| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Env Chem News

This version was saved 11 years, 5 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Ian Balcom (Dr B.)
on October 4, 2012 at 10:09:12 am
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iPhone 5 Ranks Higher than Galaxy S III in New Study on Toxic Chemicals in Mobile Phones

October 3, 2012

http://www.healthystuff.org/get-stuff.php?report=+iPhone+5+Ranks+Higher+than+Galaxy+S+III+in+New+Study+on+Toxic+Chemicals+in+Mobile+Phones&sort-by=score&sort-dir=asc

 

For the first time the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center teamed up with technology gurus at ifixit.com to research toxic chemicals in 36 different cell phones, including the recently released iPhone 5 and Samsung’s Galaxy S III. The results were released today at www.HealthyStuff.org and www.ifixit.com.

The Motorola Citrus ranked the least toxic phone followed by the iPhone 4 S and the LG Remarq. The new iPhone 5 ranked 5th, versus its primary competitor, Samsung Galaxy S III, which ranked 9th. The most toxic phone tested was the iPhone 2G. The full list of rankings can be found at HealthyStuff.org.

Every phone sampled in this study contained at least one of following hazardous chemicals: lead, bromine, chlorine, mercury and cadmium. These hazardous substances can pollute throughout a product’s life cycle, including when the minerals are extracted; when they are processed; during phone manufacturing; and at the end of the phone’s useful life. Emissions during disposal and recycling of phones as electronic waste, or “e-waste,” are particularly problematic. The mining of some tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold used in mobile phones has been linked to conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“Even the best phones from our study are still loaded with chemical hazards,” said Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center and founder of HealthyStuff.org. “These chemicals, which are linked to birth defects, impaired learning and other serious health problems, have been found in soils at levels 10 to 100 times higher than background levels at e-waste recycling sites in China. We need better federal regulation of these chemicals, and we need to create incentives for the design of greener consumer electronics.”

A 2004 study found that three-quarters of all cell phones leach lead at levels that would qualify them as hazardous waste. While tracking e-waste is difficult, it is estimated that 50-80% is exported to countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Phillipines, where there is a labor-intensive, informal recycling infrastrucure that often lacks environmental and human health safeguards.

Learn more about responsible electronics recycling from the Electronic TakeBack Coalition

 

Suggested mobile phone recyclers: Go to e-stewards to find a responsible recycler. The companies below have signed the e-stewards pledge to not export e-waste to developing countries:

Capstone Wireless – Use their website to request a free UPS shipping label. They have a buy back program, so you may get money back for your old phone.

Call2Recycle – The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corp also accepts old cell phones for free recycling. They have drop off sites in many cities (usually in stores). Use their location finder to enter your zip code to find the closest.

More Information

 

NOTICE: HealthyStuff.org ratings do not provide a measure of health risk or chemical exposure associated with any individual product, or any individual element or related chemical. HealthyStuff.org ratings provide only a relative measure of high, medium, and low concentrations of several hazardous chemicals or chemical elements in an individual product in comparison to criteria established in the site methodology.

Vermont sends first shipments of radioactive waste to Texas

by Andrew Stein | September 28, 2012

Waste Control Specialists facility in Texas for radioactive canisters, WCS image

Earlier this month, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant shipped its first container of low-level radioactive waste to a disposal site in Andrews County, Texas.

Vermont regulators made a special agreement with Texas more than a decade ago to send all of the state’s low-level radioactive waste from the plant in Vernon. The facility in West Texas will someday entomb the nuclear plant’s dismantled body.

Two years ago questions were raised about the long-term capacity of the facility in West Texas after officials agreed to allow other states to dump radioactive waste at the site.

Vermont officials told the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission this week that they expect to have ongoing access to the facility. The commission, which has two representatives from Vermont, met in the Green Mountain State for the first time on Wednesday.

The commission was formed through a compact agreement signed between Texas, Vermont and Maine in 1993 to dispose of the Lone Star State’s nuclear waste and allow the two smaller states to tag along. Congress approved the compact in 1998, but Maine later pulled out as its only nuclear plant Maine Yankee was already decommissioned.

The compact commission was created to oversee and manage the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated in Vermont and Texas, and it chose the company Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) and its site in Andrews County for the waste storage.

The state of Vermont has paid $25 million to Texas and $2.5 million to Andrews County to ensure that 20 percent of the landfill’s capacity would be left for Vermont-generated waste. WCS began preparing the site in 2008; the commission met for the first time in Feb. 2009; and the landfill received its first concrete barrel of radioactive material in April.

The first shipment of radioactive material from Vermont arrived in Texas earlier this month, but it wasn’t from Yankee. The first container came from Fletcher Allen Health Care in Burlington.

Fletcher Allen spokesman Mike Noble said that the state’s largest medical facility shipped 29 units of cesium-137 in a 55-gallon concrete drum. The radioactive material, which was previously used to treat cancer patients before it was rendered obsolete, had been stored at the facility for roughly 20 years.

Vermont Yankee also sent its first shipment of radioactive resin earlier this month. The nuclear facility’s waste will account for more than 90 percent of all waste coming from Vermont, said Vermont Yankee representatives on Wednesday.

According to those representatives, the nuclear plant shipped a second barrel of waste on Wednesday and a third is scheduled to go out early next week.

A radioactive concern

In January 2011, the commission voted to allow 36 other states to store radioactive waste at the Andrews landfill. At the same time, the commission also passed an amendment that guaranteed Vermont a 20 percent share of that space.

Read the VTDigger story.

Richard Saudek, one of Vermont’s two commissioners, said in an interview that the commission spends most of its time ruling on whether the site should allow shipments, called imports. Commissioners are fixated on protecting space for Texas and Vermont generators to store this waste.

“Our main concern is that there be sufficient capacity to handle the in-compact waste,” he said. “We see ourselves as advocates for the compact generators.”

Rod Baltzer, president of WCS, told the commission not to worry.

“There should not be any anxiety from Texas or Vermont,” said Baltzer. “Whoever needs to ship us radioactive waste from Texas and Vermont will not be turned away.”

Vermont officials are worried, however, because they believe the state’s radioactive waste will grow as Vermont Yankee continues to operate and is eventually decommissioned.

“You’re not going to see a great deal of precision at this point,” said Saudek about projecting the state’s future need to store such waste. “When they dismantle Vermont Yankee and start sending the parts, they don’t know when that’s going to happen, and they don’t know how much waste they’ll generate before that point.”

Radioactive waste barrels

Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Service Sarah Hofmann said in a separate interview that Vermont regulators would keep a very close eye on the issue.

“The Texans have been very good about making sure that we have space for our waste, but I want to always be vigilant about keeping our space,” she said. “The people on the commission are very aware of what our concern was.”

‘We call ourselves the Texas solution’

That’s what Baltzer told the commission on Wednesday.  From nuclear to medical to high-level weapons waste, WCS stores some of the world’s most harmful substances.

“We’re the place that you can actually get rid of that material,” he said.

The 15,000-acre site straddles the Texas and New Mexico border and is spread out across arid desert. Of that total landmass, Baltzer said a mere 2 percent is used as a radioactive landfill.

“Only about 300 acres are really where we do most of those activities,” said Baltzer. “The rest of that is what we like to call buffer zone.”

Before the compact’s waste site was dug, or the new federal site next to it, WCS took more than 640 core samples to determine the ground’s geological characteristics. According to Baltzer, no aquifers were identified on the property. Surveyors did, however, find groundwater dating back 16,000 years. In this arid environment, said Baltzer, horizontal groundwater travel is four feet per 1,000 years.

Furthermore, added Baltzer, the water used at the facility is pumped to evaporation tanks, and the hazardous residue that remains is barreled up and dumped in the landfill.

Hazardous materials are stored in large concrete casks within a massive underground chamber, which is enclosed by consecutive layers of clay, plastic and concrete.

By the end of August, said Baltzer, the facility had disposed of 4,365 cubic feet of waste and 20,634 curies, which is a measurement for radioactivity.

While Baltzer said the facility might ask regulators to allow it to expand the size of its landfill in the future, the most limiting factor for the facility at this point is the threshold for radioactivity currently imposed by regulators.

“We haven’t asked for anything yet, but it should come as no surprise that I’d like more curies than I was originally allocated,” he told commissioners.

Posted in Also in the News | Tagged Texas low-level radioactive waste compact commission, Vermont Department of Public Service, Waste Control Specialists

 

 

 

 

 

6 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. Barry Kade September 28, 2012 at 7:44 am
    Permalink | Reply

    The State of Vermont paid $20 million for the privilege of using the site, plus the cost of a commissioner. That sounds like justification for a tax on VT Yankee.

  2. John Greenberg September 28, 2012 at 10:35 am
    Permalink | Reply

    All of the costs of generating “low-level” waste in Vermont, including compact fees, are paid by the generators in proportion to the volumes generated (VY generates 95+% of VT’s volume). The State is merely the collection agent. See 10 VSA 7067.

  3. Sally Shaw September 28, 2012 at 11:05 am
    Permalink | Reply

    This is in addition to the millions of dollars VT has already had to pay to the Feds for a federal nuclear waste depository (i.e. Yucca Mtn.), long since halted (under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.) These Vermont tax dollars are handed over for the privilege of having a huge radioactive waste generator in Vermont. Nuke energy too cheap to meter? As long as you ignore what’s being taken out of your back pocket while you sleep. Twice.

  4. Howard Shaffer September 29, 2012 at 7:52 am
    Permalink | Reply

    The cost of used fuel final treatment is collected on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is in the cost of the power sold.

    By law the Federal government is responsible for this function, but it has not removed the used fuel yet. The process has been blocked politically.

    Since the government has not done what it has already been paid to do, plant owners have sued to get the ratepayers money back, and won.

    If Sally wants the used fuel removed from Vermont Yankee, she should go to Nevada and convince Senator Reid to stop blocking Yucca Mountain.

  5. John Greenberg September 29, 2012 at 8:35 am
    Permalink | Reply

    Sally Shaw seems to be suggesting that Vermonters are paying twice for the radioactive waste being shipped to Texas.

    Just to keep the record clear, federal law draws a bright line between spent fuel, which it terms “high-level” waste and everything else, which it designates as “low-level.” The fees Sally mentions paid to the federal government pay for the disposal of spent fuel (generators are assessed 1 mil per kwh. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, spent fuel disposal is a federal responsibility. The fees paid for “low-level” waste disposal are a State responsibility (under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act), and under Vermont law, are paid by the generators of the waste. They include not only the compact fees, but also all disposal fees. There are no “Vermont tax dollars” involved in any of either, however.

    That said, nuclear power is heavily subsidized by the federal government, including, but not limited to the Price-Anderson Act’s gift of liability insurance coverage for catastrophic nuclear accidents. So I certainly agree with Sally that nuclear power is anything but “too cheap to meter.”

  6. Bob Stannard September 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
    Permalink | Reply

    The bigger question really is why is it that the taxpayers are on the hook for the disposal of the spent fuel?

    The answer is that this was a deal that was struck to help the industry out decades ago. The fact is that the one who makes the mess should be the one responsible for cleaning it up.

    Think of it like the garbage business. The hauler who picks up your garbage, and profits by doing so, has to pay a tipping fee at the landfill when he gets rid of it. The garbage business would be much more profitable if the haulers could get the taxpayers to pay the tipping fee.

    This is, in essence, what the industry did to the taxpayers many years ago and have complained ever since that it’s the taxpayer’s problem to get rid of the spent fuel; not the industry’s.

    This is arguably one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American taxpayer. The industry makes all the money; the taxpayer gets stuck with the disposal fees. Wonderful.

    Toss in the fact that the taxpayer also insures the industry from a catastrophic accident through the Price-Anderson Act, along with a regulatory agency that is bought and paid for by the industry and nuclear power’s a good deal for those in the business.

 

 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-japan-fukushima-california_n_1551431.html

Radioactive Bluefin Tuna: Japan Nuclear Plant Contaminated Fish Found Off California Coast

 

 

LOS ANGELES -- Across the vast Pacific, the mighty bluefin tuna carried radioactive contamination that leaked from Japan's crippled nuclear plant to the shores of the United States 6,000 miles away – the first time a huge migrating fish has been shown to carry radioactivity such a distance.

"We were frankly kind of startled," said Nicholas Fisher, one of the researchers reporting the findings online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that's still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments.

Previously, smaller fish and plankton were found with elevated levels of radiation in Japanese waters after a magnitude-9 earthquake in March 2011 triggered a tsunami that badly damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors.

But scientists did not expect the nuclear fallout to linger in huge fish that sail the world because such fish can metabolize and shed radioactive substances.

One of the largest and speediest fish, Pacific bluefin tuna can grow to 10 feet and weigh more than 1,000 pounds. They spawn off the Japan coast and swim east at breakneck speed to school in waters off California and the tip of Baja California, Mexico.

Five months after the Fukushima disaster, Fisher of Stony Brook University in New York and a team decided to test Pacific bluefin that were caught off the coast of San Diego. To their surprise, tissue samples from all 15 tuna captured contained levels of two radioactive substances – ceisum-134 and cesium-137 – that were higher than in previous catches.

To rule out the possibility that the radiation was carried by ocean currents or deposited in the sea through the atmosphere, the team also analyzed yellowfin tuna, found in the eastern Pacific, and bluefin that migrated to Southern California before the nuclear crisis. They found no trace of cesium-134 and only background levels of cesium-137 left over from nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s.

The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source," said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who had no role in the research.

Bluefin tuna absorbed radioactive cesium from swimming in contaminated waters and feeding on contaminated prey such as krill and squid, the scientists said. As the predators made the journey east, they shed some of the radiation through metabolism and as they grew larger. Even so, they weren't able to completely flush out all the contamination from their system.

"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.

Pacific bluefin tuna are prized in Japan where a thin slice of the tender red meat prepared as sushi can fetch $24 per piece at top Tokyo restaurants. Japanese consume 80 percent of the world's Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna.

The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers planned to repeat the study with a larger number of samples. Bluefin tuna that journeyed last year were exposed to radiation for about a month. The upcoming travelers have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period. How this will affect concentrations of contamination remains to be seen.

Now that scientists know that bluefin tuna can transport radiation, they also want to track the movements of other migratory species including sea turtles, sharks and seabirds.


2012 Hottest Year on Record for US


2012 Hottest Year on Record for US
Posted: 13 Sep 2012 10:24 AM PDT
 
The last eight months have been the warmest of any year on record in the contiguous United States, and this has been the third-hottest summer since record-keeping began in 1895, according to the US National Climate Data Center.


During every one of the last 15 months, the temperatures have been above-average. That has never occurred before in all the 117 years of US record-keeping, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at the data center.

2012′s winter, spring and summer have “all been among the top-five hottest for their respective seasons,” Crouch said, something else that is also unique in the U.S. record. “There has never been a warmer September-through-August period than in 2011-2012,” he added.
 

 
“We’re now, in terms of statistics, in unprecedented territory for how long this warm spell has continued in the contiguous U.S.”

These seemingly ‘freak’ heat waves are typical of what climate scientists have been warning would become more likely in a rapidly warmer world.

Alyson Kenward of the non-profit research and journalism organization Climate Central said, in a statement: “Extreme heat is closely tied to climate change, and this summer’s heat wave left a global warming signature in the data, particularly in the ratio of record high to record low temperatures.”

In a temperature stable world, record highs and record lows would balance out, with a ratio of one to one. During 2012, “25 states have had high to low temperature ratios of 10 to one or greater; 14 have had a ratio greater than 20 to one; and three have had greater than 40 to one ratios,” Climate Central said.

Ohio was the highest, with 49 record high temperatures to every record low.

There has also been a very severe drought accompanying the heat, almost 63 percent of the Lower 48 states are currently experiencing drought.

And perhaps more alarmingly, arctic sea ice has fallen to its record smallest ever observed size, and the melting season this year isn’t even done yet. The Arctic, sometimes called the world’s air conditioner, has a large impact on global temperatures and weather patterns.

“As of September 5, the ice on the Arctic Ocean was less than 1.54 million square miles (4 million square km), a 45 percent reduction compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s.”

Source: Reuters
Image Credits: Cracked Earth via Shutterstock

 

 

http://www.envirolaw.org/documents/ProductsTestedforLeadFINAL.pdf

 

 

LEAD IN CHILDREN'S FOODS

(current case)

On September 28, 2011 the Environmental Law Foundation filed a lawsuit alleging the toxic chemical lead was found in a variety of children's and baby foods. The food categories are: grape juice, packaged pears and peaches, fruit cocktail, and baby foods containing carrots peaches, pears and sweet potatoes. The lawsuit seeks warning labels on the offending foods under Proposition 65, the Toxics Right to Know law. The lawsuit can be found [here]. A list of all the products tested, including those that do not require a warning for lead and those that do, can be found[here]. Information and FAQs about the testing program and law can be found [here]. More about our co-counsel Baron and Budd.

 


 

Cleanup crews attack toxic goo in South Platte north of Denver

Loading http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/archives_rss.jsp?sm=fr7%3Bsubject29%3B5Topic%2FcontaminationAndPeople27%3BUS+contamination+and+people&termtype=Topic&term=Topic%2FcontaminationAndPeople&title=Topic%2FcontaminationAndPeople…


 

 

 

Fallout forensics hike radiation toll

Global data on Fukushima challenge Japanese estimates.

Geoff Brumfiel

The Fukushima accident led to mass evacuations from nearby towns such as Minamisoma.The Fukushima accident led to mass evacuations from nearby towns such as Minamisoma.AP Photo/S. Ponomarev

The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant.

The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist with the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller, who led the research, believes that the analysis is the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how much radiation was released from Fukushima Daiichi. "It's a very valuable contribution," says Lars-Erik De Geer, an atmospheric modeller with the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Stockholm, who was not involved with the study.

The reconstruction relies on data from dozens of radiation monitoring stations in Japan and around the world. Many are part of a global network to watch for tests of nuclear weapons that is run by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. The scientists added data from independent stations in Canada, Japan and Europe, and then combined those with large European and American caches of global meteorological data.

Stohl cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect. Measurements were scarce in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, and some monitoring posts were too contaminated by radioactivity to provide reliable data. More importantly, exactly what happened inside the reactors — a crucial part of understanding what they emitted — remains a mystery that may never be solved. "If you look at the estimates for Chernobyl, you still have a large uncertainty 25 years later," says Stohl.

Nevertheless, the study provides a sweeping view of the accident. "They really took a global view and used all the data available," says De Geer.

Challenging numbers

Japanese investigators had already developed a detailed timeline of events following the 11 March earthquake that precipitated the disaster. Hours after the quake rocked the six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, the tsunami arrived, knocking out crucial diesel back-up generators designed to cool the reactors in an emergency. Within days, the three reactors operating at the time of the accident overheated and released hydrogen gas, leading to massive explosions. Radioactive fuel recently removed from a fourth reactor was being held in a storage pool at the time of the quake, and on 14 March the pool overheated, possibly sparking fires in the building over the next few days.

 

Click for larger image

But accounting for the radiation that came from the plants has proved much harder than reconstructing this chain of events. The latest report from the Japanese government, published in June, says that the plant released 1.5 × 1016 bequerels of caesium-137, an isotope with a 30-year half-life that is responsible for most of the long-term contamination from the plant2. A far larger amount of xenon-133, 1.1 × 1019 Bq, was released, according to official government estimates.

The new study challenges those numbers. On the basis of its reconstructions, the team claims that the accident released around 1.7 × 1019 Bq of xenon-133, greater than the estimated total radioactive release of 1.4 × 1019 Bq from Chernobyl. The fact that three reactors exploded in the Fukushima accident accounts for the huge xenon tally, says De Geer.

Xenon-133 does not pose serious health risks because it is not absorbed by the body or the environment. Caesium-137 fallout, however, is a much greater concern because it will linger in the environment for decades. The new model shows that Fukushima released 3.5 × 1016 Bq caesium-137, roughly twice the official government figure, and half the release from Chernobyl. The higher number is obviously worrying, says De Geer, although ongoing ground surveys are the only way to truly establish the public-health risk.

Stohl believes that the discrepancy between the team's results and those of the Japanese government can be partly explained by the larger data set used. Japanese estimates rely primarily on data from monitoring posts inside Japan3, which never recorded the large quantities of radioactivity that blew out over the Pacific Ocean, and eventually reached North America and Europe. "Taking account of the radiation that has drifted out to the Pacific is essential for getting a real picture of the size and character of the accident," says Tomoya Yamauchi, a radiation physicist at Kobe University who has been measuring radioisotope contamination in soil around Fukushima.

 

Click for full image

Stohl adds that he is sympathetic to the Japanese teams responsible for the official estimate. "They wanted to get something out quickly," he says. The differences between the two studies may seem large, notes Yukio Hayakawa, a volcanologist at Gunma University who has also modelled the accident, but uncertainties in the models mean that the estimates are actually quite similar.

The new analysis also claims that the spent fuel being stored in the unit 4 pool emitted copious quantities of caesium-137. Japanese officials have maintained that virtually no radioactivity leaked from the pool. Yet Stohl's model clearly shows that dousing the pool with water caused the plant's caesium-137 emissions to drop markedly (see 'Radiation crisis'). The finding implies that much of the fallout could have been prevented by flooding the pool earlier.

The Japanese authorities continue to maintain that the spent fuel was not a significant source of contamination, because the pool itself did not seem to suffer major damage. "I think the release from unit 4 is not important," says Masamichi Chino, a scientist with the Japanese Atomic Energy Authority in Ibaraki, who helped to develop the Japanese official estimate. But De Geer says the new analysis implicating the fuel pool "looks convincing".

The latest analysis also presents evidence that xenon-133 began to vent from Fukushima Daiichi immediately after the quake, and before the tsunami swamped the area. This implies that even without the devastating flood, the earthquake alone was sufficient to cause damage at the plant.


The Japanese government's report has already acknowledged that the shaking at Fukushima Daiichi exceeded the plant's design specifications. Anti-nuclear activists have long been concerned that the government has failed to adequately address geological hazards when licensing nuclear plants (see Nature448, 392–393; 2007), and the whiff of xenon could prompt a major rethink of reactor safety assessments, says Yamauchi.

The model also shows that the accident could easily have had a much more devastating impact on the people of Tokyo. In the first days after the accident the wind was blowing out to sea, but on the afternoon of 14 March it turned back towards shore, bringing clouds of radioactive caesium-137 over a huge swathe of the country (see'Radioisotope reconstruction'). Where precipitation fell, along the country's central mountain ranges and to the northwest of the plant, higher levels of radioactivity were later recorded in the soil; thankfully, the capital and other densely populated areas had dry weather. "There was a period when quite a high concentration went over Tokyo, but it didn't rain," says Stohl. "It could have been much worse." 

 


 

 

Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011


Abstract

Chemical ozone destruction occurs over both polar regions in local winter–spring. In the Antarctic, essentially complete removal of lower-stratospheric ozone currently results in an ozone hole every year, whereas in the Arctic, ozone loss is highly variable and has until now been much more limited. Here we demonstrate that chemical ozone destruction over the Arctic in early 2011 was—for the first time in the observational record—comparable to that in the Antarctic ozone hole. Unusually long-lasting cold conditions in the Arctic lower stratosphere led to persistent enhancement in ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and to unprecedented ozone loss, which exceeded 80 per cent over 18–20 kilometres altitude. Our results show that Arctic ozone holes are possible even with temperatures much milder than those in the Antarctic. We cannot at present predict when such severe Arctic ozone depletion may be matched or exceeded.

Subject terms:

Figures at a glance

left

right

 


 

Evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts

 

Joplin-car

Navy Chief Petty Officer Mike Shea helps a crane operator move a wrecked vehicle during tornado cleanup efforts in Joplin, Mo., June 4, 2011. The severity and frequency of such storms are expected to increase as emissions continue to rise, but some researchers believe predictions of climate-induced impacts are too conservative. Photo courtesy U.S. Department of Defense.

Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011

Far from being "alarmist," predictions from climate scientists in many cases are proving to be more conservative than observed climate-induced impacts.

By Douglas Fischer

Daily Climate editor

The warnings were dire: 188 predictions showing that climate-induced changes to the environment would put 7 percent of all plant and animal species on the globe - one out of every 14 critters - at risk of extinction.

Scientists have been quite conservative in a lot of important and different areas. 

- Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego

Predictions like these have earned climate scientists the obloquy from critics for being "alarmist" - dismissed for using inflated descriptions of doom and destruction to push for action, more grant money or a global government.

But as the impacts of climate change become apparent, many predictions are proving to underplay the actual impacts. Reality, in many instances, is proving to be far worse than most scientists expected.

"We're seeing mounting evidence now that the scientific community, rather than overstating the claim or being alarmist, is the opposite," said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian with the University of California, San Diego. "Scientists have been quite conservative ... in a lot of important and different areas."

Joplin-volunteerBiased science

A decade ago scientists predicted the Arctic wouldn't be ice-free in summer until 2100. But the extent of summer ice in the North has rapidly shrunk and today covers 70 percent of the area it did in 1979. Now some scientists think the Arctic could be naught but open water within 25 years.

In August, a team lead by University of York researcher Chris Thomas published a study showing that plants and animals are moving to higher elevations twice as fast as predicted in response to rising temperatures. They're migrating north three times faster than expected, they found

As for extinctions, earlier this year two scientists at the University of Exeter paired predicted versus observed annihilation rates. The real-world rates are more than double what the best computer modeling showed: While the studies, on average, warned of a 7 percent extinction rate, field observations suggested the rate was closer to 15 percent.

Oreskes has spent a career studying climate science. She finds ample evidence that climate scientists are indeed biased - just not in the way portrayed by politicians such as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who claimed scientists paint a bleak picture to secure more research funding.

In reality, Oreskes said, scientists skew their results away from worst-case, doomsday scenarios. "Many people in the scientific community have felt that it's important to be conservative - that it protects your credibility," she said. "There's a low-end bias. It has led scientists to understate, rather than overstate, the impacts."

Media's fault, too

Not all scientists agree that they and their colleagues have deliberately downplayed impacts, of course. 

But other scholars have noted the misperception - and argued the fault lies not just with scientists, but also with journalists reporting those findings.

In a notable 2010 study, the late William Freudenberg, a University of California, Santa Barbara, researcher who studied science and the media, found that new scientific findings are more than 20 times likely to show that global climate disruption is "worse than previously expected" rather than "not as bad as previously expected."

He drew two conclusions from the assessment, one for scientists and one for journalists:

Scientists should be more skeptical toward supposed "good news" on global warming. And reporters, he warned, "need to learn that, if they wish to discuss 'both sides' of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate 'other side' is that, if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date."

Inherent challenges

Of course, the science of climate modeling itself could be inherently biased. Predicting the future impact of emissions remains a difficult task, despite advances in the field over recent decades. Disparate elements can interact in surprising and additive ways that belie scientists' best assumptions.

That may be the case with the discrepancy between predicted and observed extinction rates, said Ilya Maclean, a researcher at the University of Exeter and lead author of the study, published in July in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Many studies he examined tie predicted extinction rates to just one factor - rising temperatures, say, or loss of habitat due to sea-level rise. But a changing climate can impact habitats and species in diverse and unexpected ways, he said. 

"That's not to say there are always additive effects," Maclean said. "But that might be one of the reasons why predictions tend to be quite conservative."

As for the notion that scientists are - unconsciously or not - underplaying impacts, the charge has a ring of truth for Maclean. 

Academics are a cautious lot, generally wary of being seen as making "alarmist" predictions, he said. The peer-review process tends to discourage bold or aggressive interpretations of data. 

It's a trend he recognizes even in his work: Maclean and his co-author, Robert Wilson, also a researcher at the University of Exeter, were careful to exclude any studies and factors they could not definitively link to climate change. That meant excluding a "fairly large" body of work from their analysis, he said.

Their standards, he acknowledges, were probably a little too conservative. But the main point of the paper wasn't to highlight the gap between predictions and observations, he said. They simply wished to show the predictions were reasonable, not alarmist.

In an interview, Maclean was willing to "go beyond the message of the paper" and flatly state that the extinction predictions are too conservative.

But, he added, "I can't say it definitively."

Photo of volunteer Michael Padilla cleaning up in the aftermath of the June 2011 tornado in Joplin, Mo., courtesy of Steve Zumwalt/Federal Emergency Management Administration.

Daily Climate is a non-profit news service covering climate change. Contact editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer [at] dailyclimate.org

 

Find more Daily Climate stories in the TDC Newsroom

Creative Commons License

 This work by The Daily Climate is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

 Based on a work at www.dailyclimate.org

 

 

 

The Daily Climate. 421 Park Street, Suite 4. Charlottesville, VA 22902 About | ContactNews for a changing planet

 

 


 

 

BPA banned in California Baby Bottles

  • CONTACT: EWG public affairs: 510-444-0973 or renee@ewg.org or Bill Allayaud, 916-601-9280
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 5, 2011

Sacramento, Calif. – California parents and parents-to-be are breathing easier with the news that Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation banning the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the state despite fierce opposition from the chemical industry.

Noting that studies showing that BPA has harmful health effects outnumber studies that found no risk by a nine-to-one margin, Renee Sharp, head of the Environmental Working Group’s California office, said it was high time that the Golden State acted to limit children’s exposure to this troublesome chemical. EWG led the fight to pass the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act (Assembly Bill 1319).

“Governor Brown has put the interests of California’s children first in the face of intense lobbying by the chemical industry desperately trying to defend their use of this hazardous chemical in the products of our most vulnerable,” said Sharp.

"The Governor’s action to eliminate BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups is part of reasserting California's leadership on environmental health protections,” said Martha Dina Argüello, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles (PSR-LA). “As physicians and health advocates, we need measures like AB 1319 to help reduce exposure to BPA, since babies and children are most vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals."

“Banning the dangerous chemical BPA in products used by infants is just the kind of protective measure the California Legislature and Governor Brown should be spending their time and energy on," said Elisa Odabashian, West Coast director of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and co-sponsor of the bill. “We applaud them for their leadership.”

The legislation, sponsored by Environmental Working Group and co-sponsored by Consumers Union, Black Women for Wellness, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, requires that BPA be eliminated in baby bottles and sippy cups made or sold after July 1, 2013. It would also require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative substance for these products. The bill had widespread support, including that of the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Medical Association and the state Department of Toxics Substances Control.

“Assembly member Betsy Butler navigated a minefield of poison pill amendments that the industry attempted to get inserted into the bill,” said Bill Allayaud, EWG’s director of governmental affairs for California. “We also acknowledge the heavy lifting that Senator Fran Pavley did to move prior versions of this legislation and support the bill on the Senate side.”

 

 

Letter requesting that EPA Finalize TCE Toxicological Review

Mired in political delays, the toxicological review of one of the more prevalent and potentially harmful chemicals in common use (dry cleaners and industrial manufacturing) has been delayed for many years under the Bush Administration and now under Obama. Many believe this chemical is causing cancer and environmental degradation around the nation. However, without clear risk-based guidance from the EPA, managing the chemical in the environment is difficult.

 

FinalizeTCEReview.pdf

In response to reports in mid-September that U.S. EPA had delayed the release of its Final Toxicological Review for trichloroethylene (TCE), on September 26 more than 50 activists representing 33 TCE-impacted communities in 15 states sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her “to release the TCE Toxicological Review immediately and let the scientists do their work without political interference.”

 


 

 

Solar-powered village rises in nation's capital

University pioneers compete as Republican lawmakers question Obama policy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44625878/ns/us_news-environment/

 

Hundreds of college students from around the U.S., and even a handful of other countries, have been busy this week building a village of solar-powered homes on a park at the nation's capital.

.....

 


 

First Takes: Benyus, Hansen Among Heinz Award Winners, Biofuels Not So Green? & More...

Published September 14, 2011

First Takes: Benyus, Hansen Among Heinz Award Winners, Biofuels Not So Green? & More...

• A Who's-Who of Green Innovation: The winners of the 17th annual Heinz Awards were announced today, and the winners, especially in the environmental category, are an all-star list of people whose work we've covered on GreenBiz.com. Among the winners: Green chemistry guru Paul AnastasRMI founder Amory Lovins, climate scientist James Hansen, andJanine Benyus, who won a Special Focus award for her work in biomimicry. The full list of recipients is here.

• Biofuels' Benefits May Have Been Double-Counted: The European Union may have significantly overestimated the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from burning biofuels, perhapsdouble-counting reductions through a simple accounting error. The news comes in a draft paper from climate scientists, describing how carbon accounting practices do not include how much carbon the crops sequester as they grow. If the findings are supported, it could lead to major changes in estimates for and funding of biofuels programs.

• Iceland's Only Got 11 EVs? With nearly 100 percent of its electricity generated from geothermal and hydroelectric power, Iceland should be "the perfect place to have the world’s first all-electric fleet – plug in your cars at night and drive for next to nothing," writes Michael Vaughan in the Globe and Mail. Instead? He finds traffic jams, debates about oil drilling, and just 11 electric vehicles in the whole country. Read why here.

• Ford, Bug Labs Join Forces on Auto Fuel Efficiency: A new partnership, announced at TechCrunch Disrupt this week, brings gamification to fuel-efficient driving. As one part of a larger partnership between Ford and Bug Labs to bring socially connected vehicles to market, Bug Labs CEO Peter Semmelhackdescribed a prototype "Fuel Economy Challenge" application that gives drivers "real-time access and share performance stats to see who is driving the most efficiently."

• Walmart, SolarCity Expand Solar Partnership in Calif.: Continuing on an ongoing partnership to bring solar power to big boxes, Walmart tomorrow will be holding a press conference to announce that it is expanding its work with SolarCity to bring more solar panels to more of its stories in California.

Photo courtesy of The Heinz Foundation.

 


 

Chemicals Of Concern

Government: Senators ask White House to release EPA’s proposal to create new list of substances

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/89/i38/8938_20110912lnp1.html

 

The White House is under pressure from two democratic senators to release a list of chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency says could endanger human health or the environment. This so-called chemicals of concern list would include eight phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and bisphenol A.

The chemical industry has attempted to block release of EPA’s proposed list over the past year.

Congress granted EPA the authority to create such a list in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was signed into law in 1976. But EPA hasn’t attempted to use this authority until now.

Now, Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) are calling on the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to finish its regulatory review of the EPA list, which it began in May 2010. The list would not propose controls on the chemicals included, but it is nonetheless considered a regulation. Generally, OMB finishes its review of proposed regulations within three or four months.

Lautenberg and Whitehouse, who are sponsoring a bill (S. 847) to modernize TSCA, wrote in a Sept. 9 letter to OMB, “As Congress works toward reform of the law, it is important that EPA is allowed to fully utilize its current authorities under TSCA to provide the public with information on chemicals that might pose unreasonable risk.”

OMB records show that representatives of the chemical industry met with White House officials about the proposed list seven times since June 2010. Such meetings included officials from Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, and Saudi Basic Industries Corp., as well as the trade associations American Chemistry Council and Flexible Vinyl Alliance.

Industry has argued to OMB that placing substances—especially phthalates, a class of compounds widely used in plastics—on the chemicals of concern list would hurt business, contribute nothing to public health, decrease exports, and kill jobs. Before EPA proposes the list, industry wants the agency to lay out criteria for selecting chemicals on it.

It’s unclear how far these industry arguments will go with OMB.

 

 


 

A teaspoon of soil a day keeps the doctor away?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/raw-data-is-dirt-the-new-prozac

 

Is Dirt the New Prozac?

 

 

In a stained mouse brain section, 
blue indicates serotonin-releasing
neurons activated by soil bacteria.

Image courtesy of Christopher Lowry

THE STUDY  “Identification of an Immune-Responsive Mesolimbocortical Serotonergic System: Potential Role in Regulation of Emotional Behavior,” by Christopher Lowry et al., published online on March 28 in Neuroscience.

THE MOTIVE  Some researchers have proposed that the sharp rise in asthma and allergy cases over the past century stems, unexpectedly, from living too clean. The idea is that routine exposure to harmless microorganisms in the environment—soil bacteria, for instance—trains our immune systems to ignore benign molecules like pollen or the dandruff on a neighbor’s dog. Taking this “hygiene hypothesis” in an even more surprising direction, recent studies indicate that treatment with a specific soil bacterium, Mycobacterium vaccae, may be able to alleviate depression. For example, lung cancer patients who were injected with killed M. vaccaereported better quality of life and less nausea and pain. Now a team of neuroscientists and immunologists may have figured out why this works. The bacteria, when injected into mice, activate a set of serotonin-releasing neurons in the brain—the same nerves targeted by Prozac.

THE METHODS  Some studies have found that treatment with M. vaccae, the inoffensive soil bacterium, eases skin allergies, and other reports—such as the cancer study—show that it can improve mood. Christopher Lowry, a neuroscientist at the University of Bristol in England, had a hunch about how this process might work. “What we think happens is that the bacteria activate immune cells, which release chemicals called cytokines that then act on receptors on the sensory nerves to increase their activity,” he says.

 


 

 

 

 

 

Apple criticized for China supply chain pollution

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-apple-china-idUSTRE77U4M620110831

The Apple logo is seen on the company's retail store in downtown San Francisco, California August 25, 2011. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

 

 

Reuters) - Chinese environmental groups accused Apple Inc of turning a blind eye as its suppliers pollute the country, the latest criticism of the technology company's environmental record.

Toxic discharges from "suspected Apple suppliers" have been encroaching on local communities and environments, a coalition of environmental organizations said on Wednesday in a 46-page report alleging efforts to conceal pollution.

Widespread environmental degradation has accompanied China's breakneck economic growth, and the government has been criticized for failing to take steps to curb pollution.

"The large volume of discharge in Apple's supply chain greatly endangers the public's health and safety," said the report, issued on the website of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (www.ipe.org.cn).

The report alleges that 27 suspected Apple suppliers had severe pollution problems, from toxic gases to heavy metal sludge. In one case, the report said, a nearby village experienced a "phenomenal rise in cases of cancer."

Apple has decided to "take advantage of loopholes" in developing countries' environmental management systems to "grab super profits," it said.

Apple does not disclose who its suppliers are. The environmental groups said public documents and five months of research and field investigation led to the findings in the report.

"A large number of IT supplier violation records have already been publicized; however, Apple chooses not to face such information and continues to use these companies as suppliers. This can only be seen as a deliberate refusal of responsibility," the report said.

This is not the first time Apple has been targeted for environmental infractions and its secretive supply chain management in Chinese factories, where it assembles most of its products.

In January, several of the same non-governmental organizations issued a report alleging woeful environmental records for the iPad and iPhone maker's China-based contract manufacturers.

In February, workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in eastern China making touch screens on contract for Apple aired their grievances over a chemical poisoning after using N-Hexane, a toxic solvent.

Apple says it maintains a rigorous auditing regime and all its suppliers are monitored and investigated regularly.

"Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base," Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu told Reuters.

"We require that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made," she said.

Apple is not alone in drawing criticism from environmental groups. Some of the world's leading brands rely on Chinese suppliers that pollute the country's environment with chemicals banned in Europe and elsewhere.

Many Western multinationals -- including toymaker Mattel Inc, which suffered a toxic lead paint scandal in 2007 -- have struggled to regulate product quality across scores of suppliers in knotted Chinese supply chains.

Environmental degradation has emerged as one of the most potent fault lines in Chinese society.

Beijing has repeatedly promised to clean up its stressed environment. But it often fails to match that rhetoric with the resources and political will to enforce its mandates, as local officials put growth, revenue and jobs ahead of environmental protection.

(Reporting by Michael Martina; editing by John Wallace)


 

EPA Removes Confidentiality Claims for More Than 150 Chemicals

 Part of continuing effort to protect Americans’ health by increasing access to chemical information

WASHINGTON – In order to provide the public has as much information as possible about the health and the environmental impacts of chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made public the identities of more than 150 chemicals contained in 104 health and safety studies that had been claimed confidential by industry. Today’s announcement is another in a series of unprecedented actions that EPA is taking to provide the public with greater access to information on the chemicals that are manufactured and used in the United States.

For these 104 studies, the chemical identity will no longer be redacted, or kept from view. The chemicals involved are used in dispersant formulations and consumer products such as air fresheners, non-stick and stain resistant materials, fire resistant materials, nonylphenol compounds, perfluorinated compounds, and lead.

 “This action to disclose the identity of more than 150 chemicals is an important step in EPA’s commitment to give the American people access to critical information about chemicals that their children and families may be exposed to,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “A health and safety study with the chemical name kept secret is completely useless to the public.” 

In 2010, EPA challenged industry to voluntarily declassify unwarranted claims of confidential business information (CBI). The agency also issued new guidance outlining plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Based on this guidance, EPA notified a number of companies in February 2011 that the agency had determined that their CBI claim was not eligible for confidential treatment under TSCA and that EPA intended to make the information public.  

The health and safety studies include some declassified by the agency and other voluntary declassifications by companies in response to EPA’s challenge. EPA is committed to posting new declassified materials under TSCA on the agency website on a regular basis.

In addition to these actions, EPA over the past several months has taken a number of other steps to make chemical information more readily available. The agency has provided the public, for the first time ever, with free access to the consolidated TSCA Inventory on the EPA and Data.Gov websites. EPA also launched a new chemical data access tool that for the first time gives the public the ability to electronically search EPA’s database of more than 10,000 health and safety documents on a wide range of chemicals that they may come in contact with every day. EPA will continue to take actions to increase the public’s access to chemical information. 

 

More information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency.html

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

View all news releases related to pesticides and toxic chemicals

 


 

 

 

Autism Experts Urge Reform of U.S. Chemicals Law

WASHINGTON, DC, June 8, 2011 (ENS) - Environmental health and autism experts Tuesday called for reform of the outdated U.S. law regulating chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

They warned that the recent sharp rise in autism is likely due, in part, to the cocktail of toxic chemicals that pregnant women, fetuses, babies and young children encounter.

"Lead, mercury, and other neurotoxic chemicals have a profound effect on the developing brain at levels that were once thought to be safe. With some complex combination of insults, little brains reach a tipping point," warned Donna Ferullo, director of program research at The Autism Society, told reporters on a conference call convened by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition.

The nationwide coalition represents more than 11 million people, including parents, health professionals, advocates for people with learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive health advocates, environmentalists and businesses.

Today in the United States, about one in every 110 children has autism, a disorder of neural development characterized by abnormalities of social interactions and communication, severely restricted interests and highly repetitive behavior. Boys are affected more than girls - one in every 70 boys will have autism.

Ferullo called autism the "fastest growing developmental disability in the United States."

"It has increased 600 percent in the last two decades - 1.5 million Americans are living with autism," she said. "This epidemic within one generation cannot be solely accounted for by genetic causes, or wider diagnostic criteria or even increased awareness."

Baby boy asleep on a breastfeeding pillow (Photo credit unknown)

Current research and past twin studies, where twins have the same genes but different environments, implicate environmental exposures and gene-environment interaction in the development of autism, Ferullo said.

"Developing fetuses, young children, and their parents are exposed to many more chemicals than in the 1970s when the Toxic Substances Control Act became law," she said.

"Today, to a mother carrying BPA, mercury, phthalates, and brominated flame retardants, is born a baby with 200 contaminmants already in its cord blood," said Ferullo. "The developing brain is exquisitely sensitive to environmental exposures from conception through childhood."

A new study of products designed for newborns, babies and toddlers, including car seats, breastfeeding pillows, changing pads and other items made with polyurethane foam, found that 80 percent of products tested contained chemical flame retardants that are considered toxic. The peer-reviewed study was published in May in the "Environmental Science & Technology Journal."

Four products contained penta-BDE, a substance so toxic it is banned in 172 countries and 12 U.S. states, and is subject to a national phaseout. Fourteen products contained TCEP, a carcinogenic flame retardant on California's Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing chemicals.

Other detected retardants had so little health and safety data on them that their effects are currently unknown. The study found that the same flame retardants are also in children's bodies and widely dispersed throughout the environment and in food.

Teething on soft plastic releases phthlates, plasticizers known to disrupt the endocrine system. (Photo credit unknown)

"We know that little people tend to bite, lick, mouth, wet and fully experience these products, and absorb more potentially toxic chemicals than adults by both habits and percentage of small body weight," said Ferullo.

"For example, a wet mattress sends an entirely new combination of untested vapors into a small, vulnerable system. Frequent and multiple exposures to chemicals, combined with an inadequate detoxification pathway, do not ensure healthy development of the brain and immune system," she said.

Irva Hertz-Piccotto, PhD, chief of the Division of Environmental Health at University of California, Davis and a faculty member at the Mind Institute, said because the fetus responds to hormones from the mother, researchers need to look to endocrine-disrupting chemicals for causes of autism.

She, too, pointed a finger at PBDEs, the flame retardants used in consumer products. "Most are banned now, but because they are persistent in the environment and in the body, they still interfere with healthy development," she said.

Bisphenol A, a plasticizer in food packaging, water bottles and can linings, as well as antimicrobials added to soaps, towels, toothpastes and socks could potentially play a role in autism or other disorders," Hertz-Piccotto warned.

"We are at the beginnings of understanding," she said, explaining that the entire of scientific community was "derailed by blame-the-parent publications in the 1960s. This has set us back."

Suruchi Chandra, MD, is a psychiatrist at the True Health Medical Center in Naperville, Illinois, where she guides families through the different biomedical interventions for autism and related disorders.

She said doctors "don't even consider influence of environmental toxins" because they have no training in this field.

Football team for boys with autism, Ohio (Photo credit unknown)

Autism could be due to prolonged exposure over years to many toxins, she said. "There is no simple way of measuring this."

"I teach parents to avoid exposure to toxics, to avoid high pesticide foods, to use nontoxic cleaners. These strategies can be beneficial but they place these overstressed families in the position where they have to be hypervigilant."

"There is only so much parents can do," Chandra said. "Even if home is free of toxins, the child goes to school where toxins are. This points to the need for improved policies that regulate chemicals."

Lisa Huguenin, PhD, knows this from her experience as the mother of a nine-year-old boy with autism.

Huguenin has a doctorate in environmental science/exposure measurement and assessment from Rutgers University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. She has worked at the state and federal levels in the area of occupational exposure to toxic chemicals and has taught college level classes on the subject.

"If I, a person well educated about human exposure to chemicals, still have questions and worry about the safety of products I buy every day," said Huguenin, so does the ordinary person."

"There is no reason a chemical that goes into a children's product can be marketed without being tested," she said.

"It costs $3 million to raise a child with autism as compared with a cost of $300,000 to raise a typical child," said Huguenin. "It's time to stop field testing chemcials on one of our most vulnerable populations - children."

Reform the Toxic Substances Control Act now, she urged, saying, "Every passing moment means another child might have to suffer, like my son Harrison."

An autistic boy flaps his hand (Photo credit unknown)

Since 1976 when the Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted, very little data has been collected on the effects of most chemicals used widely in everyday products on the developing nervous system.

For most of the 3,000 chemicals produced in highest volume, over one million pounds per year, only 12 have been adequately tested for neurotoxicity.

Andy Igrejas, national campaign director with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said the pending Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, introduced earlier this year by New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat, could help alleviate autism and other serious health problems.

Igrejas said the relevant chairmen in the House, Republicans Fred Upton, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Environment and chair of the Economy Subcommittee John Shimkus, said they are "open to reforming" the chemicals law.

The bill would require most chemicals to be given a basic level of health and safety screening by the U.S. EPA and the information recorded in a publicly available database. The agency would rely on recommendations made by the National Science Academy in 2008, which called for assessment of cumulative exposure to different chemicals that all impact the brain.

"We have 84,000 chemicals in commerce and only five have been restricted," Igrejas said.

He sees a groundswell of public opinion building in favor of better legislation governing chemical testing. "There's momentum and legitimacy behind the need for reform nationally," he told reporters on the teleconference.

Eighteen states have enacted 78 different laws restricting chemicals in some way, Igrejas explained. In addition, 280 organizations in the coalition's campaign, the American Assocation of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and other professional organizations have called for reform.

Copyright Environment News Service,ENS, 2011. All rights reserved.

 


 

You get what your vegetables drink

Many may be surprised by what they might find in the water they use for their gardens

By Mechele Cooper mcooper@centralmaine.com
Staff Writer

 

Denis Thoet tests his well every year for bacteria.

 

click image to enlarge

Alice Elliott, left, and her husband Dan Tompkins talk about herbs and greens growing in the hoop house recently in the backyard of their Richmond home.

Staff photo by Joe Phelan

click image to enlarge

Alice Elliott has lettuce, greens and herbs growing in the hoop house in the backyard of her Richmond home.

Staff photo by Joe Phelan

Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

 

But the West Gardiner vegetable farmer said he never thought to check for arsenic or uranium, known carcinogens.

An estimated 11 percent of Maine homes with private wells have high levels of arsenic above current health benchmarks, as many as 20 percent have elevated radon levels and an estimated 4 percent have elevated uranium levels, according to state statistics.

And while the state has a robust safety program for public water supplies, there are no regulations for these substances in private wells.

That has some of the more environmentally sensitive gardeners questioning what they're putting on their plants.

"I suppose it's a potential area to have tested for irrigation water," Thoet said. "We have a pond we do part of our irrigation from, and want to use it for more of that. It's a combination of runoff water and spring water.

"We haven't tested that for anything yet. There's usually some kind of bacteria from general runoff that's fine for irrigation water but not for human consumption."

In elevated levels, arsenic has been linked to certain types of cancers, childhood learning disabilities, heart disease and low birth rates. Uranium can affect the kidneys, according to the centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just how much of those contaminants are absorbed by plants we eat? And how much plant-based uranium and arsenic is safe to consume?

Bruce Stanton, director of the Center for the Environmental Health Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School, said one in 10 of Maine's private wells has levels of arsenic higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contaminant limit, 10 micrograms per liter.

Stanton said there are wells in Maine with arsenic levels as high as 5,000 parts per billion and that it is not uncommon to find wells with levels exceeding 100 parts per billion.

He said a good example of a food that absorbs arsenic is rice.

"Rice cereals and biscuits have levels of inorganic arsenic which could easily be consumed in doses well above that found in drinking water," Stanton said.

Toxin levels in one cup of rice -- a grain used as a base in processed foods -- are equivalent to that found in one liter of water contaminated with 10 parts per billion of arsenic, he said.

He said any "pesticide-free" claim on containers "lulls the consumer into a false sense of security about the product's safety."

"Some people on special diets drink rice milk," he said. "Rice milk has been measured at 50 parts per billion."

Andrew Smith, state toxicologist, said he relies on a greenhouse study from the mid 1990s that measures the amounts of arsenic a plant takes up from contaminated water.

Smith said John Jemison, a cooperative extension water quality and soil specialist, grew vegetables in a greenhouse and used water with different levels of arsenic concentrations. He said Jemison used concentrations of 5, 50, 500 and 5,000 parts per billion.

"We've actually seen 5,000 parts per billion in Maine and clearly at 5,000 he was seeing moderate increases in Swiss chard and beet roots," Smith said. "At 500, he got a little bit in deep roots; and at 5 and 50, he couldn't detect any increases.

"So if we're dealing with someone who has 500, we suggest caution when using water for gardens. This just reinforces the importance of testing well water."

Smith said a study by A.C. Hakonson-Hayes and associates assessed the risks from exposure to uranium in well water. The study looked at irrigating plants with water containing high uranium concentrations. Over 1,200 micrograms per liter was the highest.

"They used lettuce, radishes, tomatoes and squash and could see: as the concentrations increased, the concentration in the crops increased," he said.

Jemison said vegetation absorbs larger amounts of uranium than arsenic, with the roots of plants and leafy vegetables absorbing the most.

"The (Center for Disease Control) folks said the uranium you consume via vegetables out of your garden is small relative to what you might find in drinking water," he said. "The uptake in greens or radishes is not going to be very much. If somebody is still concerned and just don't want to eat small amounts of uranium, we have other options for them. Collect water in rain barrels and use the water to water your plants. Or they can do drip irrigation off of those barrels."

Alice Elliott, a master gardener from Richmond, said a rainwater collection system is a safe way to water your garden. It can be as simple as a rain barrel at the end of a downspout.

"If you set up a rain barrel, that catches water off your roof. The quality of that roof water will pretty good," Elliott said.

Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, agreed.

"Of course, now we're dealing with detectable amounts of (radiation) flying all around the world, so there's no perfect thing," Libby said. "I've been using rain barrels for decades. I have a metal roof and get more water than I can use."

Radioactive rain from the Japanese nuclear disaster has been detected in Massachusetts' drinking water supply. The University of Maine, which is part of a nationwide network that monitors radiation, has also found trace amounts in Maine.

Libby said most large-scale organic farmers get their water from farm ponds, not wells. Pumping water from a well is an expensive way to grow vegetables, he said.

Joseph Graziano of Colombia University said last year third-, fourth- and fifth-graders in Maine towns including Monmouth, Hallowell, Farmingdale, Manchester, Readfield and Wayne took part in a study by Columbia University and the University of New Hampshire tracking the effects of arsenic on children.

He said the results, which won't be known for another year, will help researchers better understand what levels of arsenic are safe in well water in Maine and in other parts of the world where contamination is much worse, such as Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, 77 million people -- more than half the population -- have been exposed to dangerous levels of arsenic in the groundwater.

A study done by the Applied Research Laboratory, Department of Chemistry at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh found garden vegetables grown in arsenic-tainted soil may uptake and accumulate significant amounts of arsenic in their tissue.

Smith said more people need to test their wells for contaminants that pose a health risk.

Since 2009, only 42 percent of Maine's private wells have been tested for arsenic, he said.

Water sample kits are available at Maine's Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory in Augusta and independent testing laboratories. A list can be found at http://wellwater.maine.gov/.

"It's good to know this information and we at the extension are available to help talk people through water treatment options and drinking water systems," Jemison said. "We want people to test their water."

Mechele Cooper -- 623-3811, ext. 408

mcooper@centralmaine.com

 

 

 


 

 

Harm From Mercury Passes Down Through Generations

 

Ecotoxicology: Maternal and dietary exposures in American toads have lethal effects when combined

 

 

American toads struggle to survive a double whammy of mercury exposureShutterstock

American toads struggle to survive a double whammy of mercury exposure.

Traditional ecotoxicology studies that probe one toxic exposure at a time may consistently underestimate real-world hazards. That's the conclusion of researchers who studied the effects on tadpoles of mercury passed from a mother's tissues to her eggs and of mercury in the tadpoles' diet. The effects were synergistic and deadly: Only tadpoles exposed to both sources of mercury died off in large numbers (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI:10.1021/es104210a).

Scientists who study how contaminants affect juvenile development in birds, fish, and amphibians typically look at just one of two exposure routes: contaminant transfer from mother to eggs or environmental exposure from water or diet.  "Both routes are usually tested in isolation even though they often coincide in nature," says William Hopkins, an associate professor of fish and wildlife conservation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Scientists had found that juvenile American toads exposed to mercury by either route can suffer sublethal consequences. To combine exposures, Hopkins,Christine Bergeron, and their colleagues collected toads from a mercury-contaminated river near Waynesboro, Va. In the laboratory, they divided eggs harvested from breeding pairs into two groups: a non-contaminated reference group and a contaminated group. Hatchlings from each group then ate clean control diets or diets treated with mercury at one of two concentrations, each no higher than what's ordinarily measured in Waynesboro, Hopkins says.

The researchers then looked at the two exposure routes individually. Tadpoles hatched from contaminated eggs suffered more toxicity than did tadpoles that hatched from clean eggs but ate mercury-spiked food. The maternally exposed tadpoles swam more slowly and took a longer time to develop into adult toads.

But the combined effect was lethal at the higher dietary concentration to tadpoles from contaminated eggs. These animals experienced 50% greater mortality compared to tadpoles hatched from clean eggs that ate clean food. Hopkins says he doesn't know how the two routes interact to produce synergistic effects. The two routes of exposure cause different sublethal effects, he says. "That suggests they act on different physiological processes, or that the timing of exposure is influential with respect to outcome," he says. "But the net result of these multiple disruptions is mortality." 

Jason Rohr, an assistant professor of integrative biology at the University of South Florida, in Tampa, says that this could be the first study to combine these routes of exposure in amphibians. But Rohr cautions that in the real world, the results apply only to situations where the dual exposures occur.  And that varies, he adds, according to species mobility: In some species, offspring may move away from where their mother laid eggs, and toward or away from contaminants.

"This is a great foundational study but it's just a beginning," Rohr says. "We need to see if the results hold up with other species and other chemicals."

 


 

The Electric Car Strikes Back?

Chris Paine, director of Revenge of the Electric CarImages courtesy of the filmmakers

The director of Who Killed the Electric Car? on his new film, his personal fleet, and why he thinks EVs are ready to rise from the dead.

— By Kiera Butler

Mon May. 2, 2011 2:30 AM PDT

Back in 2006, the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? revealed how various industry players—including petroleum companies and car manufacturers themselves—conspired to sabotage the launch of the first electric vehicles. But shortly after the film was released, its director, Chris Paine, began to hear rumblings of an electric car comeback. "I started an email correspondence with GM," recalls Paine. "I said, 'we thought you had a great car and we were upset that you killed it. But if you're going to do it right, I'm going to tell the story, since it's not often that companies change their minds on big decisions like that.'" Sure enough, a few years later the next wave of electric cars have hit the market—and Paine's sequel, Revenge of the Electric Car, tells the story of what happened. I spoke to Paine shortly after his film's Earth Day premiere.

Mother Jones: What's changed since Who Killed the Electric Car?

Chris Paine: There was a lot of blowback after the first programs were killed. Consumers were saying, 'If we have to have cars, why are only bad cars available? Why do we have to rely on the Middle East?' So the right and the left came around—afor security reasons and environmental reasons—and then the car industry itself, which realized no one was buying cars when gas hit $4 a gallon in 2008. And here we are in 2011, with gas prices going nowhere but up, and there is a serious international consensus that you have to have higher miles-per-gallon cars.

MJ: Are oil companies still trying to interfere with electric cars?

CP: I'm sure the gasoline companies would still love to keep their 100 percent monopoly on transportation fuel. But what's changed since then is the fact that almost all the refineries in the US are at 100 percent production right now. They can't even keep up with demands for gasoline. So the last thing they want is to be caught driving up prices while at the same time they are publicly coming down, like they did last time on electric cars. So I think they're staying out of the way this time. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes, but they're not running ads against electric cars or claiming they're unsafe like they did last time.

MJ: Can electric cars save Detroit?

CP: I think electric cars can help save Detroit. They reflect good decision-making, and there has been bad decision making in the auto industry for so long, in my view. In the course of filming Revenge of the Electric Car I became a little more sympathetic to the car industry in terms the way it impacts the global economy. Not just in Detroit in the obvious ways, but the workers in this industry all around the world. Also, lots of things that progressives like, like the show The West Wing, were largely supported by car advertising. This stuff went away when Detroit started to go under.

MJ: But what about batteries? Aren't people still nervous that electric cars can't go far enough?

CP: I like to take folks back to the turn of the century when people said 'gas cars can never replace horses because you can feed horses at your house, you get along with them, they're nice.' Well the same thing is true today. Obviously the horse can still do things that the gas car can never do, and the gas car will always be able to do things the electric car can't do. But they have really different uses and advantages.

MJ: Sure electric cars are greener than gas cars in states that use lots of renewable energy. But what about in coal states?

CP: There are studies that show that EVs still result in overall savings on energy and emissions, even in coal states. Plus, what oil companies don't want you to know is that refineries use a huge amount of electricity in refining gasoline. And that's usually not even figured into reports about gas cars' overall energy use.

MJ: How much of the electric cars push is just car companies greenwashing?

CP: In the case of all the carmakers, there's a certain amount of greenwash. Take Toyota: They were pushing the Prius while they were meanwhile marketing the hell out of the Sequoia and other models with terrible gas mileage. And they were using the Prius to trade off on their emissions standards. All these guys use the environmental car to greenwash the rest of the label. But the reality is that this is actually where we should be going. And if these cars gain traction, they'll start making money on them. And instead of making their margins on the SUVs, they'll start making those margins on electric cars, and that will become their bread and butter.

MJ: Do you think China will beat the US in the race to develop the best electric car technology?

CP: I think China is set up to surpass the US on the even more critical industry of green power. Thomas Friedman says it's not red China anymore, it's green China. And not because they care about the environment necessarily, but because they want to dominate this industry where they see everything going to once they hit peak oil. They hope we waste a lot of time arguing about whether global warming is man-made or not, because every day we waste time they get another day ahead with windmills and solar panels and electric cars and charging infrastructure. Our electric cars are still better. They're much better than China's BYD. I think the US has an arguable advantage right now in this area and I hope we can keep it.

MJ: Of the electric cars currently on the market, which do you think is the best?

CP: Really they're all for different purposes. I bought one of each of these cars at full market price. My girlfriend primarily drives the Leaf. It's a high-riding car—makes you feel like you're almost in a mini SUV. It's much roomier than I expected. I traded my Prius in to get a Volt. I was most skeptical of the Volt, and I've probably also been the most impressed by it. When the doors shut you feel like you're in a submarine. It's very well insulated.

MJ: What are the biggest challenges for electric cars?

CP: We're still in the midst of a recession. There are not a ton of people buying cars—cars are expensive. So people usually go for the cheapest car they can get. And if the price of gasoline falls again, it makes the savings that you get with an electric car harder to realize. Low gas prices could really delay this. The other thing that could delay it is people not wanting to take a chance on changing what they think of as a car. Resistance to change is always the biggest obstacle.

MJ: What's your next project?

CP: We just launched it—it's called CounterSpill. We're taking on the biggest non-renewable energy disasters in the world and keeping them on the front page rather than buried in the news cycle or the corporate spin cycle. Oil companies earned a permanent enemy in me when they messed with the electric car the first time around, and I think they continue to do a disservice in making it seem like fossil fuels are cheaper than they really are in terms of total cost. We want to point out that solar, for example—which has typically been thought of as so expensive—is cheap when compared with, for example, the cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf.

Got a burning eco-quandary? Submit it to econundrums@motherjones.com. Get all your green questions answered by visiting Econundrums on Facebook here.

 

 


 

 

Soils Of Northern U.S. Forests Are High In Mercury

Pollution: Carbon-rich northern soil may sequester the toxic metal

 

Sara Peach

    

 

TOXIC METAL Slow decomposition of plant matter in cool northern forests may foster mercury accumulation.

 

 

The carbon-rich soils in northern U.S. forests contain up to 16 times as much mercury as do soils in southern forests, according to a new study conducted in 10 states (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es104384m).

Between 5,000 and 8,000 tons of mercury, a toxic metal, enter the atmosphere annually, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. While natural sources, such as volcanoes, emit some of the mercury, much of it originates from industrial sources, such as coal-burning power plants. Some of the mercury settles in forests, where trees, leaf litter, and soil absorb it.

Anthropogenic mercury has accumulated in forests since the Industrial Revolution. As a result, scientists suspect that globally, forests could store tens to hundreds of thousands of tons of the metal, says the study's lead author,Daniel Obrist, an associate research professor at the Desert Research Institute, the environmental research arm of the Nevada System of Higher Education.

But researchers know little about the geographical distribution of those mercury deposits, Obrist says. Nor do they have a clear understanding of whether a warming climate could cause that mercury to cycle more quickly into the atmosphere. Scientists want to understand mercury's fate because it can wash from the atmosphere or from forest floors to water bodies, where it can accumulate in the aquatic food chain.

So Obrist's team conducted a systematic inventory of mercury concentrations in 14 forests across the continental U.S. They collected 12 soil samples from each forest. In the lab, the researchers freeze-dried and milled the samples. Then, they analyzed the samples' mercury and carbon concentrations.

The researchers found that, in general, soils at higher latitudes contained more mercury than those at lower latitudes. For example, mercury concentrations were an average of 16 times higher in soil samples collected from a forest in Howland, Maine, than they were in samples from Gainesville, Fla. The researchers think that the low latitudes' greater sun exposure, which can cause mercury evaporation, shortens the metal's lifetime in southern soils and could drive migration of the metal from south to north.

Greater mercury concentrations also correlated with higher carbon content, likely because mercury often binds to organic molecules, Obrist says. High carbon levels may help explain why northern forest soils contain more mercury, he says. In cool climates, organic matter decomposes slowly, which may enable mercury to accumulate in the soil, he says.

But climate change could disrupt this pattern, says Sue Natali, a postdoctoral fellow in the biology department at theUniversity of Florida. Rising temperatures could speed decomposition rates, leading mercury to escape to the atmosphere and to eventually pollute water bodies.

That process could be a particular concern at northern latitudes, which are warming more quickly than the rest of the globe, Obrist says. Research on this question should continue, he says: "We have very, very little experimental data that shows what actually happens with mercury if we lose the carbon."

 


 

 

 

2011-04-19 Impact Of Nuclear Radiation On Marine Life

    2011-04-19 13:56:47     CRIENGLISH.com      Web Editor: Wu You

 

Officials in Japan have repeatedly said radiation levels in its food supply do not pose a risk to human health. And officials in the US said North Pacific fish are so unlikely to be contaminated by radioactive material from the crippled nuclear plant in Japan that there's no reason to test them.
Guests:
Elizabeth Grossman,
-Author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books.
William Burnett,
-The Carl Henry Oppenheimer Professor of Oceanography, Department of Oceanography, Florida State University.
Dr. Henrieta Dulaiova, 
-Assistant Professor, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Hawaii.
Hour 1 
Hour 2 

http://english.cri.cn/8706/2011/04/19/2861s632833.htm

 

 


 

An Emerging Pollutant Circles The Globe

 

 

Many personal care products such as deodorants, shampoo, conditioner, cosmetics, and lotions owe their quick-drying, silky feel to ingredients known as cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS). But the compounds are currently under regulatory scrutiny in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. because scientists think they may persist and bioaccumulate in the environment.

Although researchers have previously measured the presence of cVMS at several sites, a team of regulatory, academic, and industry researchers now reports the first global-scale study of cVMS distribution in air (Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1021/es200301j. It found the compounds in 20 sites around the world, including pristine Arctic environments and industrial areas in the U.S. Northeast.

One of the cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes, D5, appears in high levels in the eastern U.S. and Europe.

One of the cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes, D5, appears in high levels in the eastern U.S. and Europe.

The team, led by Tom Harner, a senior research scientist at Environment Canada, measured the presence of four kinds of cVMS: D3, D4, D5, and D6, which stand for hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane, respectively. Harner's team found cVMS to be "widespread globally," he says. The compounds are "present at relatively high air concentrations compared to other classes of air contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants," he adds, "including polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides."

The researchers also found that concentrations of all four cVMS were not geographically uniform. They measured high concentrations of D3 and D4 on the West Coast of North America. Harner suspects these chemicals potentially come from industrial Asian sources such as China and travel across the Pacific in air streams. The team found high levels of D5 and D6 in urban areas in the eastern U.S. and Europe, which are "most likely due to personal care product use," he says.

Whether the presence of these chemicals causes problems in the environment is hotly debated. Studies have reached opposing conclusions about potential health effects for aquatic wildlife such as fish. An industry association, theSilicones Environmental, Health and Safety Council of North America, argues in an online position paperthat "siloxanes do not pose a risk to human health or the environment."

The study's finding of the extensive presence of cVMS in the air around the world was no surprise, comments Nicholas Warner, an environmental scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research's Polar Environmental Centre, in Tromsø, because computer modeling of global concentrations had predicted it. However, he appreciates the agreement between data and models because it raises confidence in recently developed models of how these emerging pollutants move around the world. The models required new algorithms to accommodate unusual properties of vCMS: their rapid evaporation and extreme hydrophobicity.

Although 90% of all cVMS emissions end up in the air, hydroxyl radicals quickly break down the molecules to silanols, Warner says. Compared to vCMS, the silanol break-down products "are less volatile and therefore more likely to be deposited to surfaces from air," Harner says. His team argues for research into possible environmental impacts of silanols.

The remaining 10% of cVMS emissions end up in water systems, likely from personal care products flushed down the drain. Most of the concerns about the environmental impacts of cVMS stem from the water-based cVMS rather than the air-based cVMS, Warner explains. A recent study reported cVMS levels in watersheds.

Measuring cVMS concentrations without contaminating samples is challenging because the molecules exist in in silicon-based lab equipment as well as in a potpourri of personal care products used by researchers handling study samples. Some researchers go to great lengths to avoid sample contamination, such as eschewing all personal care products while in the field. Warner notes that Harner's team adsorbed cVMS on polyurethane foam disks, which are known to contain cVMS. The team did preclean the equipment to remove possible contaminating cVMS, but Warner would like to see proof that there was no sample contamination. If the Environment Canada team's precleaning method successfully removes all cVMS, Warner says, it would be a great tool for further field work.

 

 

 


 

Environmental Toxins and Fertility - Why One Group Is Leading the Way

 

NEW YORK, March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- With Earth Day right around the corner, The American Fertility Association (The AFA), a national, non-profit, family-building organization, has positioned itself as a leader in creating a greener world for all those trying to conceive. There's mounting evidence that numerous environmental factors may have an effect on fertility and on the health of developing fetuses. We have advanced this conversation within the world of reproductive medicine, and our commitment to raising awareness about it continues today.

The AFA is one of the leading voices on environmental toxicity and reproductive health. We have published an innovative informational fact sheet titled, "The Dirty Dozen" (http://www.theafa.org/blog_images/Dirty_Dozen.pdf), which outlines the top twelve chemicals that both men and women should avoid to help increase their ability to conceive a child. Our Infertility Prevention Handbook (http://www.theafa.org/blog_images/MM_EDUCATION_2011.pdf) further highlights the possible negative effects of environmental toxins while also discussing other challenges, such as the biological clock and STI's. In addition, The AFA has spoken at numerous college campuses and at special events in restaurants and nail salons around the country in an effort to increase people's knowledge about environmental toxins and infertility prevention.

The AFA has published over 50 blogs on this topic, and is excited to now work with a cutting edge authority on reproductive health and environmental toxins. We're thrilled to announce that Karin Russ, MS, RN, who is the National Coordinator, Fertility and Reproductive Health Working Group with Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), has recently become an AFA blogger.

Environmental toxins affect more than just fertility. Recently, experts at a United Nations meeting called for action to address preventable environmental and occupational causes of cancer which are responsible for 1.3 million deaths each year. The AFA urges the owners of factories and businesses, both large and small, to make the changes needed to protect both their workers and the health of the general public. This includes the greening of chemically laden nail salons, which can be a "toxic soup" environment for salon workers. "The AFA is proud to be a thought leader in this arena, and looks forward to definitive answers being realized," says Ken Mosesian, Executive Director of The AFA. Mosesian continues, "We recognize that more research is urgently needed."

About The AFA

The American Fertility Association, a 501 (c) (3) national non-profit organization, is a lifetime resource for infertility prevention, reproductive health and family building. The AFA's services and materials are provided free of charge to consumers and are available to everyone without reservation. These include an extensive online library, a daily blog, telephone and in-person coaching, a resource directory, daily fertility news, a toll-free support line, and education outreach events.

Media Contact:


Merry Armentrout
Director of Communications, The AFA
205-470-9406 Cell
Merry@TheAFA.org
http://www.theafa.org/


 

 

 


 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.