years. It has eliminated the use of most harsh cleaners and solutions with fragrances and switched to such unconventional products as liquid lye bacteria, which digest urine salts, to clean bathrooms, said Henry Alilionis, director of facilities and operations. The Great Neck district converted its cleaners about two years ago.
Once relegated to the realm of organic and specialty stores, these green cleaners are making their way into mainstream supermarkets and big-box chains. BabyGanics can be found at buybuyBaby and will also be sold, starting in September, at Babies "R" Us. Method, a San Francisco-based company, supplies Target, Costco, and now Gristedes, among other chains. Sales for nontoxic, green cleaners have tripled in the past five years, according to the Organic Trade Association. Those in the industry believe that the rise has been helped by young families and expectant parents increasingly wary of the possible ill effects of anything coming in contact with young, susceptible bodies.
"It's a personal experience," said Chrystie Heimert, a spokeswoman for Seventh Generation, a Burlington, Vt., company now 18 years in the business of making "environmentally responsible" home and personal products. Its name, according to company promotional materials, comes from the Iroquois' Great Law requiring its people to consider the impact on the next seven generations when making decisions. "Once you have kids you think about what they are eating, wearing, what they are exposed to," Heimert said.
Pets and babies sparked Schwartz's curiosity and eventual devotion to the subject. Schwartz, who also owns a company that supplies high-end nutritional food for dogs, cats and horses, had noticed that his dog Tucker had developed an irritation just below his chin. One of Tucker's begging methods is to rest his head on Schwartz's glass coffee table and stare plaintively. So Schwartz figured the cleaner being used on the table must have been playing a role. He said he stopped using the cleaner, Tucker's condition cleared up and he decided to look into alternative cleaners. Then his sister, who was pregnant at the time, was told by her doctor to avoid conventional cleaners. "It started me getting interested in what's out there and why should my dog be having a skin problem," said Schwartz, who, with his wife, is expecting a baby in September. "We started doing some research, and the lightbulb went off in my head." Schwartz's Healthy Home Products also has a brand of cleaners called PetGanics, which has a slightly different formula.
Why switch?
Makers of all-natural, nontoxic products present a host of reasons they believe people should switch to their brands. They note the abundance of toxic substances in the home and their potential ill effects. In 2004, household cleaners and other products such as pain relievers and personal care items played a role in the approximately 1.2 million calls to poison control centers for poison exposures involving children younger than 5, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. Seventh Generation's guide to nontoxic cleaning estimates the average home contains anywhere from 3 to 10 gallons of toxic substances, including ammonia and bleach, and that less than 10 percent of these products have been adequately evaluated for human and environmental safety.
Indoor air pollution is one related issue product manufacturers have cited as a major problem as technology has improved insulation for homes and introduced new synthetic chemicals to cleaners. They cite this alongside the increasing rates of asthma and respiratory illnesses among children as reason to convert to their products. "Every time a new technology comes out for better insulation and newer and better ways to clean a bathroom, that adds up to chemicals being trapped indoors and your air being much more toxic," Schwartz said.
Volatile organic compounds present in many all-purpose sprays and window cleaners are another potential hazard, these manufacturers say. Evaporation of these compounds, along with fragrances added to cleaning products, can act as asthma triggers, said Martin H. Wolf, director of Seventh Generation's product and environmental technology. He and others in the business of green cleaners point to one four-year study of household solutions showing among its findings that scrubbing a bathroom with a cleaner containing 2-Butoxyethanol -- common in many cleaners and polishes -- could present health risks. The study, released in May and conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that a person who spends 15 minutes cleaning scale off a shower stall in a small, moderately ventilated bathroom could inhale three times the acute one-hour exposure limit for the compound set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Interior window cleaning was another activity the study found to pose risks for high exposure to the same chemical.
The "organic" label
The manufacturers of these nontoxic cleaners also profess to be environmentally conscious and, in the case of BabyGanics, organic. But experts caution consumers to find out exactly what such labels mean. Schwartz said Healthy Home Products uses 100 percent recyclable materials, all the ingredients come from renewable resources and are all vegetable-based, so nature's enzymes can break it down without any aid. He does advertise his product as "organic," which he defines as being derived from a renewable source and readily biodegradable. He said he uses oils from plants that are organically grown (meaning without conventional pesticides, synthetic materials and bioengineering) wherever possible.
Seventh Generation also operates with an environmentally responsible philosophy but does not use the term "organic." "I would take the term 'organic' with a grain of salt," Wolf said. "Any processing of organic oils results in it being declassified as organic. If they do something other than minimal processing, it's no longer 'organic.'"
Environmentally friendly, according to Seventh Generation, means not exacerbating the problems of global warming, waste, ozone layer depletion and reduction of precious resources such as old-growth forests, petroleum or potable water, Wolf explained. So Seventh Generation -- which sells paper products, dish liquid, dishwasher and laundry detergents, household cleaners, diapers and baby wipes -- produces its cleaning agents without chlorine and phosphates. It also uses vegetable-based ingredients in a process that uses less energy than cleaners depending on petroleum-based ingredients, he said.
Just how biodegradable a solution is is an important question for these environmentally conscious manufacturers of cleaners. The Soap and Detergent Association's fact sheet on "natural" cleaning products states that "major surfactants biodegrade quickly and thoroughly, and do not present a risk to organisms living in the environment." Using one type of surfactant (a solution's main cleaning agent) over another has no "inherent environmental advantage," the sheet states, adding that processing cleaning agents derived from plants and animals produces more emissions and solid waste, but production of petrochemical-based agents consumes more energy.
Reading the directions and properly using and storing products can improve safety, said Nancy Bock, vice president of the association and chair of the National Poison Prevention Week Council. "Every single day of our lives, the cleaning products we represent are being used safely by folks every day in their homes, in their schools, in their businesses and in their communities," Bock said. "What typically gets lost is that the proper use of the products is really the critical way to improve public health and think about disease prevention."
But the makers of green products question just how quickly conventional surfactants biodegrade. Petroleum-based cleaning agents can remain for a long time in soils and waterways, according to Seventh Generation's guide, Wolf said. Seventh Generation adheres to the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "ready biodegradable" -- meaning roughly 60 percent to 70 percent of the substances will convert to carbon dioxide and water within 28 days. Schwartz also questioned the pace at which these petroleum-based agents break down. "Their point is that over time all of the chemicals used will eventually biodegrade," Schwartz said of the Soap and Detergent Association's assertions. "The problem is that when you are talking about toxic chemicals that can be harmful to breathe and touch, what is the impact of having them sit over time until they are fully broken down and no longer pose a threat?"
Many green cleaners are sold in supermarkets such as Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's, Wild By Nature, and smaller stores and Web sites selling foods and products advertised as natural and organic. Though the market for nontoxic, green household cleaners is small compared with conventional cleaners, a Natural Marketing Institute 2005 survey showed that many consumers are interested in these products. The institute's consumer trends database reported that 84 percent of consumers said they are interested in environmentally friendly options in household cleaning products, but only 31 percent of consumers have purchased such cleaning products (including natural dish detergent) in the past 12 months.
The Method company relies on a different tactic than its competitors to sell its products to a mainstream audience. It focused not just on the effectiveness of the products but also on presenting the cleaners in a sleek design so that the containers become accessories to be displayed on the counter. "If you're going to ask people to buy green just because it's green, you're preaching to the converted, basically 3 percent," said Adam Lowry, Method co-founder and vice president of development. "The idea here is make your brand hip and cool and modern. Make it beautifully designed so it lives on the countertop rather than under the sink. Give it great performance and make green just one other aspect of the product so you're not asking people to sacrifice. "Ultimately," he added, "that's how you mainstream 'green.'"
by Peter Gorrie, Toronto Star
July 31, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154296209378&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851
"Hot town, summer in the city." The old song refers to a problem that's getting worse. And to an issue that's opening new opportunities for business.
Picture yourself, as in another aging tune, "up on the roof" on a sweltering day. Chances are the surface is black, or deep grey. The sun beats down. The dark material absorbs heat. Soon, the temperature shoots past a scorching 50 degrees Celsius. Those below, inside the building, either sweat and complain, or crank up the air conditioning. Motors on those machines generate heat, in what becomes a vicious circle: The steamier it gets, the more air conditioning is used. The more air conditioning is used, the steamier it gets. The bake-off continues long into the evening as the heat radiates back from the dark surface.
Now, picture thousands of equally brutal rooftops across the city. With all the heat they generate, the entire area feels under the broiler. For good measure, add the impact of sunlight streaming down on to shadeless asphalt roads and parking lots. Not to mention waves of heat from air-conditioned cars. The sidewalks, as the song says, become "hotter than a match head."
As if that wasn't trouble enough, when set cooler, air conditioners consume more electricity. So generating stations run harder. Since, in Southern Ontario and parts of the United States upwind of this region, many power plants burn coal or other fossil fuels, they spew additional pollution. So, too, do those comfy-frigid vehicles: Their emissions rise because air conditioners consume a lot of gas. All those chemicals react with the heat to create a toxic stew of air known as smog, which makes it hard for many to breathe and is estimated to send 1,700 Ontario residents to an early grave each year.
And there are a few more nasty wrinkles: Pollutants trap heat. Air conditioners increase greenhouse gas emissions, which adds to climate change. Tall buildings keep heat from escaping at night. All of this combines to create the big city version of "island in the sun." To be exact, we're building urban heat islands.
The concept is quite simple. Climate change is warming the entire planet. Cities, though, are cooking even higher than the rural and natural areas beyond their borders. The phenomenon is abrupt and dramatic. When temperatures are plotted on charts, they climb what appears to be a steep hill at the edge of suburbs. They plateau over those vast expanses of shopping malls and cul de sacs. Then, over the inner city, they scramble up to the peak. Large parks, or neighbourhoods with plenty of old trees, sometimes soften the pattern. The difference between countryside and core can be as much as six degrees -- enough to turn a region-wide pleasant day into an urban scorcher, or a widespread scorcher into an inner-city killer.
We could design cities better. But if we stick with the style we've got, technical fixes are available. In a nutshell, to escape the heat island, cities need a lot more vegetation and a lot fewer dark and hard surfaces. Light-coloured roofs and pavement make some difference. But vegetation is the key, says a recent report for the City of Toronto by staff and students at Ryerson University. Trees and other plants reduce overheating because they provide shade and don't absorb and radiate as much warmth.
But they offer more than the absence of problems: They also provide an active solution. That's because they store water. Instead of quickly washing away into the sewers after a rain, much of it stays in the soil, roots and leaves. Over time, the water evaporates -- a process that absorbs heat energy, creating a cooling effect. Trees and gardens do a great job of this. Driveways and parking areas covered with porous materials help a bit. But the push now is for green roofs, which can convert all those flat surfaces from stovetops into natural born chillers.
Toronto leads Canada with 82 green roofs installed. But we're behind Chicago, San Diego, Portland and other American cities, as well as Tokyo and, as usual, several places in Europe. Across North America, installations are increasing by more than 70 per cent a year, says Steve Skinner, garden roof product manager at American Hydrotech, a Chicago-based company that supplies materials for green roofs in the United States and Canada. "It's been very good. It seems to keep growing and growing. We're happy."
Increasing numbers of companies attend the annual Green Roofs for Healthy Cities conference, and the Toronto-based lobby and business group of the same name has about 50 as members. Big corporations such as the Wrigley Co. in Chicago, and Ford Motor Company near Detroit claim bragging rights for having installed vast green roofs atop their headquarters. Still, the total number of green roofs remains a tiny fraction of the potential sites.
The lack of independent verification of the energy savings claimed by manufacturers and installers makes some builders skeptical. Money, though, is the root of the slow progress. Green roofs are about twice as expensive to install as conventional building covers. Some argue that when it comes to dealing with the heat island effect, it would be just as beneficial, and a lot cheaper, to cover roofs with white paint or shingles.
As with most environmentally friendly installations, they offer a payback in energy savings. But the benefit isn't as large or direct as with efficient equipment and windows, insulation, solar heating or other measures. And a large portion of it goes to society, or the public in general. There are less obvious advantages to putting a green roof on a building. If they're accessible, they've a very attractive amenity to occupants. Until recently, that was the main reason developers installed them, Skinner says.
The emphasis has shifted to environmental impacts: Apart from cooling the heat islands, the roofs also control storm water run-off, and can help to cut health-care costs by creating better environments to reduce asthma and other respiratory problems. Installing one often generates a lot of positive publicity. Green-roofed office buildings in Toronto, such as 401 Richmond St. and 215 Spadina Ave., never have to advertise for tenants. Waiting lists are two or three years long.
Even so, green roof advocates say subsidies or other incentives are essential. Except in sweltering Tokyo, which has made green roofs mandatory on all existing and new buildings over a minimum size. Chicago, with more than 3 million square metres, and Washington headed a recent green roof Top-10 list. Toronto wasn't on it.
Ontario recently gave two pushes to green roofs: First, the new provincial building code sets standards for them. That means municipal governments are now able to regulate them. Second, the City of Toronto Act gives the city the authority, if it wants, to require them. A city council committee recently approved a so-called green building standard, which includes green roofs and other measures to combat the heat island effect, but local politicians are a long way from insisting on them. And, so far, the only incentive is meagre. Under a new pilot program, the water department will pay $10 per square metre of green roof. "It's a program to see whether that's a reasonable incentive," says Ted Bowering, Toronto Water's manager of policy and program development. The payment is "probably 10 to 20 per cent of the additional cost, so it's not a lot in that regard." But, he says: "It might be enough to encourage someone who's already on the brink."
The city department, which is mainly interested in how the roofs reduce storm run-off, has allocated only about $200,000 for the subsidies. "We don't expect to turn the city green," Bowering says. But the project could identify problems and barriers. The subsidy is, "not enough to move the market," says Steve Peck of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.
With enough green roofs, millions of square metres instead of a few scattered here and there, "you could cool off the city, Peck says. But it would make a big difference if only 5 per cent of Toronto's suitable roofs -- the best candidates are large, low buildings such as warehouses and big-box stores -- were converted.
Temperatures would drop by as much as two degrees. That seems puny. But it's significant for power generation, Peck says., because once temperatures climb above 18, peak demand for electricity rises 4 per cent for every degree of rise. Cooler roofs also improve the performance of solar-electric panels and air conditioners, he says. Solar is half a per cent less efficient for every degree above 25: "With a hot roof, you could lose 20 to 30 per cent" of the equipment's ability to convert solar energy into electricity. "Unfortunately, today we don't have any support for dealing with the urban heat island," Peck says. "It's hard to spot the urban-heat-island lobby," even though there's a lot of concern about the issue.
Developers and buyers tend to think of green roofs and other heat-island measures as individual projects on single buildings, he says. But since they benefit the entire city, it would make sense to consider them part of the municipal infrastructure, just like roads and bridges. Peck's group estimates that, over 30 years, 8 per cent of Toronto's suitable roofs could be greened, at $30 million a year, or $900 million in total. As in Chicago and other cities already, incentives could include not only cash, but also measures like floor-area bonuses, fast-tracking of projects, and tax penalties for impermeable outdoor surfaces. All this could change with the arrival of independent verification of claims for energy savings and other benefits, and as costs fall. New green roof systems are expected to be half the price of current models.
by Harry Jackson Jr., St. Louis Post-Dispatch
July 31, 2006
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifestyle/stories.nsf/healthfitness/story/587801B0B3F2A608862571B500080F55?OpenDocument
If you have a dental filling, chances are you've got mercury in your mouth. Is that dangerous? It depends on whom you ask. For 150 years, dentists have used "silver fillings" in tooth cavities. Surprise: The major component of silver fillings is mercury. That has a lot of people concerned. Mercury in its many forms is poisonous, especially to children and pregnant women. The most heinous problems are neurological ones, which can hurt children's ability to learn, even before they're born.
Still, many dentists and all of the associations that back them say the fillings are safe. But some medical practitioners, holistic adherents and even the World Health Organization say mercury shouldn't be considered totally safe under any conditions. The answer as to whether you should fear your silver fillings falls to your own comfort level, dentists say. Reputable studies say silver fillings pose no danger; others, including some dentists, say that if they hurt one person, that's one too many.
The studies:
Silver fillings in teeth are called amalgams. They're about 50 percent mercury, plus a powder composed of silver, zinc, copper and tin. When those ingredients are mixed, the substance hardens and seals a cavity virtually forever. The mercury used in amalgam is elemental mercury. Its primary danger is the vapor it gives off over time. Tests show it's tiny -- about 0.03 to 0.27 micrograms a day, depending on the number of fillings in your mouth and what you've been chewing. The amount of mercury vapors needed to cause sickness -- neurological problems, kidney problems and other illnesses -- is about 1,000 times more than that, experts say.
Studies, including a big one as recent as April, say that years of research in Europe and the United States has found no ill effects in adults or children linked to mercury-based dental fillings. As a result, federal agencies have given mercury-based fillings a clean bill of health. Those agencies include the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medical applications such as mercury-based fillings, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which monitor medical research and applications.
Scientists consider the form of mercury found in some large fish a more immediate concern, especially to children and pregnant women. Go to http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html for the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines on eating fish.
The doubts
Some people don't trust the government or the studies to be that precise. The fact is: Mercury is harmful even when it doesn't hurt enough people to sway a double-blind, controlled study. So it's the right of anyone who wants to avoid being the statistically insignificant person who might get hurt, said Dr. Ron Schoolman who practices dentistry with Cherry Hills Dental Group in Wildwood. He and his partner haven't used silver fillings for more than 15 years. "The possible toxicity of mercury has been an issue," he said. Despite the American Dental Association's endorsement, "... a mercury vapor analyzer can be placed in people's mouths and you can see the mercury vapors coming off of these (fillings)." Also, he cited the International Association of Oral Medicine and Toxicology as saying that mercury vapors come from a tooth when rubbed with an eraser -- something that might simulate chewing, he said.
Despite the reports of overall safety, and despite how small the amounts of mercury vapors might be, he said, "We don't know who is (sensitive) to mercury and who is not. It has to do with your genetics. Only people who can detox their bodies naturally can handle these fillings and other people may not. These mercury fillings could be a problem for their general health."
Some don't doubt
Proponents of using amalgam fillings -- or more precisely, people who don't fear them -- point to the latest study that was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. The studies were sponsored by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and agency of the National Institutes of Health. Both studies watched children from 8 to 10 years old, a total of more than 1,000 -- half getting amalgam fillings and half getting composite fillings made from plastic. The studies found no medical problems that could be linked to mercury poisoning. Scientists checked for neurological, digestive, kidney and mental problems. They even watched for drops in IQ as small as 3 points.
They found that children with amalgams excreted slightly higher amounts of mercury in the urine: about 1.5 micrograms per liter at the most. "However, these numbers fall within the so-called 'background' level of 0-4 micrograms per liter for an average person not exposed to industrial or other known sources of mercury," the researchers wrote.
Alternatives
This is where the proponents and opponents agree. Amalgam fillings are about to hit the end of their shelf life. Dr. Jeffrey Dalin, who practices dentistry in Creve Coeur, and is a spokesman for the Greater St. Louis Dental Society, says he finds amalgams safe, but that because of the alternatives, he hardly uses them any more. A plastic composite currently looks like real tooth material and are as dependable as amalgam fillings. "I like the composite plastics -- tooth colored materials. They look nice, they bond to the tooth and there's no post-operative sensitivity -- patients can eat right away without being on the 'dental diet,'" Dalin said. "It's not that I'm negative on silver or that I'm worried about it, I'm just more positive on the plastic."
The only problem is small, he said. The tooth surface must be perfectly dry when it's placed. If not, it won't hold. If that becomes a problem, the amalgams are the next option, he said. Still, he said he honors patients wishes. So the alternatives include gold fillings or other means of repairing a tooth that's falling apart. Schoolman of Cherry Hills also likes the alternatives: "If we have a material that's hard enough to withstand the chewing forces in the back teeth and isn't toxic to your body, why use something that could be toxic to some people's bodies?"
Taking action
Dentists said that the silver fillings can be removed, but no dentists questioned had seen a rush to have amalgam fillings removed. Nevertheless, removing them could cause more problems than they cure. Drilling, even accompanied by instruments that reduce the smoke and vapors, could produce more toxic vapors in a short time than someone would get for a long time simply by letting the tooth sit. Also, removing a filling could remove more of the tooth, and the only alternative after that is a cap, dentists said, a more expensive option. Still, dentists say they'll remove amalgam fillings upon request. Be aware, doctors say, that insurance companies are wishy-washy on what they will and won't reimburse. Before incurring a high cost, check to find out what an insurance company will cover and how much you have to pay from your own pocket.
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore, Christian Science Monitor
July 31, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0731/p13s02-stct.html
PORTLAND, ORE -- On a recent sunny Saturday near the banks of the Willamette River, teenagers gathered on a warehouse loading dock called the "smash zone." Before a crowd of cheering onlookers, they took baseball bats to their old computer printers and fax machines, breaking them into hundreds of pieces before the remnants were swept into a giant recycling bin. Welcome to Geek Fair 2006. Inside, hundreds of technology aficionados -- some in business suits, others in Pink Floyd T-shirts or sporting a Mohawk -- competed in video games, tried to "dunk the geek" into a pool of cold water, or just lingered beneath a giant poster of the Linux penguin, the icon of open-source software. Ultimately, however, Geek Fair 2006 confirmed the success of Free Geek, a small computer recycling outfit located in a downtown warehouse. The five-year-old company has drawn accolades across the world for its ability to motivate large numbers of Portlanders to donate, recycle, and reuse old electronics.
Now it seems electronic waste recycling, or "e-cycling," is catching on nationwide. More grass-roots nonprofits are springing up, dedicated to tackling the waste problem caused by discarded electronics. A growing consumer awareness of the lasting environmental impact of "e-waste" -- more than 250 million personal computers and 100 million cellphones are tossed aside each year in the United States -- has prompted some states to pass legislation banning certain toxic materials from landfills. And a number of domestic manufacturers now offer e-cycling programs to their customers as an additional selling point. "In the last several years ... we discovered that this was an issue that resonated with many consumers," says Ted Smith, senior strategist for the Silicon Valley Toxics Association. "More and more people realized that they didn't know what to do with the old electronic gear that was building up in their homes."
Growing concern over where e-waste actually ends up is prompting many consumers to find better solutions than just leaving outdated computers on the curb. In its first five years alone, Free Geek salvaged more than 760 tons of electronics that would have otherwise littered landfills. Today, some credit the group's aggressive, multipronged approach as the inspiration behind a burgeoning e-cycling revolution across the US. "It's been interesting, the amount of attention we get for what we're doing," says Oso Martin, founder of the nonprofit, whose volunteers build computers out of donated parts for use by low-income families as far away as South Africa. "When we started in 2000, there was no model on how to take care of e-waste. We were the first to see that you can solve both problems right there -- digital divide and e-waste."
Simply producing the next best gadget is no longer satisfying environmentally aware consumers, manufacturers are discovering. More consumers are just as interested in how to handle the wake of outmoded electronics as they are the wave of the future. As a result, dozens of other nonprofits have begun their own programs for discarded electronics, and in recent months manufacturers such as Apple, Intel, and HP have come on board with their recycling programs. In September, Dell will offer its customers the country's first totally free recycling program. "We have a broad commitment to environmental responsibility and have set goals about educating customers; this is absolutely a move in the direction of doing the responsible thing," says Dell spokesman Bryant Hilton.
With most existing recycling programs, including Dell's, customers must buy a new computer to recycle the old one free of charge. Dell's new program, rolling out in September, allows any Dell owner to recycle for free -- even the shipping from their home to a recycler is free. The program was a fairly easy transition for Dell, as they have been required by law to provide totally free recycling in Europe for several years. Indeed, the US still lags far behind Europe in its commitment to e-cycling. The European Union enacted legislation in 2002 requiring manufacturers to pay the entire cost of recycling the electronic equipment they produce, from telephones and toasters to stereos and laptops -- an approach known as the "producer responsibility model."
However, there are signs that legislative movement to manage e-waste will continue to percolate at the state level in the US. California places the cost of recycling in the hands of consumers -- known as the "advance recovery fee." A half dozen other states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine have gone so far as to ban certain items such as computer monitors, televisions, and cathode ray tubes from landfills. In Washington State, the nation's most aggressive e-cycling statue was signed into law in March, requiring that by 2009 manufacturers be responsible for both collecting and recycling their products.
But today, the voluntary efforts of modest, grass-roots groups like Free Geek in Portland continue to lead the way. "Dell's move really is a big deal, a big breakthrough, but it's also a small step," says Mr. Smith. "What is the percentage of equipment manufacturers take back compared to what they sell? Even when you add in recycling through other vendors, the highest number I've seen is 10 percent. So 90 percent is not being recycled."
The environmental impact is enormous. Computers alone contain more than 100 chemicals, including lead, cadmium, barium, and mercury. Even if computers make it to a domestic recycler, laws about handling components of electronic waste, such as mercury, are far stricter in the US than in the Southeast Asian countries where much of the waste ends up. "The issue with mercury is what do they do with it after they extract it," says Mary Blakeslee, senior deputy and mercury expert at the Environmental Council of the States in Washington, DC. "There is no technology to destroy mercury. That's the key issue -- the storage of this stuff, and making sure it's managed in a way that doesn't create more mining, which is the global economics portion."
Meanwhile, as the technology behind such devices as laptops, cellphones, and MP3 players continues to advance at an accelerated pace, the life cycles of these gadgets shortens because they break or newer models are introduced. A National Safety Council report put the average life span of a PC in 2005 at two years, compared to 4-1/2 years in 1992. The average consumer goes through cellphones even faster -- about every 18 months, according to Tim Mohin, director of sustainable development at Intel, which has launched its own e-cycling efforts with educational and recycling programs.
"There are so many computer illiterate people out there who have lots of money," says Clayton Kern, an environmental biology major at Unity College in Unity, Maine, who makes it a habit to pick up and recycle computers left on the curb. "If some small, easily fixable thing breaks on their two-year-old computer, they just chuck it and get a new one." In the end, he reasons, regardless of whether manufacturers bear the burden of funding the recycling of e-waste they introduce, the success of e-cycling depends on consumers to exercise restraint in how quickly they go through their electronics -- and in how they choose to dispose of them.
by Amanda Lehmert, Cape Cod Times
July 29, 2006
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/baystate29.htm
Massachusetts became the first state in the nation yesterday to adopt a safe drinking water standard for the chemical perchlorate. There are several plumes of the toxic chemical flowing in the aquifer under the Massachusetts Military Reservation. The aquifer is the Upper Cape's main source of drinking water. The new safety standard of 2 parts per billion -- equal to a teaspoon in an Olympic-sized swimming pool -- regulates the level to which the military must clean up perchlorate-tainted water flowing under the base. "Massachusetts' new standards ensure that the water is safe to drink, and the monitoring requirement protects water supplies into the future," state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert Golledge said yesterday in a news release.
The Defense Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have set clean up goals of 24 parts per billion, but the EPA has yet to set a federal drinking water standard. Even if the agency adopts the weaker standard, pollution clean up in Massachusetts will have to meet the 2 parts per billion regulation. The new state standard comes as the Army prepares to flip the switch on a $5 million treatment plant to remove perchlorate from the aquifer.
On a recent afternoon, the wind blew hot air across the dirt and gravel road that cuts a swath through the former artillery impact area at Camp Edwards. Below the road, deep in the earth, plumes of perchlorate contamination flow through the aquifer. Perchlorate, used in military munitions, explosives and fireworks, can disturb the function of the thyroid gland, which regulates metabolism and development in children. State environmental officials, who promoted the strictest standard in the nation, argued that 2 parts per billion is necessary to protect children from overexposure.
There are more than a half dozen plumes of perchlorate that are heading toward the base boundary. Perchlorate, a component of rocket propellant, was carried into the aquifer by rain and melting snow as it flowed through tainted soil. Two new treatment systems at the base were built with the Massachusetts standard in mind, said Ben Gregson of the Army's groundwater studies program. "We want to make sure we get it done." The clean up systems will treat two plumes with the highest concentration of perchlorate. The plumes contain as much as 770 parts per billion of the chemical.
One is located in former contractor ranges at the eastern border with Sandwich. The other plume, the so-called J-2 plume, flows in the direction of the Upper Cape water supply wells on the northeastern portion of Camp Edwards in Sandwich. It also contains high levels of explosive residues. The new clean up systems include three extraction wells that plunge deep into the earth to collect contaminated water from the aquifer. The wells pump the tainted water to three above-ground, garage-like stations. Inside the stations, water surges at a rate of 125-175 gallons per minute through a series of six cylindrical containers that hold resin and carbon, which strips all contaminants from the water so they are no longer detectable. The treated water then travels back to the ground through a series of underground infiltration beds.
The treatment systems could clean the contamination in 10 to 15 years in their current configuration, Gregson said. But the systems could be expanded if more perchlorate contamination is found as the Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA continue groundwater monitoring at the base. The clean up is scheduled to begin by the end of the summer.
by Catherine Clabby, Raleigh-Durham News & Observer
July 28, 2006
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/465231.html
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK -- Those deodorant blocks hung in workplace bathrooms might do more than mask odors. They might harm people's lungs. Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, based in Research Triangle Park, found that people with elevated levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene, once common in such air fresheners, were more likely to have impaired lung function.
The research, using data collected years ago, doesn't make an airtight cause-and-effect case. But it could be reason enough for some people to avoid all products containing the chemical, said Dr. Stephanie London, the senior NIEHS scientist in the study. "These are optional things you may just choose to live without. It's not like they are essential to life," said London, a physician who studies the genetic and environmental roots of asthma and other lung ailments.
A trade group whose clients include air-freshener manufactures, however, said Thursday that this study could distort more than inform. Companies that produce so-called urinal blocks already are abandoning 1,4-dichlorobenzene, which easily vaporizes from a solid form, said Andy Hackman of the Consumer Specialty Products Association. Makers of home air fresheners stopped using the chemical about 10 years ago, he said. "To a large extent, it's irrelevant to today's products," Hackman said, with one exception being some air fresheners that drivers hang from rearview mirrors. The NIEHS says the chemical also can be present in some mothball products.
When London and colleagues, including NIEHS epidemiologist Leslie Elliott, dug into old data collected to evaluate risks from volatile organic compounds, they saw good reason to suspect harm from 1,4-dichlorobenzene. As blood concentrations of the chemical increased, lung function declined, according to blood and breathing tests conducted between 1988 and 1994. The harm wouldn't disable healthy people, but it could have noticeable effects on people already living with lung deficiencies, much like consistent exposure indoors to secondhand cigarette smoke, London said.
From London's point of view, the particulars merit more study. Elliott, whom London supervises, is applying for funding for experiments that would test the lung function of participants, expose them to low levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene and then check to see whether breathing worsened. Insight into the action of this chemical might shed light on impacts of other volatile organic compounds, which are still found in many products in people's homes, London said. Those include some paints, cleaning supplies, building materials, even upholstered furniture. "I'm not saying people should run out and panic. But if you are the kind of person like me who likes to limit your exposure, this is something you should think about," London said.
by Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press, Washington Post
July 28, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801376.html
WASHINGTON -- A House panel on Friday approved federal security regulations for chemical facilities, angering the industry because manufacturers may in some cases be forced to replace toxic materials with safer but more expensive substitutes. The bipartisan compromise, approved by a House Homeland Security Committee voice vote, would also let states enact tougher standards as long as they do not impede the federal regulations. The bill marks the first major House step to regulate chemical manufacturing and storage plants since 2002.
Environmentalists call it a far better plan than a stalled Senate bill that does not mandate the use of substitute materials, so there is less of a risk to the public if there were a terrorist attack or accidental release. "In an election year, when you're coming up on September, and you're coming up on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, members both in the House and Senate are going to start looking at what they can show in way of accomplishment in the area of security," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who helped broker the compromise plan.
Both the House and Senate bills give the Homeland Security Department regulatory authority by accepting or rejecting chemical facility security plans, but do not set specific minimum standards for the industry to meet. Currently, the industry -- which experts believe is a top target for terrorists -- generally self-regulates its 15,000 plants nationwide. Under the House plan, however, Homeland Security could mandate the use of safer substitute materials at the high-risk facilities if it can be reasonably done, significantly reduce risks, and won't threaten the plant's ability to stay in business. Facilities could still appeal Homeland Security's decision to a review board of officials selected by federal and state agencies, industry officials and security experts.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., said the tougher guidelines could help reduce "the impact of a terrorist attack on high risk chemical plants that could kill thousands of Americans." But the chemical industry, which has resisted requirements for the more expensive materials, described the House bill as taking "several steps backward." The industry has spent nearly $3 billion in security measures since 9/11. The safer substitute materials "cannot be considered a "silver bullet" solution to improving chemical security," said the American Chemistry Council in a statement.
from the New Zealand Herald
July 28, 2006
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=204&ObjectID=10393422
A report out today was expected to show that all New Zealand Vietnam War veterans exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange may have suffered genetic damage. The Massey University study is also expected to show that the genetic damage caused by exposure to toxins in the herbicide may affect both the children and grandchildren of servicemen.
All 25 Manawatu veterans involved in the research are believed to have had genetic degeneration, some of it significant. Veterans and their families who have battled with serious health problems and birth defects have argued for 30 years that Agent Orange has had a genetic impact upon them and their children. Successive governments have said there was no proof the veterans had been exposed, let alone hurt. Two years ago, a select committee confirmed that Agent Orange was sprayed on New Zealand soldiers in Vietnam.
Ex-Vietnam Servicemen's Association spokesman Chris Mullane said the study endorsed the findings of overseas research and confirmed what they had known for decades. It was, however, good to have a study which specifically targeted the New Zealand experience, he told National Radio. Mr Mullane acknowledged the study was a small one and hoped the Government would now support a wider study involving more veterans and their progeny.
A research team based at Massey's Institute of Molecular BioSciences studied what is known as "sister chromatid exchange" in cells. This test analyses the way chromosomes reproduce themselves. It looks for clastogens, which are environmental agents that cause genetic damage and can cause cancer. A joint working group involving the Ex-Vietnam Servicemen's Association and the Government, set up to study the health of Vietnam veterans and look at the possibility of paying compensation to those who have suffered health problems, is due to report back soon. Veteran Affairs Minister Rick Barker has had the report since April.
Mr Mullane said he hoped the findings of the latest research would be considered by the group and would strengthen the families' case for compensation. The full results of the research are due to be released later today. The Green Party said the study showed the Government should reconsider its position on paying compensation. "This study indicates these men have suffered irreversible effects from their exposure to the defoliant during their time in Vietnam," said health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley. "It is time the Government acknowledged this and gave the veterans the compensation they have been seeking."
by Randy Lee Loftis, Dallas Morning News
July 28, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072806dnpropowerplants.1227d94.html
Texas power plants dominate the list of the nation's biggest emitters of toxic mercury and are among the biggest sources of carbon dioxide, a study released Thursday shows. The Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit group headed by a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement chief, analyzed the federal government's emissions data for all U.S. power plants. Texas' worst showing by far was for mercury, a powerful nerve poison released into the air when power plants burn coal.
Five of the top 10 plants in total emissions of mercury were in Texas, including the No. 1 polluter, TXU's Martin Lake plant, south of Longview in East Texas. American Electric Power's Pirkey plant, also near Longview, ranked No. 1 in mercury emission rate -- the amount of emissions per power generated. Several Texas plants also ranked high in total emissions or emissions rates of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. TXU's Martin Lake plant and NRG Energy's Parish plant in Fort Bend County were No. 5 and 6, respectively, in total carbon dioxide emissions nationwide. Five of the country's top 50 carbon dioxide emitters were in Texas.
More coal plants ahead
The report looked at emissions from existing power plants. It did not include the 16 new coal-burning generating units that power companies plan to build in Texas in the next three to five years. Those plants are on a fast-track permit review under an executive order that Gov. Rick Perry issued last year. The order cuts the time for the public to review and possibly challenge a plant's draft permits from about a year to six months. Mr. Perry's opponents for re-election -- Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman -- have criticized the fast-track order and say they would crack down on power plant pollution.
Nationwide, about 120 new coal-burning units are in the works. Higher natural gas prices, plus political support from the White House, are spurring the coal boom. The report's authors said their findings point out the need for states to act on emissions, such as mercury and carbon dioxide, where they say federal action has been inadequate or, in the case of carbon, nonexistent. "Some electric power companies have made long-term commitments to clean up their plants, either to settle legal actions or in anticipation of future regulation," said Ilan Levin, the report's chief author and counsel to the Environmental Integrity Project. Former EPA enforcement head Eric Schaeffer is the project's director. Other companies have resisted, Mr. Levin said. "Until the public and policymakers hold the electric industry to its promised cleanup of the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants, Americans will continue to bear unnecessary health and environmental costs," he said.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency, declined to comment on the study. A spokeswoman said the agency's mercury policies are based on instructions from the Legislature. Mercury is a health hazard when it builds up in fish and other parts of the natural environment. It is especially dangerous for pregnant women and their children. Coal-burning power plants are by far the nation's biggest mercury source.
The Bush administration adopted a mercury rule in March 2005 that requires overall reductions from power plants across the country but does not order each plant to cuts its own emissions. Plants can choose not to reduce emissions but still comply by buying credits from other plants that made extra reductions. Administration officials said their approach would achieve reductions while giving companies flexibility in making those cuts. Environmental and health advocates criticized the rule because it does not protect people living near power plants that don't cut their emissions. They were also unhappy that companies have until 2015 to comply.
Companies respond
The Texas plants listed with high mercury emissions mostly burn lignite, a low-energy Texas coal that generally has more mercury than coal from other regions. Most of the new coal-burning units planned in Texas would burn cleaner Wyoming coal. Mike Young, spokesman for Southwestern Electric Power Co., the unit of American Electric Power that owns the Pirkey plant in Harrison County, said lignite's higher mercury content explains the state's national ranking in mercury emissions.
The Pirkey plant has the nation's highest mercury emissions rate, 219 pounds of mercury for each million megawatt-hour of electricity the plant generates. Mr. Young said the plant already removes half of the total mercury from its coal and 70 percent of the most toxic form, oxidated mercury. The company is testing equipment to achieve deeper cuts required by the 2015 under a new federal rule, he said. TXU spokesman Chris Schein said the company would cut its emissions, including mercury, by 20 percent from 2005 levels even after adding 11 new coal-burning plants. The new units would rise at existing TXU plants, mostly east or south of Dallas-Fort Worth.
In a letter dated Thursday, TXU asked the state's environmental commission to make the pledge legally enforceable, a step meant to counter critics who have questioned the company's commitment to cutting its pollution. TXU plants with the highest mercury emission rates are Big Brown, in Freestone County, No. 3 nationwide; Sandow Unit 4, Milam County, No. 7; Martin Lake, Rusk County, No. 13; and Monticello, Titus County, No. 17.
Texas power plants also occupied five of the top 50 spots for carbon dioxide emissions, which are not subject to any federal or Texas controls. The biggest Texas emitter was TXU's Martin Lake coal plant, which ranked fifth. It released 21.6 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, the report noted. Mr. Schein said TXU was addressing carbon dioxide emissions by pledging $2 billion to seek new technological fixes. But Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen, said TXU and other Texas companies would dramatically increase emissions of global warming gases when they build new coal plants. The new plants would boost Texas' carbon dioxide emissions by 115 million tons per year, equal to emissions from 20 million cars, he said. Meanwhile, 28 other states are acting to curb global warming by restricting emissions or pushing energy efficiency, he added. The Texas Legislature could consider carbon regulations when it convenes in January.
To silence critics, TXU asks state to set emissions cap
Dallas-based TXU, which pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent as it builds 11 coal-burning units, asked Texas regulators Thursday to make its promise legally binding. TXU asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to put a firm cap on its pollution. Under a cap, TXU could adjust its cuts from plant to plant instead of committing to a set level at each plant. It's unclear how enforcement might work.
TXU spokesman Chris Schein said TXU hoped to silence critics who have doubted the pledge. "We've met or exceeded every one of our promises for emissions reductions," he said. But Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen, said TXU was "trying to deflect your attention from the fact that they're putting more smoke in the air in Dallas-Fort Worth."
by Dena Bunis, Orange County Register
July 28, 2006
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1224762.php
WASHINGTON -- With a bowl of lead-contaminated Mexican candy on the table between them, California's senators vowed this morning to do all they can to prevent a bill that would require national rules for food safety from passing. The National Uniformity for Food Act, said Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, would gut the food safety protections included in California's Proposition 65, passed 20 years ago. The bill, authored by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., would ban states from setting requirements or posting warnings on foods that differed from federal rules. "This bill is a major assault on California's initiative," Feinstein said at a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing. "On behalf of my colleague Senator Boxer and I, if this bill were to come to the floor, we would use every parliamentary device available to us to stop it."
Proposition 65 requires warning labels on products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or harm the reproductive system. Supporters say that measure over the years has help protect state residents. Opponents -- most notably the food industry -- say it has led to frivolous lawsuits. "The bill before us seeks consistency in substantive standards between state and federal requirements," said panel chairman Sen. Mike Enzi, "Do consumers really benefit from a 50-state hodgepodge of different warnings and labels on these products?"
The federal food-safety bill has passed the House. Enzi, R-Wyo., hopes to get a bill to the floor by the end of this year. Feinstein and Boxer -- backed up by a letter signed by 37 state attorneys general who oppose the measure -- said that the federal government is not equipped to do the food-safety regulation that has always been done by the states. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also opposes the bill, they said. "This is candy with lead in it, dangerous lead," Boxer said pointing to the lollipops and other treats in the bowl on the witness table. "This is a photograph of lead-tainted candy being given to little children," she added, referring to a blow-up of a picture that appeared as part of The Orange County Register's series last year on lead in candy. "In our state, we have blocked this, and the federal government has no such law," Boxer said.
Three of the four other witnesses supported the bill. They included the manufacturer of Wheatina, a hot cereal, who says he is being sued by a California lawyer because his product contains acrylamide, a substance recently discovered to possibly cause cancer. Food-safety agencies around the world have been studying acrylamide, said William Stadtlander, who produces Wheatina, "and none of them have found any significant health risk or recommended any acrylamide warnings." Peter Hutt, a former Food and Drug Administration lawyer, said California's law has led to unnecessary litigation. But William Hubbard, who recently retired from the FDA, insisted that the bill "is a solution in search of a problem" and that food safety should be left to the states.
by Suzanne Ma, Toronto Globe and Mail
July 27, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.w2fresh0727/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Chemicals found in some household cleaning products may be harming your lungs. New research from the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) suggests that a chemical compound found in many air fresheners, toilet bowl cleaners, mothballs, and other deodorizing products may reduce lung function. According to the NIEHS, "even a small reduction in lung function may indicate some harm to the lungs." It's suggested the use of such products and materials are reduced, especially around children and those who have asthma or other respiratory illnesses.
"Consumers need to be aware of what they're introducing into their homes," said Sarah Winterton, program director for Environmental Defence, a non-profit environmental advocacy group in Canada. "You're in a more enclosed environment ... so there is a concern about having constant exposure to low levels of these chemicals from many different sources." Researchers tested a representative sample of 953 adults in the United States, paying close attention to the relationship between blood concentrations of 11 common volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and their lung function. The compounds are found in thousands of commonly used products, including tobacco smoke, pesticides, paints, and cleansers, as well as vehicle exhaust.
One particular VOC (known as 1,4 DCB) was associated with reduced pulmonary function, even after careful adjustment for tobacco smoke. 1,4 DCB is a white solid compound with a distinctive aroma, similar to mothballs. It is typically used in products such as room deodorizers and urinal and toilet bowl blocks. 1,4 DCB blood concentration levels were detected in 96 per cent of those tested for the study. Black Americans had the highest exposure levels and non-Hispanic whites the lowest.
Even though only one VOC was found to affect our lungs, Ms. Winterton said it's the repeated exposure that makes this a cause for concern. "You've got exposure when you plug in your air freshener, and when you clean the toilet, and then [again] when you go to the closet to get some clothes that are protected in moth balls. It's never just one exposure," she said.
Environmental Defence suggests that consumers look into buying alternative products found in health food stores. "I think it's important that the connection is made in people's minds that if you're using products with these chemicals in them, they're very likely going to end up in you," Ms. Winterton said.
In May, Health Canada announced a national program that will track the levels of toxic substances in the bodies of Canadians. A representative sample of people will be tested on a regular basis to detect trends in the chemicals that show up in their bodies and in their health status. The study, long advocated by scientists, is set to begin in 2007. The research from the NIEHS study will be published in the August issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.
by John Heilprin, Associated Press
July 27, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/27/national/w112745D80.DTL&type=politics
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Growing scientific evidence suggests the most widespread industrial contaminant in drinking water -- a solvent used in adhesives, paint and spot removers -- can cause cancer in people. The National Academy of Sciences reported Thursday that a lot more is known about the cancer risks and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene than there was five years ago when the Environmental Protection Agency took steps to regulate it more strictly. "Armed with the results from the NAS review, EPA will aggressively move forward" on a new risk assessment of TCE, spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said Thursday. "EPA will determine whether or not to address the drinking water standard once the risk assessment is complete."
TCE, which is also widely used to remove grease from metal parts in airplanes and to clean fuel lines at missile sites, is known to cause cancer in some laboratory animals. EPA was blocked from elevating its assessment of the chemical's risks in people by the Defense Department, Energy Department and NASA, all of which have sites polluted with it. TCE is a colorless liquid that evaporates at room temperatures and has a somewhat sweet odor and taste. It is one of the most common pollutants found in the air, soil and water at U.S. military bases. Until the mid-1970s, it also was used as a surgical anesthetic. It also has been found at about 60 percent of the nation's worst contaminated sites in the Superfund cleanup program, the academy said.
Its 379-page report recommends that EPA revise its assessment of TCE's risks using "currently available data" so no more time is wasted. That's a step that could lead to stricter regulations. EPA currently requires limiting TCE to no more than 5 parts per billion parts of drinking water. A stricter regulation could, in turn, force the government to require more thorough cleanups at military and other sites.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., said the report should prompt the government to move faster in cleaning up TCE contamination like that found in his home state and nationally. "It is no longer acceptable for the government and local polluters to claim that health risks associated with TCE are simply scientific theory when we know that they are compelling scientific fact," said Hinchey, who is on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the environment. A committee of academy experts said "a large body of epidemiologic data is available" on TCE showing the chemical is a possible cause of kidney cancer, reproductive and developmental damage, impaired neurological function and autoimmune disease. "The committee found that the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001," the report said. "Hundreds of waste sites are contaminated with trichloroethylene, and it is well documented that individuals in many communities are exposed to the chemical, with associated health risks."In 2001, EPA issued a draft document saying the risks of TCE causing cancer in humans were higher than previously thought. But that pronouncement was dropped after other federal agencies accused EPA of inflating the risks. To mediate the issue, the Bush administration asked the academy to study the issue.
by Paula M. Felipe, Oroville [California] Mercury-Register
July 27, 2006
excerpts from the article at http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_4100682
This is the first of a three-part series on the drug called methamphetamine. Part 1 focuses on environmental hazards and toxic waste associated with the drug.
"The most important tools to combat the epidemic of methamphetamine are education and public awareness." -Dr. Michelle R. Chesley
"Methamphetamines: An Epidemic of Clandestine and Health Risks"
Meth is made by people in their homes, motorhomes, garages, hotel rooms, bathrooms, vehicles, trunks, apartments, and other outbuildings. It is known by many names: meth, speed, chalk, ice, crystal, crank, or glass. It is a white, bitter tasting crystalline powder that is snorted, smoked, or dissolved for intravenous use with needles. The drug is methamphetamine, and the number of "meth labs" continues to rise across the United States. In 2005, the Butte County Interagency Narcotics Task Force (BINTF) seized 17 clandestine labs in Butte County and investigated and disposed of eight clandestine lab dump sites and/or remnants of labs. Of the 35 counties reporting lab seizures last year, Butte County ranks fourth in the state per capita for lab seizures and sixth in the state for total number of lab seizures. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control was responsible for $25,181 in cleanup costs for 25 clandestine labs and dump-related sites seized in Butte County, according to BINTF.
Clandestine or secretive lab cooks often seek out rural areas to avoid detection from law enforcement or neighbors who might detect the strong odors associated with cooking of various materials and chemicals. Labs contain corrosive, toxic ingredients anyone can buy in a store. Recipes for making meth can be simple and are continually evolving and passed along to other people on the streets, in bars, in jails, among other meetings places, and even over the Internet. Methods of cooking range from large scale or "super" labs (producing more than 10 pounds of meth in a 24-hour period) in California and Mexico to small homemade varieties, using jars, microwaves, bathtubs, crockery cookers, blowtorches, and hot plates. Some people known as "lab cooks" will mix different ingredients and cook and simmer them over a heat source, contaminating the surrounding areas and risking explosions and fires.
The dwellings where a meth lab has been operating becomes contaminated and poses health risks to future inhabitants because the ceilings, floors, carpets, walls, drapes, furnishings, are all contaminated by the toxic fumes and residue from the dangerous chemicals. According to the Meth Task Force website, "Many of the contaminants present during the meth cooking process can be harmful if humans or pets are exposed to them. Meth labs can cause health problems including respiratory illness, skin and eye irritation, headaches, burns, nausea and dizziness. Short-term exposures to high concentrations of some of these chemicals are common to first responders, such as fire departments or law enforcement officers first entering a lab. "These exposures may cause severe health problems, including lung damage and chemical burns to the body. Fires caused by these labs have killed innocent children and meth 'cookers' alike throughout California. Touching these chemicals or just breathing their fumes can cause sickness, permanent injury and, even death. One rash act by a meth cooker can also turn our fields and waterways into environmental waste dumps."
BINTF Commander Keith Krampitz said, "It is estimated about five to six pounds of hazardous waste are generated for every single pound of meth produced." The hazardous waste materials from meth labs are dumped on the ground, thrown in dumpsters, along a highway, or flushed down the sewer or other water source, he added.
The environmental contamination is expensive to clean up once it is discovered. According to a study by the United States Attorney's Office, in some cases, cleaning up a large scale lab can cost up to $150,000 and often times the building needs to be condemned. "The safest way to clean up a former meth lab is to hire environmental companies trained in hazardous substance removal and cleanup. Owners that clean their own properties should be aware that household building materials and furniture can absorb contaminants and give off fumes. Use caution and wear clothing to protect your skin, such as gloves, long sleeves, and eye protection during cleaning. Smoking should not be permitted during the cleanup process," the Task Force's website added.
Assembly Bill 1078 called "Contaminated Property: Methamphetamine," by Assemblyman Rick Keene, was enacted to provided some protection to innocent property buyers from buying contaminated properties and holding property owners accountable for clean-up, Krampitz said. The Meth Contaminated Property Cleanup Act of 2005 established interim remediation standards for meth, mercury, and lead (the latter two only when used in making meth). "These standards will become inoperative when the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopts a health-based target remediation standard for meth. The bill also establishes a remediation management program for local governments to use in cleaning up properties contaminated by the illegal manufacturing of meth," according to the Department of Toxic Substances, Office of Legislation's summary of bills report dated 2006.
"It takes the whole community working together with law enforcement to stop the meth epidemic," said Krampitz. "The Task Force needs the trust and support of the public, and we want people to call us at (530) 538-2261 and provide information if they suspect someone is cooking meth," Krampitz said.
news release from Pesticide Action Network North America
July 26, 2006
submitted to this bulletin by Chemical Sensitivity Network
In 1996, under the Food Quality Protection Act, Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 10 years to complete its assessment of the health impacts of hundreds of pesticides being used in homes, gardens and agriculture. The most acutely hazardous neurotoxic pesticides -- the organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates -- were the first group to be evaluated under EPA's review process.
August 3, 2006 marks the end of that 10-year period. Although the EPA apparently plans to have its review of OPs and most of the carbamates complete by that date, thousands of scientists within the Agency have expressed serious concern that the evaluations are incomplete and that the EPA is threatening to allow the continued use of toxic pesticides despite ample information showing that they are too hazardous to be used safely.
Scientists at the EPA, along with public health and environmental advocacy groups, are calling for the EPA to refuse approval of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. Pesticide Action Network North America is asking the public to send comments before August 3rd to the EPA to stop the registration of several OP and carbamate pesticides. (http://ga4.org/campaign/revokeOPs)
Toxic Pesticides Harm Human Health
Organophosphates and carbamates are highly toxic classes of pesticides used to kill insects. OPs are linked to ill health effects, such as cancer, neurological problems (including Parkinson's Disease), respiratory illness, and developmental problems. Not only are farmers and farm workers adversely affected but well-documented evidence now shows that children and families living near agricultural areas may suffer serious short and long term health problems from OP exposure. Symptoms of low-dose exposure to these pesticides may include headaches, agitation, inability to concentrate, weakness, tiredness, nausea, diarrhea and blurred vision. At higher doses, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, tearing, muscular tremors, low blood pressure, and slow heartbeat and breathing may occur.
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety; Pesticide Cancellation Needed to Protect Born and Unborn Children. In May 2006, unions representing more than 9,000 EPA scientists made public their serious concerns that pressure from pesticide manufacturers is directly responsible for EPA administrators' actions to compromise the Agency's regulatory responsibilities. The scientists assert that it is a "perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the Agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the Food Quality Protection Act."
PANNA joins EPA staff scientists and advocacy groups in calling for an overhaul of an EPA regulatory process that has been corrupted by individuals on staff of EPA working in collusion with the pesticide/chemical industries to blatantly dismiss appropriate precaution and push forward policy that is harmful to public health.
The scientists also call for the EPA to immediately pull OPs and carbamates from the market. The May 24, 2006 letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson states, "Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not hurt the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children, there is no justification to continue the registration of the use of the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides."
EPA scientists feel strongly that substantial data gaps remain leading to underestimates of risks, especially neurotoxicity. In addition, they stated: "EPA's risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development."
by Diane Dietz, Eugene Register-Guard
July 25, 2006
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/07/25/a1.benzene.0725.p1.php?section=cityregion
The breezy, green Pacific Northwest might seem to enjoy the best air in the nation, but that impression probably is wrong when it comes to cancer-causing benzene. Gasoline refined and sold in the Pacific Northwest contains the highest benzene level in the nation -- double the national average -- and a proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule would perpetuate the large disparity. The local air-regulation agencies, including the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, are fighting the obscure federal proposal. They want the federal government to force a steep reduction of the benzene in Northwest gasoline.
Benzene gets into the air when it is emitted as exhaust from vehicles. Experts say the higher the level of benzene in the gas, the higher the level emitted into the air. The EPA wants to cut average benzene levels in the nation's gasoline supply, but is willing to let some refineries -- including those in the Pacific Northwest -- keep producing gasoline with much-higher-than-average benzene content. The EPA says it has to balance the need for cleaner air against the cost of the fixes. If the new rule is implemented as proposed in 2011, Oregon and Washington gasoline still would contain twice as much benzene as fuels produced in the East Coast states, including New York and New Jersey, the EPA estimates.
And that's bad news for the air here, officials say. "Is it fair for the residents of Eugene to be breathing levels of benzene that are far less protective than what -- on average -- the federal government said is permissible?" said Bill Becker, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. "Benzene is carcinogenic. It's cheap to regulate -- less than a penny a gallon -- and technologies exist to limit it substantially," he said.
Federal regulators began looking into establishing a standard to cut benzene in gasoline when they realized it is the worst of the air toxics spewed from car and truck tailpipes. Studies show that inhaling benzene inflicts cellular and chromosomal damage that causes leukemia. The EPA estimates that 42 cases of cancer for every million people are caused by so-called "hazardous air pollutants," a category of dangerous chemicals that includes benzene.
The EPA is just beginning to regulate hazardous air pollutants such as benzene emitted by cars and trucks, and the agency has compiled no current, comparable statistics for benzene for all cities and regions. So it's hard to precisely compare Eugene's level with levels nationwide. But because the level of benzene is so high in Pacific Northwest gasoline, benzene levels in Lane County are also high, said Merlyn Hough, director of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency.
Air monitoring equipment in Eugene shows that average ambient benzene levels here are 10 times the level believed by scientists to spur cancer in humans over a lifetime of exposure, Hough said. That's according to the EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, a screening tool the agency uses to estimate cancer and other health risks from exposure to air toxins. Studies show that benzene in the air mainly comes from vehicle exhaust; that benzene levels in exhaust fumes are related to benzene levels in gasoline; and that benzene levels in the air relate to cancer in humans, Hough said. "There's a clear connection between benzene exposure and cancer," Hough said. Reducing benzene is a top priority for the local agency, he said.
The EPA proposed the benzene reduction rule in February. The plan was to cut the average benzene content in gasoline nationally from 0.97 percent to 0.62 percent by volume. The key term here is "national average." Northwest gasoline today has 2.06 percent benzene content. The new rule would push that down to 1.04 percent. But that's still 40 percent higher than the proposed national average. The rule would create a trading system that would allow refinery companies that are producing benzene below the national 0.62 percent cap to sell "credits" to companies that produce benzene that exceeds the national cap, thereby allowing those producing the higher-benzene gasoline to avoid the expense of upgrading their processes to meet the 0.62 percent cap.
The EPA intends to finalize the rule in early 2007. That has alarmed Northwest air pollution officials, including regulators in Lane County, the Puget Sound area and Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality. They asked the EPA to set a stricter standard that would require the four refineries supplying the Northwest -- they're clustered in northwest Washington -- to upgrade their equipment to get closer to the 0.62 national cap. "Allowing Pacific Northwest refiners to continue to produce fuel with the highest benzene content in the country puts Oregon citizens needlessly at risk," wrote Andrew Ginsburg, administrator of the state DEQ's air quality division.
The Pacific Northwest acquired the dubious distinction of having the highest benzene content in its gasoline through a strange twist. In the mid-1990s, the EPA required some and encouraged other large U.S. cities to switch to using reformulated gasoline, which contains fewer polluting chemicals, including far less benzene. Today, large population centers -- including the Eastern Seaboard, Southern California and Dallas, Texas -- burn cleaner gasoline than the Pacific Northwest does.
The EPA forced refineries serving those areas to upgrade, and the best now produce gasoline with as little as 0.29 percent benzene content. But in the Northwest, where the air was relatively clean, the EPA did not force refineries to upgrade, so the benzene remained in the gas.
The EPA figures that 88 of the country's 115 refineries would have to upgrade as a result of the proposed rule. But it decided that Northwest refineries would not upgrade, and would use credits instead. The Pacific Northwest refineries are owned by large companies -- ConocoPhillips, Tesoro, BP and Shell -- that are likely to own more efficient plants elsewhere that could generate credits, critics said.
Northwest air officials asked the EPA to eliminate the trading provision so that all refineries would have to meet the national standard. But requiring all refineries to meet the proposed lower standard would cost industry too much, said John Millett, an EPA spokesman. "EPA couldn't just give a blanket cap without a cost or feasibility justification," he said. "It's reality." An EPA analysis estimated an average upgrade cost for each refinery at $6 million, which would translate to less than 1 cent per gallon of gasoline produced.
But Al Mannato, a manager at the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said industry estimates show it could cost an individual refinery two or three times that much. Still, the industry is generally satisfied with the EPA's proposed rule, he said. The EPA's Millett emphasized that Pacific Northwest states would see a 50 percent drop in the benzene content of their gasoline under the proposed rule. "It would come down," conceded Kathy Himes of the Puget Sound air agency, "but it would not come down to (the same levels as in) other parts of the country. You can look at the cup as half full or half empty."
Hough, Lane County's top air official, said pushing the federal government to cut benzene in the Northwest is worth the continued effort. "This is our key opportunity to make a difference in benzene exposure. It's this single proposal of the EPA. Let's seize the opportunity we have here," he said.
by Nancy Lofholm, Denver Post
July 26, 2006
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4095475
Grand Junction -- As president of the Grand Junction Newcomers' Club, Carol Todd hears over and over the reasons folks trade life in the Denver-metro area for the less congested environs of the Western Slope's largest urban area: not as much traffic, milder winters and cleaner air. But former city dwellers heading west for healthier environs can strike that last item from the list. An air-toxin study begun by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 has found that, when it comes to toxins, Grand Junction's perceived clean air is on par with a city once renowned for its brown cloud. Grand Junction has its own haze that contains a brew of exhaust-pipe toxins such as formaldehyde, toluene, arsenic and manganese that, on average, are as high as -- and sometimes higher than -- Denver's. "I would say people would be real surprised by that," said Todd, admitting being surprised herself.
Air-quality researchers have been taken aback too. "It was quite a surprise to see that our emissions situations were very similar," said Perry Buda, an air-quality specialist who has monitored Grand Junction's air for 16 years for the Mesa County Health Department. The surprise lies in the fact that the Denver metro area has 30 times more traffic than Grand Junction and 2.1 million more registered vehicles than Mesa County. Also, metro Denver has 2.6 million more people than Grand Junction.
There are no health standards for the toxins being measured in Denver and Grand Junction and 20 other cities and smaller urban areas around the country. The EPA's first-of-its-kind study is designed to identify carcinogenic toxin levels of compounds that haven't been measured before and that prove to be high enough to warrant concern. The EPA will use that information to set thresholds for those toxins after the study is completed in 2007.
Gordon Pierce, the environmental protection specialist for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the levels of toxins found at three air-toxin sampling areas in Denver and one site in Grand Junction show measurements that are reason for concern but not alarm using the EPA's current parameters. Pierce said the other areas being studied across the country show similar levels of toxins that don't seem to vary that much from cities to smaller urban areas.
He said one anomaly is Grand Junction's highest-in-the-study levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. He said researchers attribute those high levels to the fact Grand Junction is at a higher altitude than other urban areas in the study. Higher altitude creates more UV radiation, which can lead to increases in certain toxins. Buda said the study probably will eventually lead to pushes for cleaner-burning fuels and better auto-emission standards.
Grand Junction has never violated air-quality standards for ozone and the old air-quality bogeyman of carbon monoxide, as Denver routinely did in its brown-cloud heyday decades ago. Grand Junction's only violations have come from high particulates in the air during the building frenzy of the oil-shale boom in the late 1970s and early 1980s. That era was also marked by more stringent auto-emission controls in Denver that may have inadvertently led to more pollution in Grand Junction. Buda said it is believed that older vehicles that couldn't pass emission standards in Denver were driven over the mountains and sold in Grand Junction, where there is no emission testing.
Grand Junction is also hemmed in by mountains and mesas that hold dirty air to about a 5-mile radius rather than dispersing it over the 50 miles where it tends to hover around Denver. And if weather conditions are right, the smoggy air is trapped in the Grand Valley by clouds that act like a lid on a Tupperware bowl. It may not be visible from downtown Grand Junction where an air-monitoring and air-sampling station on the roof of the county's work-release facility constantly measures toxins. But it is obvious from higher terrain. "It's very clear as you approach Grand Junction from the West that there is a dome over the valley," said Dr. Rob Kurtzman, who observes that dirty-air cap often when he is taking photographs from Colorado National Monument. "It makes for great sunsets."
by Geoffrey Lean, Daily Mail
July 26, 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=397677
For a government with one of the most appalling recycling records in Europe, the decision to force manufacturers to take back old and unwanted TV sets and other electrical equipment marks the end of another sorry saga of delay and prevarication. Not only was the measure agreed as long as three and a half years ago but it won't be implemented until next July -- two years after the official deadline which had been followed by most other countries in Europe. But at least ministers have, for once, stood up to bullying tactics from the electrical industry's big companies who had threatened to pull their businesses out of Britain if the Government refused to relax the terms of the measure.
The truth is that the familiar old telly is full of poisonous materials and it is classified as toxic waste. The cathode ray tube contains several pounds of lead -- a poisonous metal that damages children's brains. Every year we Britons throw away two million tubes as we trade up to a new generation model as flat-panels and high-definition TVs become all the rage. As prices have almost halved over the past year, the numbers sold have trebled. Indeed more than 350,000 were sold in Britain in the run-up to the World Cup.
Measures to reform electrical goods recycling started with the European WEEE directive (on waste electrical and electronic equipment) which laid down that the discarded TV sets should be recycled. As a result, special recycling plants in Scotland and the north of England, which can dismantle and reuse the materials, have been on stand-by. But they have been forced to wait because the British government failed to honour its commitments.
And it's not just televisions that were affected by this shameful delay. Each year, we throw away almost a million tons of electrical goods. This massive waste mountain -- the weight of 2,400 jumbo jets -- includes two million computers and 2.2 million fridges and freezers. The amount of such white goods rubbish is growing three times faster than other type of waste. When such equipment breaks down, it is often cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it. As a result, plenty of perfectly working electrical appliances, from fridges to mobile phones, are discarded. Mobile phones are also jettisoned simply because they are deemed out of date. Ninety per cent of these old handsets end up in landfill where they can pollute groundwater and damage the environment. They contribute to 40 per cent of the lead found in landfill sites and watercourses, threatening to contaminate drinking water. Also, 3,000 tons of methylated mercury -- an more potent brain poison -- is released into the environment every year, much of it from its use in sensors, thermostats, switches, relays and mobile phones. Cadmium, another poisonous metal which causes kidney damage, is used in plastics, computers and infrared detectors. Arsenic is also found in circuit boards. There are also substances such as hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers which may cause cancer and damage to the liver, kidneys, thyroid gland and the nervous and immune system.
Apart from ending up in landfill sites across the country, this toxic trash is also unscrupulously shipped to the Third World, where countless electronic junkyards in countries such as China attract child workers who salvage precious metals from the rubbish. Eighty five per cent of them suffer from lead poisoning. In one village near such a site, the drinking water was found to contain 2,400 times the maximum amount of the toxic metal permitted by the World Health Organisation. Its soil has over 1,300 times the U.S. limit for chromium.
The European WEEE directive of 2003 was aimed at stopping this horrific trade by forcing manufacturers to take back discarded equipment and ensure that it is recycled properly. The directive has already been brought into effect throughout most of Europe. Norway implemented it in full even before it became law.
Worst performance in the EU
But not in Britain -- which has vied with Malta for the worst performance in the EU. By law, the directive had to be in operation by last August but ministers twice delayed its introduction -- only forced to act after the European Commission started legal proceedings against Britain.
The decison to implement the measure is in defiance of severe pressure from the industry. Less than two months ago, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances called for the directive to be supended and the heads of leading companies -- including Electrolux, Philips, Dyson and Hoover -- told Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling that the measure could force them to cease production in Britain. Malcolm Wicks, a junior trade and industry minister, commented that he did not believe their threats and said: 'It is a little bit sad that some manufacturers are coming up with all sorts of arguments to dodge the responsibility they should take on.'
The row centred on the question of who should be responsible for recycling equipment that was made several years ago. The companies have been happy to foot the bill for the appliances they are making NOW -- and are designing them specifically to be recyclable -- but they wanted consumers to pay an extra charge for the disposal of their old appliances. The Government has refused to let them win. Yesterday's announcement is a belated attempt to control the toxic side effcts of our consumer society, but ministers and the electronics industry have a long way to go if they are to dispel Britain's richly deserved reputation as 'the dirty man of Europe'.
from the Guardian
July 26, 2006
excerpts from http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1830230,00.html
The 2003 heatwave killed more than 30,000 people. It was the biggest natural disaster in Europe on record, according to the government's chief scientific adviser. And yet, as temperatures reach new highs, Britain is fretting about dried-out lawns and stuffy offices. Alok Jha looks at the dangers that really lie ahead -- and how to survive them.
When the human body gets to 42C, it starts to cook. The heat causes the proteins in each cell to irreversibly change, like an egg white as it boils. Even before that, the brain shuts down because of a lack of blood coming from the overworked, overheated heart. Muscles stop working, the stomach cramps and the mind becomes delirious. Death is inevitable. The gruesome effects of overheating have been largely forgotten as Europe swelters under record temperatures, from southern England's 36.5C to Bosnia's 41C. When weather forecasters predicted that the heat would get more intense across the continent today, most of us heaved a sigh at the thoughts of stuffy trains, sweaty buses, parched lawns and boiling offices. But perhaps we are being complacent.
Already, people across Europe are succumbing to the heat. In France, at least 40 people, mostly elderly, have already died. The latest reported victim was a 90-year-old woman found dead in Orly, near Paris -- her body temperature had reached 41C. In Spain, six people have died so far. In Germany and Holland, two people have died from heat-related injuries. Last weekend in Britain, 87-year-old Don Goodheart, a veteran of the second world war, died while on standard-bearing duty outside a church in Devon. He suffered a heart attack while standing under the blazing sun.
Heatwaves claim thousands of lives, killing more people each year than floods, tornadoes and hurricanes combined. And it is going to get worse. Scientists calculate that, as global warming bites and average temperatures around the world get higher, the risk of extreme heatwaves will also increase. The World Meteorological Organisation estimates that the number of heat-related deaths across the globe will double in the next 20 years.
To see these statistics in action, think back three years. In 2003, Europe was melting. It was the hottest summer ever recorded in the northern hemisphere and temperatures were consistently soaring to more than 40C across many parts of the continent. Britain recorded its first ever temperature of more than 100F on August 10. The surprise at the heat was matched only by shock at the scale of the human casualties it caused: more than 2,000 people died in Britain, 7,000 in Germany, 4,000 in Spain and 1,000 in Italy. The largest casualties were in France, where almost 15,000 perished in the first three weeks of August, more than 19 times the global death toll from the Sars epidemic earlier that year.
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, says that the 2003 heatwave was "the biggest natural disaster in Europe on record. Thirty-two thousand fatalities makes it an enormous natural disaster." According to Janet Larsen of the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), a Washington DC-based thinktank, the 2003 heatwave in Europe was "the greatest such event the world has ever seen". If the summer of 2003 had been a freak occurrence, northern Europeans may have been able to rest easy. But the latest climate models paint a very bleak picture, suggesting that the summer of 2003 will be the norm in Europe by the 2040s. For those countries that are not well adapted to dealing with excessively high temperatures, the consequences could be catastrophic.
Throughout its life, the human body battles to keep its core temperature at a steady 37C, whatever conditions it finds itself in. This is the temperature at which the organs function normally and there is little tolerance to change. To prevent overheating, the body starts pumping blood to the skin's surface when it senses that things are getting warm. This places extra strain on the heart and, as the water from the blood evaporates, it thickens the blood, leading to an increased risk of clotting -- which can cause strokes or heart attacks. If the core temperature continues to rise, muscles stop working properly because of the amount of water and salts being lost through sweating. Eventually, when the brain reaches 38.5C, the body suffers a heatstroke. If the temperature is not brought down quickly at this stage, death soon follows.
The problems of heat stress on the body get more serious with age. The older a person is, the less efficient their body's temperature regulation. "They are not as sensitive," says James Goodwin, a physiologist and head of research at Help the Aged. "An older person won't notice the cold as soon as a younger person does and that's a problem because they won't respond to it quite so quickly. In the heat, they don't perceive that temperatures are rising so quickly and don't make the behavioural adjustments to cool quite so quickly."
For all the danger, preventing heat deaths is very simple. "There's no reason anyone should die of the hot weather," says Sari Kovats, a researcher on the health implications of heatwaves at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "As long as the person's cool and given water and salts so they can sweat. It's very simple but you need some sort of active care."
The 2003 heatwave showed how ill-prepared European countries were for the onslaught of high temperatures. Public health officials did not use weather forecasts to predict possible emergencies and there was no concept that a summer of high temperatures would be such a major problem. In France, large numbers of medical staff were off on holiday all at once -- the health service there did not foresee any problem. "The notable feature of the French episode was the health minister appearing on the TV and saying, 'Crisis, what crisis?'," says Godwin. "He wasn't being disingenuous -- he hadn't got the data."
There were no real-time surveillance systems in place to assess how many people were being admitted to hospitals and how many of them were dying of the heat. Andrew Haines, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says that those problems were exacerbated by people's unfamiliarity in living with high temperatures. "In Paris, where there's not a lot of air-conditioning, many of the people that died were in residential homes or they were in the top floors of houses where heat gets trapped. People couldn't cool down overnight." King agrees: "That's the problem in France -- none of the people had ever experienced anything like this before."
The prospect of even hotter summers in the decades to come -- an inevitable result of climate change -- will mean that northern Europeans will need to change the way they behave sooner rather than later. Human-induced climate change -- caused by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- loomed large as a possible explanation for the 2003 heatwave in the months that followed. A simple connection is too simplistic -- no extreme weather event can be tied directly to climate change because it might have occurred by chance in an unchanged climate. But it is possible to work out how much human activity has increased the risk that extreme weather events -- such as heatwaves -- will occur.
Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, looked at how the chances of getting a hot summer had changed as a result of greenhouse gas emissions and other human influences. "We did that by comparing climate models simulations with the observed record," says Stott. "We had climate change models that included greenhouse gas emissions and then other simulations that didn't. By comparing the two, we could look at what the risk of having a very hot summer is now and compare that to what the risk could have been if there hadn't been any human-influenced climate change."
His model, published in the science journal Nature, showed that human influences had at least doubled the chance of summers as hot as the one Europe saw in 2003. In a normal climate, the chance of getting a summer as hot as 2003 would have been around once every millennium. In Stott's climate models, greenhouse gas emissions had contributed to an increase in 2003-style summers to at least once in every 500 years and possibly as high as once in every 250 years.
"The problem is that we've got a baseline increase in average summer temperature, and that arises from the global warming that is happening right now," says King. "If you take the average summer temperature in central Europe today, it's roughly 0.6C higher than it was in the middle of the last century. This means that if you have a heatwave, where the temperature might be 0.5 to 1C above average, it's now sitting on top of a higher figure. The impact is going to be all the greater." "According to the model predictions, by the 2040s, the 2003-type summers will be happening every year," says Stott.
The climate models are unequivocal in their pessimism for the future. But the notion that extreme heat will become a fact of life for Europeans does not necessarily imply an unchecked increase in related deaths. King says northern Europeans can learn a lesson or two from their neighbours to the south. "If you go to a country where people are used to the heat -- if you go to Greece, say -- the Brits are all out lying in the sun, the Greeks are sitting in the shade. The Greeks will leave their houses with all their shutters closed so the sun doesn't go in through the windows. They will run grapevines on the outside of their houses so the walls are shaded. It's all a matter of adapting to a hotter climate," he says.
Educating people most at risk -- those working outside, the elderly and children -- as to how to stay cool, drink enough and stay indoors at the hottest part of the day is important. But people also need to think about the entire course of a heatwave, which may last several days. "If people don't get a cooling opportunity, it means that people don't have a chance to lower their temperature properly," says Goodwin. "It leads to maintained sweating throughout the night, loss of sodium and the increased risk of a heart attack or a stroke."
Robert Jones, head of the minor injuries unit at Gravesham Community Hospital in Kent, says that the elderly in particular may not take the opportunity to cool down at night by opening windows. "The problem in the community is that the elderly who live on their own on ground floors are frightened to open the windows because of vandalism and burglary," he says. "[The nurses] have to open the windows when they go in because it's stifling."
The UK government developed its first heatwave warning system in 2004, in the wake of the previous summer's deaths. Officials in the Department of Health and the National Health Service are also working with the Met Office in trying to produce a regular health forecast. "If we can forecast the weather, and we know weather affects health, we can forecast how people's health will change over the next 10 days. We can therefore take action to prevent health getting worse," says Goodwin.
On the awareness front, Jones says that hospitals such as his are successfully spreading the word to the most vulnerable groups on how to be sensible in hot weather. "We've got cold fluids to offer them, we've bought fans, we're opening windows. So they can see what we're doing."
In the longer term, northern European countries will have to start building some of the problems posed by high temperatures and climate change out of their cities. "The issue for the UK is all about the housing. None of the housing is taking climate change into account," says Kovats. Most of the UK lives in a built environment designed by the Victorians. By providing clean water into every home and pumping sewage out, the Victorians dealt with the problems of water-borne diseases, but the homes they built are energy inefficient and entirely unsuited as refuges in the event of extreme heat. Air conditioning can help but, in the end, only contributes to the greenhouse effect by burning fossil fuels.
This is an issue that King is already thinking about. He is tinkering with the idea of setting up a government-backed project that will map out a better way to design buildings for the future. "There are ways of doing passive air conditioning that don't use energy, and you can build that into design," he says. "You can introduce something called a thermal chimney to a building, which is simply using the heat at the top of the house, and the fact that hot air is less dense and rises, to pull cold air from a basement area where you've got a cold water tank."
Warmer countries could also provide inspiration for much simpler ideas. "You have external shutters so that you reflect heat away from the window pane," says King. "We don't have external shutters in general. We want the heat in. Once the heat is through the window, and in the room, having blinds inside is useless." These ideas are important, but they will come at a cost, given the number of houses across Europe that will need upgrading.
Heat stress and the effects of hyperthermia are certain to become more common as the world heats up over the next century. But Goodwin says that no one is served by a general panic. "You've got to understand the risks and change how you live slightly to cope with those risks. The issue is to say to people not to work in fear on this but to realise they can, by fairly conservative means, reduce the risks".
by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News
July 25, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i31/8431toxicology.html
As the number of human biomonitoring studies begins to escalate, many challenges surround their effective use, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Biomonitoring means measuring a chemical or its metabolite in humans, usually in blood or urine, for assessing exposures to natural and synthetic chemicals. Interpreting what biomonitoring data mean in terms of public health is often difficult, the report says. The ability to detect a chemical in humans often exceeds the ability to determine whether that chemical causes a health risk or to evaluate the source of exposure to the chemical.
And the design of biomonitoring studies is often problematic, the report says, as there is no coordinated, public-health-based strategy for selecting the chemicals to be measured. "There is a need for a consistent rationale for selecting chemicals for study based on exposure and public health concerns," the NRC panel wrote.
Many population-based studies on chemical exposure are conducted in the U.S. by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. CDC has published periodic reports on human exposure to environmental chemicals.
The NRC report recommends several areas of research that could improve biomonitoring. It wants a coordinated strategy developed for selecting chemicals based on their potential to cause harm and on widespread population exposure. It also wants studies conducted that could help interpret the risk from chemicals in the environment. Where possible, researchers should "enhance exposure assessment, epidemiologic, and toxicologic studies with biomonitoring to improve the interpretation of results," the report says.
In addition, research on public communication is needed to understand how to communicate the results of biomonitoring studies effectively. For example, participants in biomonitoring studies almost never learn what their own exposure levels were for the chemicals measured. However, sharing results raises ethical issues, the report says. In some cases, it might be important to provide clinical follow-up to those participants with exceptionally high levels of harmful chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council praises the report. "We believe the [NRC] report provides a very useful benchmark for future as well as current research efforts," says Richard A. Becker, ACC's senior toxicologist. "In particular, it emphasizes the need to use rigorous scientific methods for sampling, evaluating, and reporting the data." The report can be found online at http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/11700.html.
by Felicity Lawrence, London Guardian
July 25, 2006
excerpts from http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1828158,00.html
For Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, the saga of soya began in Monty Python-style with a dead parrot. His investigations into the ubiquitous bean started in 1991 when Richard James, a multimillionaire American lawyer, turned up at the laboratory in New Zealand where Fitzpatrick was working as a consultant toxicologist. James was sure that soya beans were killing his rare birds. "We thought he was mad, but he had a lot of money and wanted us to find out what was going on," Fitzpatrick recalls.
Over the next months, Fitzpatrick carried out an exhaustive study of soya and its effects. "We discovered quite quickly," he recalls, "that soya contains toxins and plant oestrogens powerful enough to disrupt women's menstrual cycles in experiments. It also appeared damaging to the thyroid." James's lobbying eventually forced governments to investigate. In 2002, the British government's expert committee on the toxicity of food (CoT) published the results of its inquiry into the safety of plant oestrogens, mainly from soya proteins, in modern food. It concluded that in general the health benefits claimed for soya were not supported by clear evidence and judged that there could be risks from high levels of consumption for certain age groups. Yet little has happened to curb soya's growth since.
More than 60% of all processed food in Britain today contains soya in some form, according to food industry estimates. It is in breakfast cereals, cereal bars and biscuits, cheeses, cakes, dairy desserts, gravies, noodles, pastries, soups, sausage casings, sauces and sandwich spreads. Soya, crushed, separated and refined into its different parts, can appear on food labels as soya flour, hydrolysed vegetable protein, soy protein isolate, protein concentrate, textured vegetable protein, vegetable oil (simple, fully, or partially hydrogenated), plant sterols, or the emulsifier lecithin. Its many guises hint at its value to manufacturers.
Soya increases the protein content of processed meat products. It replaces them altogether in vegetarian foods. It stops industrial breads shrinking. It makes cakes hold on to their water. It helps manufacturers mix water into oil. Hydrogenated, its oil is used to deep-fry fast food. Soya is also in cat food and dog food. But above all it is used in agricultural feeds for intensive chicken, beef, dairy, pig and fish farming. Soya protein -- which accounts for 35% of the raw bean -- is what has made the global factory farming of livestock for cheap meat a possibility. Soya oil -- high in omega 6 fatty acids and 18% of the whole bean -- has meanwhile driven the postwar explosion in snack foods around the world. Crisps, confectionery, deep-fried take-aways, ready meals, ice-creams, mayonnaise and margarines all make liberal use of it. Its widespread presence is one of the reasons our balance of omega 3 to omega 6 essential fatty acids is so out of kilter.
You may think that when you order a skinny soya latte, you are choosing a commodity blessed with an unadulterated aura of health. But soya today is in fact associated with patterns of food consumption that have been linked to diet-related diseases. And 50 years ago it was not eaten in the west in any quantity.
In 1965, the earliest year for which the Chicago Board of Trade keeps figures, global soya bean production was just 30m tonnes. By 2005, the world was consuming nine times that a year, at 270m tonnes. World soya oil production, meanwhile, has increased sevenfold over the same period, from 5m tonnes to 34m tonnes a year. To feed demand, new agricultural frontiers are being opened up in Brazil, where large areas of virgin rainforest have been illegally felled to make room for the crop. US-based transnationals are now exporting soya back to China, the country from which it originated, as newly urbanised Chinese switch to industrialised western diets. Thanks to US agribusiness, we have developed an apparently insatiable global appetite for the bean produced by farmers in the Americas.
James and Fitzpatrick became convinced early on that this entirely new dependence on soya was, in fact, a dangerous experiment. The dead parrots were no joke -- they were the canaries in the coalmine. For James and his wife Valerie, breeding the exotic birds down under was a retirement dream. They wanted to feed their young birds the best, so they began giving the chicks a soya feed. Parrots do not eat soya beans in the wild but the high-protein animal feed had been marketed in the US as a new miracle food. The result was a catastrophic breeding year. Some of the birds were infertile; many died. Other young male birds aged prematurely or reached puberty years early. "We realised there was some sort of hormonal disruption going on but we'd eliminated other possible hormone disrupting chemicals such as pesticides from the inquiry," Fitzpatrick says.
So the toxicologist began a systematic review of the scientific literature on soya. After finding out about the plant oestrogens in soya, Fitzpatrick says, "My next thought was: what about children who are fed soya milk?" He calculated that babies fed exclusively on soya formula could receive the oestrogenic equivalent, based on body weight, of five birth control pills a day. In fact, it had been known since the early 1980s that plant oestrogens, or phyto-oest