Please note that you can always go directly to: http://www.iceh.org/LDDI.html to find out the latest updates, download "Practice Prevention" columns, and access other useful resources.
To join the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), please complete the form at http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html.
An article by Theo Colburn at the University of Florida is now posted on the LDDI Resources web page: www.iceh.org/LDDIpublications.html. Titled "A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides: A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment", the article is from the January issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.
Abstract
The quality and quantity of the data about the risk posed to humans by individual pesticides vary considerably. Unlike obvious birth defects, most developmental effects cannot be seen at birth or even later in life. Instead, brain and nervous system disturbances are expressed in terms of how an individual behaves and functions, which can vary considerably from birth through adulthood. In this article I challenge the protective value of current pesticide risk assessment strategies in light of the vast numbers of pesticides on the market and the vast number of possible target tissues and end points that often differ depending upon timing of exposure. Using the insecticide chlorpyrifos as a model, I reinforce the need for a new approach to determine the safety of all pesticide classes. Because of the uncertainty that will continue to exist about the safety of pesticides, it is apparent that a new regulatory approach to protect human health is needed. Key words: adverse effects, behavior, chlorpyrifos, fetal development, human function, neurodevelopment, pesticides, toxicity.
by Peter Waldman, Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2005
http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB113582468652933598.html%3Fmod%3Darticle-outset-box
For a look at how science advocacy by industry works, consider a symposium held to discuss perchlorate, a military chemical that taints some drinking-water supplies and that the Environmental Protection Agency seeks to regulate.
The host was the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The aim was "a critical and objective evaluation" of research on the chemical, a university official later said. But while the university lent its imprimatur and thus credibility to the event, the symposium was paid for by defense contractors and the Pentagon and orchestrated by industry consultants, who kept evidence of their own role to a minimum. Afterward, the Pentagon dispatched six conference participants to present the event's conclusions to a National Research Council panel that was evaluating perchlorate for the U.S. government. Intertox Inc., a consulting firm that advises defense contractors, billed them about $75,000 for organizing the September 2003 event, an invoice shows. University documents show that Intertox chose the format and agenda and selected the experts who would appear.
One session evaluated studies of the chemical's effects on developing brains of rats. Two of the four scientists Intertox picked for this panel previously had severely criticized the studies. A third panel member, Andrea Elberger of the University of Tennessee, says that when she was recruited by the head of Intertox, Richard Pleus, he didn't mention he worked for perchlorate users. The fourth reviewer was a consultant to the defense industry, who presented a blistering attack on the rat research without EPA rebuttal.
Dr. Pleus says that speaker was inserted at the last minute, and an EPA scientist who'd been invited to balance his comments couldn't attend. Dr. Pleus also said he didn't recall what he had said when recruiting Dr. Elberger of Tennessee. And, in a written reply to questions, Dr. Pleus said that at the symposium as a whole, which had several other panels, most reviewers knew nothing about perchlorate ahead of time, and those who did added valuable expertise.
The event brought the university a total of $64,500 in fees, profits and a faculty grant, documents show. It's common for universities to accept funding from interested parties for research and conferences, but usually the university, not the interested parties, plans the events. In this case, the university -- which disclosed the industry sponsorship in the program and in a Web site -- formed a four-member planning committee for the three-day symposium. On it were Dr. Pleus, another industry consultant and two professors at the medical center.
A university internal memo said that "Intertox preferred to be a 'silent' player in the planning process." Intertox staffers drafted most symposium correspondence, and the documents then were sent to the university for distribution on its letterhead with faculty signatures. To simplify things, Intertox obtained electronic signatures by the two university professors on the planning committee.
In a letter of understanding with the university, Intertox removed mention of its "assistance" in arranging the event's content, speakers, format and funding. When a university planner emailed Intertox a draft announcement of the event and asked if it was "OK to mention Intertox," an Intertox employee responded by deleting the reference to the firm.
Dr. Pleus called these "trivial" matters in which Intertox, which is based in Seattle, was merely editing papers for accuracy. Dr. Pleus, who did a postdoctoral program in pharmacology at the University of Nebraska a decade ago and is an adjunct professor there, denied that his consulting firm tried to be a silent organizer. He described the professors on the planning committee as "distinguished scientists [who] would have been outraged at such an arrangement."
Dr. Pleus said his "active role" in developing the symposium was "highly transparent," and "all substantive decisions were made by consensus of the planning committee." He said his consulting firm performed "clerical and administrative functions as a courtesy to university faculty and staff" and never took "any surreptitious action under the cover of the university's authority." He said the symposium exceeded the EPA's standards for objectivity in peer reviews.
The university asked one of the professors on the planning committee, William Berndt, to respond to questions. He deferred to Dr. Pleus's responses in many cases but said, "Obviously, we at UNMC were aware that Dr. Pleus had consulted with the Perchlorate Study Group," which is a group of defense contractors that, documents show, paid Intertox about $465,000 in 2002. Dr. Berndt also said, "This conference was like any other conference I've been associated with. This was an independent conference."
After it closed, the university medical center issued a news release under its letterhead that spoke of the reviewers' "questions" about the "basic assumptions" of the EPA's risk assessment of the munitions chemical. University documents show the announcement was mostly written by a Sacramento, Calif., public-relations firm that works for users of perchlorate. Dr. Pleus said he brought in the P.R. firm "because they were knowledgeable on the subject and [the university] had limited resources."
by Peter Waldman, Wall Street Journal
December 29, 2005
http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB113582298415233567.html%3Fmod%3Dtodays_us_page_one
Four years ago, while U.S. troops were toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Environmental Protection Agency lobbed a different sort of bombshell at the Defense Department. EPA scientists recommended strictly regulating a chemical that is a key component of munitions, but that has seeped into drinking-water supplies.
The EPA said it had determined that the chemical, called perchlorate, endangers babies' brain development when present even at trace levels. As a prelude to possible formal regulation, it proposed declaring that a safe level of the chemical in drinking water would be just one part per billion. That's an amount so minute it wouldn't even have been detectable a few years ago.
Pentagon officials were aghast. Defense suppliers had discharged massive quantities of the chemical into soil and streams during the Cold War, and they still need it for weaponry. Such a strict limit could mean the Pentagon and defense contractors would have to clean up scores of water sources in 35 states and even the mighty Colorado River, with its water flow of 67,000 gallons a second at the Hoover Dam.
Fearing both costs and possible curbs on arms production, the Pentagon took its case to the White House, which told the EPA to stand down while an outside scientific panel looked at the issues. The panel then issued a middle-ground report that has left some senior EPA scientists deeply unhappy and the Pentagon still pressing for the minimum possible cleanup.
The standoff, involving two high-profile federal agencies, shows how the burgeoning science of low-dose chemical exposure is raising both the stakes and the stratagems in today's pollution fights. There's no question perchlorate interferes with the body's ability to make thyroid hormone, a substance that everyone needs but babies especially so. The question is how much exposure it takes to do harm. The controversy has intensified with science's growing ability to detect and test chemicals at extraordinarily low exposure levels.
The appeal to the White House was just one of the several moves by defense interests in a long struggle with the EPA over whether and how to regulate perchlorate. Among other tactics: Perchlorate users financed a study of the chemical's health effects -- then undermined their own study when results went against them.
Perchlorate, used chiefly in solid rocket fuel, first polluted groundwater decades ago at a munitions plant outside Sacramento, Calif., triggering years of resistance by the plant's operator to state regulatory efforts. Then in 1997, after technical breakthroughs allowed detection of the chemical at far lower levels than before, it began to be found in water supplies in Southern California.
EPA scientists traced one plume up the Colorado River aqueduct to Las Vegas. There they found the source in an old plant that once manufactured the missile propellant. The soil beneath was tainted and the chemical was seeping into the river.
In the human body, perchlorate blocks the thyroid gland from absorbing iodide, which the gland needs to make thyroid hormone. The Pentagon and defense industry say such interference isn't dangerous, at least so long as it's only partial, because most adults produce plenty of the hormone.
The EPA, however, focused on fetuses and infants. They need thyroid hormone every day, because it is critical during brain development. And unlike adults, they can't store a supply. Because risk levels weren't well understood, the EPA and the Pentagon agreed in the late 1990s to cooperate to find answers. Several defense contractors, linked in what was called the Perchlorate Study Group, agreed to pay for new research.
The centerpiece was a $3 million experiment involving 3,000 mother, infant and fetal rats. Pregnant rats and pups were fed varying levels of perchlorate for several months. Scientists then dissected the rats' thyroid glands and brains. Researchers started with the rats that got the largest dose of perchlorate, intending to work downward until they found a dose so small that it had no effect.
They never found such a dose. Even at the lowest dose tested -- 0.01 milligrams per kilogram of rat weight per day -- the scientists saw a pattern of altered growth in several regions of the baby rats' brains. They also saw effects on their thyroid cells and hormone output.
Chemicals don't necessarily affect rats and humans the same way. Still, the test results would be considered "adverse effects" under EPA policy, the agency's team leader, Ann Jarabek, warned the defense interests. She told them the results would tend to reduce the level of perchlorate exposure the EPA ultimately would deem safe.
Sponsors of the study then did something unusual. Instead of submitting the final results of the study to the EPA, the defense companies that paid for the study commissioned a critique of their own research. They hired a consulting firm, which asked five academic scientists to study the study.
A few months later, in May 2001, the defense contractors delivered to the EPA a 200-page critique of their own study. It found fault with the study's design, with the handling of rat pups, with what the pups were fed and with the way rat brains were sliced and preserved. Conclusion: They said the multimillion-dollar study they financed was highly flawed.
The agency's chief of neurotoxicology, William Boyes, says he had never seen sponsors of a study attack their own work. "Usually," he says, they either "stand behind their data or they go back and do another study."
Also puzzling: The head of the consulting firm the defense industry hired to critique the original study had been that study's science adviser.
This consultant is Michael Dourson, who leads a nonprofit science consulting firm called Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, or TERA. Dr. Dourson says the critique wasn't an attempt to discredit the rat study, but simply to explain its "biological significance."
The laboratory that had done the rat study says it stood ready to do it over if necessary to correct any flaws identified. But the defense industry didn't ask the lab, Argus Research Laboratories in Horsham, Pa., to do it over. Asked why not, an executive of one major user of perchlorate, the Aerojet missile unit of GenCorp Inc., said it was because EPA guidelines regarded animal studies as inferior to human ones anyway. So, he said, the industry had by this time decided to focus on human research.
One Part Per Billion
In early 2002, the EPA, equipped with the rat study's final results and also the critique of it, issued a draft risk assessment for perchlorate, proposing a safe limit for the chemical in drinking-water supplies. This would constitute the first step toward possible regulation, which can occur only after further study, including a cost-benefit analysis. The EPA's proposed safe limit was quite strict: a mere one part per billion.
Pentagon officials felt sandbagged. The defense industry paid for the rat study in the expectation that they would hear privately from the EPA about any problems it presented. Instead, they learned at the same time as the public of the strict safe limit the EPA now wanted.
"All of a sudden, up on the screen popped this one parts per billion standard -- where did that come from?" says Raymond DuBois, a former deputy U.S. undersecretary of defense who's now acting under secretary of the army. This limit, he says, "had no consistent scientific confirmation." EPA officials, asked why they didn't warn the industry the strict proposal was impending, said that while they cooperate with industry on research, the job of setting safe exposure levels is theirs alone. "Perchlorate is now among the better understood compounds," says Paul Gilman, the EPA's former chief scientist. "At some point, the agency had to step inside itself as a regulatory body and determine the weight of the evidence."
The furor the EPA had stirred was soon evident at a gathering known as a peer-review workshop, where a panel of scientists discussed the proposal. The workshop took place in early 2002 in Sacramento, near the site of decades of groundwater perchlorate pollution from an Aerojet missile factory.
The session was tumultuous, featuring environmentalists, regulators, consultants and lobbyists. Among the speakers was La Donna White, president of an African-American doctors' group, who said the EPA proposal would divert funds from "real health issues" affecting blacks and "scare the public." She later repeated her points in an op-ed essay in a local newspaper -- and in a news release put out by a lobbying group for perchlorate users, the Council on Water Quality.
Dr. White, a family physician, says she had learned about the issues from a guest at one of her medical-society meetings, Eric Newman. He is a lobbyist for a Sacramento firm that has lobbied on perchlorate matters for defense contractors. Dr. White says she didn't know he was a lobbyist when he asked her to speak to the EPA. She didn't reply to an email asking whether anyone had helped her draft her perchlorate commentaries -- two of which misspelled her first name. Mr. Newman didn't return messages left for him.
Pentagon's Position
Perchlorate users and the Pentagon said the chemical was safe in drinking water at 200 times the safe limit the EPA wanted, that is, at up to 200 parts per billion. The Pentagon's Mr. DuBois appealed in early 2003 to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which referees inter-agency disputes. Given the strict limit the EPA was pushing, he says, "I said, 'Time out!' "
The White House told the EPA to halt further action on the chemical, and arranged for the EPA and three other agencies to sponsor further review by the National Research Council, a federally funded group that vets issues for the government and others. The council, in turn, named a panel of scientists, who did a wide-ranging assessment that included public hearings in 2003 and 2004.
At the hearings, the EPA came in for harsh criticism from perchlorate users and consultants working for them. An Air Force colonel, Daniel Rogers, termed the EPA's work "biased, unrealistic and scientifically imbalanced." Col. Rogers also said perchlorate is critical to U.S. security because while highly explosive, it is stable during handling and storage. Besides missiles, it is used in various battlefield weapons and flares and in munitions for training.
In January 2005, the National Research Council panel announced its conclusions. It called the rat research inconclusive and said perchlorate's key effect of blocking iodide from entering the thyroid gland, and thereby interfering with production of thyroid hormone, was not in itself dangerous. Still, it said, exposure to perchlorate should be restricted because of the high stakes for babies.
The panel recommended a maximum safe exposure level of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, based on a small study of human volunteers. For an adult drinking a normal amount of water, that would permit about 24 parts per billion of perchlorate in drinking water -- assuming people ingested no perchlorate from any source except water.
In fact, however, the EPA's working assumption in such cases is that drinking water accounts for only 20% of people's exposure to a waterborne contaminant. Recent studies indicate that small amounts of the chemical are in a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, possibly from irrigation water, as well as in some dairy products and breast milk.
Some EPA staffers assumed their agency would reduce the safe level in drinking water well below 24 ppb to adjust for several factors, including exposure through food. Instead, the EPA quickly adopted the panel's assessment as its own, eschewing the internal and external peer reviews that normally precede a formal EPA listing of a safe level for a chemical.
An EPA spokeswoman said no additional reviews were needed before adopting the 24 ppb safe limit because of extensive internal and external scrutiny of the chemical done several years ago. She also said it was natural to use the National Research Council's conclusion as the EPA's own because the EPA was among those who sponsored the review.
Some state agencies criticized both the National Research Council assessment and the EPA for quickly adopting it. Massachusetts complained to the EPA that the research-council panel had based its analysis on a study of just seven adults, rather than on babies. Massachusetts reaffirmed its own health advisory that is as strict as the safe limit the EPA envisioned in 2002: one part per billion in water. Meanwhile, two regulators from Connecticut and Maine wrote a science-journal commentary accusing the EPA of superseding its own scientific judgment with a flawed review by an outside body.
New Guidance
Today, Pentagon and White House officials are drafting new guidance for toxic-site cleanup officials. Intended to go out under the EPA's name, the guidance under consideration would effectively fix the cleanup standard for federal pollution sites at 24 ppb. The result is that many water bodies with less perchlorate than that would escape cleanup.
Several senior EPA staffers believe the agency would be better off with no perchlorate cleanup policy than with this one, emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show. "We got a very ugly set of comments from Office of Management and Budget last week that eviscerated the guidance" to be given to cleanup officials in the field, one senior EPA staffer emailed a colleague this fall. "Doing nothing was better than accommodating those comments." EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the policy is still undergoing internal deliberation.
All the skirmishing thus far still doesn't determine whether the federal government ever will actually regulate perchlorate with a mandatory water standard. To help decide that, the EPA plans to test drinking-water supplies nationwide over the next several years. It is also monitoring blood and urine screenings and tests of food, to measure Americans' exposure from sources other than drinking water.
The arms industry thinks even the safe limit of 24 parts per billion is far too strict. It notes that the National Research Council said the effect on the thyroid wasn't itself adverse to health, but merely could possibly lead to ill effects, in a chain of events. Says Dr. Dourson, the defense-industry consultant: "The committee chose a precursor to a precursor to a precursor to an adverse effect in the development of its safe dose."
by Cheryl Wittenauer, Associated Press
January 3, 2006
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/12BCD54863CB9A38862570EB00731407?OpenDocument
ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Several community groups have accused the city of St. Louis of not doing enough to rid older homes of lead, placing children at risk for poisoning and delayed development. The groups said Tuesday the city is making progress educating residents and testing homes but is not removing lead once it's found. Some called the education and testing a public relations ploy.
"The city continues to use children as lead detectors," said Don Fitz, outreach coordinator of the Gateway Green Alliance. "That was the old model from decades ago, where you wait until the child is poisoned, and then say, 'Let's look at the home and school.' " St. Louis, armed with federal funding and the help of community partners, has been tackling what many consider to be the No. 1 environmental hazard for children -- lead poisoning.
In November 2003, Mayor Francis Slay announced an action plan for eradicating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. Last year, nearly 12 percent of city children younger than 6 tested in St. Louis had unacceptably high levels of lead in their blood. The national average is 1.6 percent of children tested, based on 1999-2002 data released this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Homes built before 1978 often contain lead-based paint on window frames, doors or walls. If it crumbles or chips, young children are particularly vulnerable. If children put it in their mouths or inhale it, exposure can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems, nervous system and kidney damage, even death.
The groups -- Gateway Green Alliance, Health and Environmental Justice, and Universal African People's Organization -- said they have been pushing the city to remediate lead in homes while they are vacant and between renters. But the city operations manager, Ron Smith, said the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that federal grants be used to remediate lead in homes occupied by children.
The groups and the city also disagree about how best to eliminate lead dust resulting from opening and closing windows against lead-painted wood. Fitz said some cities replace the window entirely or plane the windowsill down to the wood to remove the paint. Smith said HUD doesn't expect the city to remove every window, only to control lead hazards in the home with proper remediation. "We test all surfaces and determine where the hazards are," Smith said.
Lead abatement removes all trace of lead, and is far more expensive than remediation, which reduces the hazard by covering it. The groups said they'd like a full accounting of what the city is doing to tackle the lead problem, in language that's easy to understand. Smith said the city invites help and involvement from the community but offered that these groups are critical while "standing on the sidelines."
Smith agreed that the city used to respond only after children became lead poisoned. Today, he said, more than half of the homes referred to the city are evaluated before a child is poisoned. He said the referrals come from landlords, day care operators, and concerned parents because of more heightened awareness of the problem.
More information
Lead Safe St. Louis: http://www.leadsafestlouis.org
Grace Hill: http://www.gracehill.org
Lead Safe St. Louis hot line: 314-259-3455
by Joe Baird and Judy Fahys, Salt Lake Tribune
January 4, 2006
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3369287
The state will begin this spring to test groundwater for perchlorate - a rocket fuel chemical - amid growing concern about its presence in drinking water supplies nationwide and its recent discovery in a half-dozen milk samples in Utah.
Larry Lewis, spokesman for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, said Tuesday that the department will test for perchlorate in more than 400 water sources in seven counties - Utah, Summit, Wasatch, Carbon, Emery, Grand and San Juan - as part of its annual groundwater sampling, scheduled to run from May to October. Half of the samples will be taken from drinking water wells, one quarter from irrigation wells, 15 percent from springs and 10 percent from wells used for livestock.
"This is a result of ongoing public concern and interest in perchlorate in the environment," Lewis said. "We want to see if it's in the groundwater, find out what's there and act accordingly."
Perchlorate is the explosive component of solid rocket fuel. It is used in munitions, including gunpowder, fireworks and highway flares. Airbags, tanning and leather finishing, rubber, paint and enamel production also rely on perchlorate.
Although the chemical has been in use for decades, there continues to be widespread disagreement about its impact on human health. Some studies suggest that perchlorate even above 100 parts per billion (ppb) poses no danger; others indicate that even tiny concentrations disrupt the thyroids of fetuses and young children, which manage development and the brain.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not established a standard for perchlorate, but has set a "reference dose" for the substance at 24.5 ppb for drinking water. Meanwhile, some states have opted for tougher controls. Massachusetts, for example, has a standard of 1 ppb. California is considering a 6 ppb standard.
The decision to begin perchlorate groundwater testing in Utah was prompted, at least in part, by the results of the state's tests in December 2004 on milk. Contracted to a private lab, DataChem Inc. of Salt Lake City, the tests yielded results ranging from 2.95 to 6.22 ppb, with five of the six samples closer to the higher end.
"It is a very wise move by the state to start looking for perchlorate," said Bill Walker, West Coast vice president of the Environmental Working Group.
"Given what we know about perchlorate in Utah, they may be surprised."
California first found perchlorate in water sources near military contractors and air fields, then launched a statewide program that revealed many water supplies were tainted.
Discoveries of perchlorate in Utah have followed a similar path. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified perchlorate in water supplies at Hill Air Force Base, the site of a Superfund cleanup because of perchlorate; Thiokol, the rocket manufacturer west of Brigham City, and Alliant Techsystems, whose rocket facilities stretch across both West Valley City and Magna.
The discovery of perchlorate in one of its wells has prompted the Magna Water Company to stop production in the well and get rid of the chemical. "Fortunately, it's been in the 8 to 10 ppb range," said Magna Water Manager Ed Hansen. "But until there is a definite [standard established by EPA], our board felt we needed to isolate it and not allow any of it to go into our system."
Other local water districts are also testing for perchlorate, with encouraging results. Tests by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District in 2002 showed no detectable levels in groundwater and surface supplies. The Weber Basin Conservancy District has found perchlorate in a few shallow groundwater sources - in one instance as high as 70 ppb. But it has yet to find any trace in the aquifer it taps for drinking water, even near the Air Force base.
Western water officials have grown increasingly concerned about perchlorate since the May 4, 1988, explosion of a perchlorate manufacturing plant in Henderson, Nev., which left two employees dead and allowed the chemical to begin leaching into Lake Mead. That plant was relocated the following year to a site 15 miles west of Cedar City. Now called Wecco, short for Western Electro-Chemical Corp., the plant was the site of a 1997 explosion that killed one employee and injured four others. The state's testing list does not include water supplies near the plant in Iron County.
Walker, of the Environmental Working Group, said omitting the nation's only perchlorate manufacturing plant is surprising. "That would certainly seem to be a major oversight," he said.
Meanwhile, the state agriculture department wants the milk-drinking public to remain confident. Lewis says his agency is trying to abide by Food and Drug Administration guidelines. "Their basic recommendation is that those low, low trace amounts appear not to be a problem for consumers, and that people should not alter their diets, avoid foods that contain those extremely low levels of perchlorate."
from Science News
January 4, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jan/science/kb_dechlorane.html
Did a persistent, bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic chemical that has been in use for more than 40 years slip under the U.S. EPA's radar?
Scientists operating an atmospheric monitoring network in the U.S. Great Lakes have detected significant quantities of a chlorinated organic chemical that has been on the market for more than 40 years, according to research published today on ES&T's Research ASAP website (10.1021/es051911h). Despite the long commercial history of this compound, which is sold under the name Dechlorane Plus, this is the first report of its presence in the environment. The limited data available for Dechlorane Plus indicates that it is persistent, bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic.
Researchers found the first evidence that a compound used for more than 40 years, Dechlorane Plus, is persisting in the environment by analyzing samples taken from the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network operated by the U.S. and Canadian governments. (The IADN sites where samples were taken [shown on website]). The scientists confirmed that the compound was bioaccumulating in Great Lakes fish by analyzing archived sediment samples. The location where OxyChem manufacturers Dechlorane Plus is shown[in a graph you can see on the website]
"We always keep our eyes open for new compounds," says Ronald Hites, who is with Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs and is the research's corresponding author. "This is an example of a relatively old compound that has apparently slipped under the regulatory radar and that is still being used without attracting public attention," Hites and his colleagues write in their paper.
"The identification of Dechlorane Plus in the environment, so many years after the introduction of the compound, really shows the importance of researchers going [after] new environmental contaminants," says Åke Bergman of Stockholm University's environmental chemistry department. "It is indeed disturbing that new organochlorines are still to be detected in our environment, 40 to 50 years after the discovery of DDT in the environment," he adds.
It is important for scientists to look for previously undetected chemicals in the environment because researchers are currently identifying only a small percentage of the more than 100,000 chemicals currently used in commerce, stresses Derek Muir of Environment Canada's Ecosystem Protection Research division. "A challenge for environmental chemists and regulators is to figure out which ones are a priority for actual environmental measurements. . . . Lack of consensus on the next priority [persistent organic pollutant] may be holding back environmental analytical chemists," he says.
Environment Canada has conducted one of the most comprehensive efforts in the world to screen for new compounds that could be found in the environment. The group evaluated the physical and chemical properties of 23,000 substances that were imported or manufactured in Canada at more than 100 kilograms per year between 1984 and 1986, years chosen to target chemicals that were "grandfathered in" when the country's Domestic Substances List was created in 1986. Of the 600 compounds that this screening shows are likely to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, Muir says only 3% are currently measured in the environment.
Dechlorane Plus is used for coating electrical wires and cables and in computer connectors and plastic roofing material, and it is actually considered a high-production volume (HPV) chemical because more than 1 million pounds of it are manufactured every year. Hites and his colleagues first found the compound on atmospheric particles they collected through the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), which is jointly operated by U.S. and Canadian governments and includes seven major sampling stations in the Great Lakes region. They were able to positively identify it as Dechlorane Plus by comparing its gas chromatographic mass spectrometry (GC/MS) signature with that of a sample they obtained from the chemical's manufacturer, OxyChem, which is part of the Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Most of the flame retardants that have been detected in the environment up until this point are organic compounds based on bromine rather than chlorine. Even so, the levels of Dechlorane Plus in the atmospheric samples from three IADN sampling stations that Hites and his colleagues analyzed-which reached as high as 490 picograms per cubic meter of air-were similar to levels of the "Deca" polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) formulation, which is the world's most widely used PBDE flame retardant.
Experts familiar with other flame retardants being detected in the environment characterize these atmospheric levels as being relatively high. They also applaud Hites for his painstaking analytical detective work.
By looking at archived samples, Hites and his colleagues discovered that Dechlorane Plus has been in the sediments at the bottom of the Great Lakes since the early 1970s. They also found it in some fish, including walleye-a popular Great Lakes food fish. These data make a convincing case that the compound is persistent and bioaccumulative, says Linda Birnbaum, director of the U.S. EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Experimental Toxicology Division.
Although Heather Stapleton, an assistant professor of environmental sciences and policy at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, agrees that the compound is bioaccumulative, she isn't certain that it is sufficiently bioaccumulative to represent much of an issue. "Based on the structure and properties of Dechlorane Plus, it doesn't seem likely that the chemical is very bioaccumulative. It's probably too big to pass biological membranes easily. The levels measured by Hites et al. are very low relative to most contaminants of concern," she says.
These physical and chemical properties explain why screenings by both Environment Canada and EPA of HPV chemicals concluded that Dechlorane Plus was persistent but not bioaccumulative, Muir says. It also "illustrates the challenges of identifying new persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals. If they are similar in structure and properties to chemicals that are already being analyzed . . . then they are more likely to be detected in existing screenings. But then the question becomes more complex. . . . Since the toxicological data is usually very limited (as noted by Hites et al. for Dechlorane Plus), maybe the best we can do is compare levels and trends," he says.
Hites points out that there is yet another issue to be considered: the possibility that, like the similarly large Deca PBDE molecule, Dechlorane Plus could be broken down metabolically by animals. Birnbaum says that the different compound uptake patterns that Hites and his colleagues are reporting in their fish samples support this hypothesis. The Dechlorane Plus could also be breaking down as it is transported through the atmosphere, and it could be degraded by sunlight, Hites adds. He notes that some of the PAH compounds, as well as the Deca compound, are known to do this.
However, both Birnbaum and Muir disagree with Hites that it is fair to characterize Dechlorane Plus as slipping under their agencies' radars. Birnbaum points out that the product was in use before EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act came into force in 1975, and it is also covered by the agency's High Production Volume program because it is manufactured in such large amounts. At the same time, she acknowledges that "if this was a brand-new chemical, it would probably never get through."
The limited test data available for Dechlorane Plus indicate that it appears to have ecotoxicological effects in fish, and dermal tests on rabbits show that it could affect reproduction. Birnbaum, Muir and Hites also point out that Dechlorane Plus has chemical properties that are similar to Mirex [212KB PDF], a banned pesticide that was also made by OxyChem. Mirex is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," according to the National Institutes of Health. Mirex was also marketed as a flame retardant under the name Dechlorane and is considered a persistent organic pollutant.
A spokesperson for OxyChem declined to comment for this story. When Dechlorane Plus was first produced, OxyChem was known as Hooker Chemical and the company became infamous for its Love Canal chemical-waste disposal site under that name.
In their paper, Hites and his colleagues note that the market for flame retardants like Dechlorane Plus has been growing rapidly because of the U.S.'s stringent fire safety regulations. They speculate that Dechlorane Plus's use as a flame retardant could be rising because some of the most heavily used PBDE flame retardants, the formulations known as Penta and Octa, have been banned in Europe and in some places in the U.S. over the past few years. These formulations were pulled off the U.S. market at the end of 2004.
However, Hites also points out that the sediment core samples suggest that that Dechlorane Plus has been floating around in the atmosphere at relatively high levels for years. The main reason that he and his colleagues did not find Dechlorane Plus before was because they had not analyzed the ultrafine particles captured by the network until two years ago, he explains. The particles collected by the IADN network are in the submicrometer range. They are, therefore, considered "ultrafine" particulate matter (PM), and are 10-100 times smaller than the particles regulated as PM2.5 and PM10.
"Most all of the pesticides and all of the PCBs [that are tracked via IADN] end up only in the gas phase," he explains. The IADN researchers were only inspired to begin looking at the ultrafine particles two years ago to try to get a handle on levels of the PBDE flame retardants because the Deca formulation ends up almost exclusively in the particle phase, he says.
Once they began to look at the particles, Hites and his colleagues found some previously unnoticed GC/MS peaks "that were in some cases quite large," he adds. Hites says that he has not yet analyzed any of IADN's archived atmospheric samples for Dechlorane Plus, but he could do so.
"I see this paper as a wake-up call," Birnbaum says. She says that the paper makes clear that Dechlorane Plus's potentials for bioaccumulation and toxicity to wildlife and humans need to be assessed more fully. Another important question is whether the compound is subject to long-range atmospheric transport and can travel to sensitive regions such as the Arctic, something that the Deca PBDE compound has been shown to do, says Tom Harner, a research scientist involved with air quality research with Environment Canada's Science and Technology Branch. "My sense is that this paper will lead to other groups looking for this chemical," Harner predicts. -KELLYN S. BETTS
by Dan Olmsted, UPI
January 6, 2006
http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20051222-105616-5876r
The CDC is continuing to investigate whether a mercury preservative in childhood immunizations has caused cases of autism -- despite the fact a report it paid for said such research should end. The agency wants to determine whether exposure to the vaccine preservative, called thimerosal, can be linked to autism spectrum disorders, Glen Nowak, director of media relations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Age of Autism on Friday. The study includes 300 children with ASDs, 200 of whom have full-syndrome autism, as well as a comparison group of children who do not have the disorders.
In 2004 a CDC-funded report by the independent Institute of Medicine concluded there was no evidence of a vaccine-autism link and efforts should go instead to "promising" autism research. "Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry," the immunization review panel said. "It's really terrifying, the scientific illiteracy that supports these suspicions," said Dr. Marie McCormick, chairwoman of the IOM panel, in a New York Times article in June. And the head of the CDC's immunization program said the same year that only "junk scientists and charlatans" take such a link seriously.
Nevertheless, spokesman Nowak said the CDC -- which sets the childhood immunization schedule that states adopt -- has not eliminated thimerosal as a suspect. "We do agree the preponderance of evidence to date suggests there is no association between thimerosal and autism," said Nowak when asked why the CDC was continuing to pursue the issue. But he said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding is committed to exploring all possibilities until the cause or causes of the disorder are identified.
"Dr. Gerberding has made it clear the CDC has not ruled out anything as possible causes of autism, including thimerosal," Nowak said. "Science is a dynamic process. We have continued to fund studies to look at the role, if any, of thimerosal."
The study was designed in 2003 and data collection -- which includes evaluation of each child and their immunization history -- began last year, Nowak said. A letter dated Nov. 8 and an accompanying brochure were provided by a parent who received them. "In this study, the CDC wants to find out if children who received vaccines and medicines with Thimerosal as infants are more likely to later have developmental problems such as Asperger's Syndrome or autism," says the letter, sent on behalf of the CDC by a research firm and Kaiser Permanente, one of three HMOs involved. "Your participation in this study may help doctors learn about the possible risks of vaccines and medicines that contained thimerosal."
The mother who received the letter expressed dismay because most medical experts and federal health authorities have reassured parents thimerosal does not cause autism and is not responsible for the large increase in diagnoses beginning in the 1990s.
In 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged manufacturers to phase out thimerosal from childhood immunizations as soon as possible, based on the concern that the total amount of mercury received by a child could exceed some government guidelines.
But, citing five subsequent epidemiological studies, the CDC and other health authorities now say there is no evidence of an association.
The CDC continues to recommend flu shots -- most of which contain thimerosal -- for pregnant women and for children 6 to 23 months of age. The agency has declined to express a preference for the thimerosal-free version, citing concern that it might cause some parents to forego immunizing their children against flu if they cannot obtain it.
In addition, tens of millions of children around the world are being injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines, based heavily on the assurances of U.S. health authorities that it is safe and does not cause autism.
Results of the study should be available in September 2007, Nowak said.
opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle by Shanna H. Swan, PhD
January 9, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/09/EDGMKGJGL61.DTL&hw=Swan&sn=003&sc=626
State legislators will hear testimony Tuesday on an issue that should attract the attention of parents everywhere: How to improve the safety of numerous toys and baby-care products that contain toxic chemicals.
These important hearings could lead to California becoming the first state in the nation to ban several toxic chemicals in baby products. If such legislation passes, California would be following in the footsteps of the European Union, which already recognizes that phthalates (such as DBP and DEHP) simply don't belong in baby bottles, rubber duckies or teething rings. The EU is also re-evaluating the use of bisphenol-A in children's products.
Assembly member Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, has taken up this issue because a wealth of research links these chemicals to birth defects, cancer, abnormal genital development, early puberty onset and other problems. Recent biomonitoring studies have found high levels of these chemicals in the blood of mothers and children, and other studies confirm the presence of phthalates and BPA in common baby products, such as teethers, sleep accessories, bottles, sip cups and bath toys.
Children and adults in the United States are regularly and unknowingly exposed to phthalates, which are used to make plastic more flexible and to bind fragrances and color to personal care products. Bisphenol-A, a hormone disrupter, is also used in dental sealants and in the resins that line food cans, in addition to hard, clear plastic products, such as baby bottles. Because of their body weight, children are far more susceptible to adverse affects from chemical exposures than adults, even at very low doses. Chan's legislation (Assembly Bill 319) targets children under age 3 -- one of the most vulnerable populations by far.
But children are also highly vulnerable long before they are even born. In-utero exposures to phthalates can lead to birth defects and genital malformations, as numerous studies have shown in laboratory animals and, as suggested most recently, in a study of baby boys.
A government-funded study I recently led in collaboration with scientists and physicians from several universities and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was the first to find a significant relationship between human exposure to phthalates and adverse changes in the genitals of baby boys. Our work, published last spring in Environmental Health Perspectives, built upon highly reproducible effects observed in animal studies, including demasculinization of the male reproductive tract, increases in the likelihood of undescended testes and lowered sperm counts in adulthood. This cluster of effects has been termed the "phthalate syndrome."
Our study examined pregnant women, mothers and children from Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Columbia, Mo. We found that the higher the level of phthalates in the mother, the more likely we were to find that a sensitive genital measure (the length of the perineum) was less masculinized (i.e., shorter). When this occurred, boys were more likely to have incomplete testicular descent and smaller penises. That is, they appeared to exhibit the phthalate syndrome. The changes occurred at phthalate levels that have been measured in about one-quarter of women in the United States.
These chemicals are hardly essential -- in most cases, safer alternatives do exist. California would do well to ban these toxins from the products to which children are regularly exposed. In the meantime, however, parents can take steps of their own: Stop giving children soft vinyl toys made with phthalates (look for products labeled as PVC-free); don't microwave food for your child in plastic containers (use glass); use filtered drinking water (even bottled water may contain phthalates); dispose of all clear, shiny plastic baby bottles, unless the manufacturer states they are not made of polycarbonate (which is made from bisphenol A); and limit your use of phthalate-containing personal care products if you are pregnant. A quick Internet search will bring up sites describing products you can purchase that are free of these chemicals. If California's state legislators act wisely, those choices should substantially increase in the near future.
by Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times
January 9, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-polarbears9jan09,1,7233509.story?track=mostemailedlink&coll=la-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
Already imperiled by melting ice and a brew of toxic chemicals, polar bears throughout the Arctic, particularly in remote dens near the North Pole, face an additional threat as flame retardants originating largely in the United States are building up in their bodies, according to an international team of wildlife scientists.
The flame retardants are one of the newest additions to hundreds of industrial compounds and pesticides carried to the Arctic by northbound winds and ocean currents. Accumulating in the fatty tissues of animals, many chemicals grow more concentrated as larger creatures eat smaller ones, turning the Arctic's top predators and native people into some of the most contaminated living organisms on Earth.
In urban areas, particularly in North America, researchers already have shown that levels of flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyls, or PBDEs, are growing at a rapid pace in people and wildlife. Although they have been found in much lower concentrations in the Arctic, scientists say their toxic legacy will persist there for years because they are slow to break down, particularly in cold climates.
In polar bears, the effects are unknown. But in tests on laboratory animals, PBDEs disrupted thyroid and sex hormones and damaged developing brains, impairing motor skills and mental abilities, including memory and learning. Scientists say that other industrial chemicals with properties similar to PBDEs are already weakening the bears' immune systems, altering their bone structure, skewing their sex hormones and perhaps even causing small numbers of hermaphroditic bears.What remains uncertain, however, is whether those physiological changes are killing bears or reducing their populations. Some experts suspect that many cubs, which are contaminated by their mother's milk, are not surviving.
An even more immediate threat to the world's 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears is global climate change, which is melting their hunting grounds. Bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay -- the most well-researched population -- declined from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004. In Alaska, wildlife biologists for the first time have documented that polar bears are drowning. Scientists predict that some populations could become extinct by the end of the century as more sea ice melts.
Derek Muir of Canada's National Water Research Institute, who led the new research, said the geographical patterns in contamination suggest that the East Coast of North America and northwestern Europe are the primary sources of the flame retardants.
The most highly contaminated bears are in eastern Greenland and Norway's Svalbard islands, where the chemicals are about 10 times more concentrated than in bears in Alaska and four times more than in Canada, according to new research published in December in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
A major denning area, Svalbard is a national refuge where hunting is prohibited, but scientists at the Norwegian Polar Institute say its bear population is not thriving, and older females aren't producing cubs.
The team of scientists from Canada, Norway, Denmark and Alaska, who tested 139 bears captured in 10 locations, found that some brominated flame retardants magnify from prey to predator at an extraordinary rate. One compound was 71 times more concentrated in polar bears than in ringed seals, their major food source.
Manufacturing industries in the United States use large volumes of PBDEs in furniture, carpet padding, electronics and plastics. The most abundant PBDE in the bears comes from a compound called penta, used primarily in North America to make foam furniture cushions fire-resistant.
The only U.S. manufacturer of penta and another PBDE called octa ended their production in 2004 after the compounds began building up in human breast milk and Europe and California banned their use. Yet stockpiles remain, as well as products that contain penta, octa and other flame retardants, so the chemicals are still hitchhiking to the Arctic on northbound winds.
Michael Ikonomou of Canada's Institute of Ocean Sciences reported some good news last year. Although the flame retardants had been doubling every four to five years in Arctic ringed seals from 1981 to 2000, they have stabilized as the bans on the two compounds go into effect. Muir said he expects "a quick downturn" in the polar bear levels as factories stop using stockpiles. He warned, however, that other industrial chemicals are starting to turn up in Arctic creatures.
The geographical patterns of the flame retardants mirror those of a much older contaminant -- PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Although banned by industrialized nations in the 1970s, PCBs persist in the environment for decades, and remain the most abundant and worrisome contaminant in polar bears, particularly in the Norwegian and Russian Arctic.
Muir, who has been documenting Arctic wildlife contamination for 20 years, said the flame retardants probably are coming from the same areas as PCBs and arriving in the Arctic via the same pathways -- primarily northbound winds blowing chemicals across the Atlantic from the United States, Canada and northern Europe.
If the chemicals were originating in Asia, contamination would be higher in the Alaskan bears.
In June in Seattle, 40 wildlife scientists representing all five nations that contain polar bear populations adopted a resolution declaring that the bears are "susceptible to the effects of pollutants," and those effects could be worsened by the stresses of global warming. They agreed that chemicals probably are causing diseases and changes in the tissues, organs and bone density of bears in eastern Greenland. Denmark, which owns the self-governed territory of Greenland, was chosen to coordinate a circumpolar study of the role of pollution in harming bears' vital organs and other bodily systems.
Geir Gabrielsen, the Norwegian Polar Institute's director of research on the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals, said all the industrial compounds and pesticides probably combine to alter the physiology of polar bears as well as Arctic seabirds. Glaucous gulls in Svalbard have shown signs of reproductive, behavioral and developmental stress, perhaps from PCBs and other contaminants that alter their thyroid hormones. Chemical loads are also high in Arctic foxes and whales.
"PCBs, pesticides, brominated and fluorinated compounds are the greatest threat to top predators in the Svalbard area," he said.
Virtually every animal and person tested on Earth contains traces of brominated flame retardants, scientists say. Americans have the highest levels found so far, and many U.S. women carry concentrations in their breast milk that are close to the amounts that altered the brains of newborn mice in lab tests.
Marine mammals in North America's urbanized areas, particularly killer whales and belugas, are 100 times more contaminated with PBDEs than Arctic creatures. Canada's polar bears, however, contain more than the nation's grizzly bears because their diet is almost entirely meat, particularly fatty meat that builds up chemicals. Killer whales have the highest concentrations in the Arctic.
In addition to the brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated compounds used to manufacture Teflon and formerly used in Scotchgard have been detected in polar bears in Greenland, Canada and Alaska, and a PBDE compound called deca, used in large volumes in electronics, is in the blood of Svalbard bears.
The new study also detected another flame retardant used in building materials and household furnishings, called HBCD, or hexabromocyclododecane, in Arctic bears. Chemists had thought it had a low potential to migrate long distances but now believe it is spreading globally.
"It is a chemical that needs to be watched," Muir said, "because it does biomagnify in the aquatic food webs and appears to be a widespread pollutant."
by Ilana DeBare, San Francisco Chronicle
January 10, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/10/BUGIEGKP8O1.DTL
Carbon dioxide created the bubbles in that cherry soda you spilled all over your brand-new cashmere sweater. Now carbon dioxide will get the stain out too -- as part of a new environmentally friendly dry cleaning process being introduced in the Bay Area this month.
Blue Sky Cleaners, a family-owned business in Union City, will be the first Bay Area cleaner to replace traditional toxic solvents with a liquid form of carbon dioxide. Environmental experts praise carbon dioxide cleaning as less harmful to human health than perchloroethylene, the solvent used by about 80 percent of dry cleaners. In fact, local air quality officials provided a $10,000 grant to Blue Sky to help create a model for other local dry cleaners.
"We are excited because we're hoping that Blue Sky Cleaners will demonstrate to dry-cleaning owners that there is a new technology out there that is less toxic," said Luna Salavar, spokeswoman for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Perchloroethylene has been the primary solvent used in dry cleaning for more than 50 years. Less flammable than previous oil-based products, it allowed for the spread of mom-and-pop cleaning businesses in residential and commercial neighborhoods.
But in the 1970s, researchers identified a slew of health problems linked to exposure to the compound, ranging from dizziness and nausea to liver problems and cancer. Perchloroethylene was listed as a hazardous air pollutant and a groundwater contaminant.
Frank Shaghafi, who started Blue Sky Cleaners with his brother-in-law Kyoung-Young Kim, experienced some of the dangers firsthand.
Shaghafi's parents were dry cleaners, and he followed them into the business. But in 1994, an industrial accident showered Shaghafi with boiling perchloroethylene. He became disoriented and dizzy; his shoes melted under him. He still has scars from the second- and third-degree burns.
After the accident, Shaghafi switched careers to respiratory therapy. But then he learned about emerging alternatives to perchloroethylene such as carbon dioxide and decided to return to dry cleaning.
"This is in my blood," Shaghafi said. "I know how to do this very well. And when we saw this new opportunity, we figured, 'We can do this and not get injured.' "
When his machines are up and running later this month, Shaghafi will be one of about 35 cleaning facilities around the country using carbon dioxide.
The process works by taking the gas form -- the same gas used by fast food restaurants to carbonate their soda -- and pressurizing it into a clear liquid. The pressurized liquid is then mixed with soap and clothes as in a traditional dry cleaning machine.
There are other alternatives, but they are of varying quality and safety. Some cleaners use oil-based solvents, but those can contribute to smog and are flammable. Others have adopted a silicone-based solvent made by a Kansas City firm called GreenEarth. Still another alternative is wet cleaning, or cleaning with water in special industrial machines.
In 2003, Consumer Reports compared the results of traditional cleaning with carbon dioxide, GreenEarth and wet cleaning. It concluded that carbon dioxide gave the best results, with GreenEarth coming in second. Both outperformed perchloroethylene.
"The clothing (cleaned by carbon dioxide) didn't change shape, shrink or stretch," the magazine said. "There was little or no change in the color or the texture of the fabrics; only one silk shirt faded slightly after the third cleaning."
Shaghafi and his family have invested a total of $1.7 million in Blue Sky. Their 11,000-square foot facility includes three carbon dioxide machines, more than any other single cleaner in the country. They've also bought four wet-cleaning machines for fabrics such as triacetate that aren't appropriate for carbon dioxide, allowing them to completely eliminate perchloroethylene.
Blue Sky started testing its machines this week and will begin laundry service on Sunday. The company will pick up dirty laundry from homes and businesses and drop it off after it has been cleaned. It already has contracts with 32 hotels, as well as with a 1-800-Dry-Clean franchise in Dublin that will use Blue Sky to clean its customers' garments.
Although air quality officials hope that other local cleaners will follow in Shaghafi's footsteps, the cost of carbon dioxide technology may prove an obstacle to many small neighborhood cleaners.
Shaghafi estimates that it will cost just $3 per load to run the new machines, much less than the $15 cost of cleaning with perchloroethylene.
But the investment in the new technology is significantly more expensive. Blue Sky spent $165,000 on each of its carbon dioxide machines -- far above the $30,000 to $50,000 for other kinds of dry cleaning machines.
Carbon dioxide cleaning "will primarily be for larger garment care operations," said Peter Sinsheimer, director of the Pollution Prevention Center at Occidental College and an expert in the environmental impact of dry cleaning. "But most cleaners are five employees or fewer. Wet cleaning is a much more affordable alternative to (perchloroethylene) for most mom-and-pops."
There is government grant money available on a first-come, first-served basis to cleaners who switch from perchloroethylene to carbon dioxide or wet cleaning. The state is offering $10,000 for switching, as are the city of San Francisco and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (PG&E also offers incentives of up to $5,000 for switching to wet cleaning because it uses less energy.)
Meanwhile, like other technologies, carbon dioxide machines could become less expensive if demand grows. Environmental advocates hope that Blue Sky will help spur that demand.
"This is the first time Bay Area cleaners will be able to see both these (carbon dioxide and wet cleaning) technologies at a fully-operational cleaner," Sinsheimer said. "Frank has risked his livelihood for this and should be applauded for it. ... Frank is a sample size of one. But one is better than none. And one can become two or four or eight."
Dry cleaning alternatives
These are the main methods of professional garment cleaning in use today:
Perchloroethylene: The traditional dry cleaning solvent used by more than 80 percent of cleaners, it has been found to cause cancer as well as kidney and liver damage in animal studies. It can also cause dizziness, headaches and unconsciousness if inhaled for a short period of time. Perchloroethylene is nonflammable but is classified as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Los Angeles air quality officials have ordered dry cleaners in their region to stop using it by 2020.
Petroleum-based solvents: This category includes a longtime dry cleaning solvent known as Stoddard, as well as newer solvents such as DF-2000, introduced in 1994 by ExxonMobil. The newer petroleum products are less flammable than the older ones. But they continue to present a fire hazard and emit volatile organic chemicals that contribute to smog.
Silicone-based solvents: GreenEarth is the brand name for siloxane D5, a silicone-based chemical that has been used for a long time in products such as deodorants, body lotions and shampoos. GreenEarth says its product is completely safe and degrades into sand, water and carbon dioxide. However, a 2003 study showed an increase in uterine tumors among female rats that were exposed to very high levels of siloxane. The Environmental Protection Agency is still assessing whether siloxane presents a cancer risk.
Carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide cleaning uses a liquid form of the nontoxic, nonflammable gas that creates the carbonation in soft drinks. The form used in dry cleaning is a byproduct of other industrial operations such as fertilizer production, so there is no net increase of the chemical and no added contribution to global warming. In a 2003 test, Consumer Reports ranked carbon dioxide as the most effective form of dry cleaning, followed by siloxane. However, carbon dioxide machines are significantly more expensive than other kinds of dry cleaning equipment.
Professional wet cleaning: Like a regular washing machine, wet cleaning relies on water and biodegradable detergents. But it uses equipment that washes clothes more gently and sets a specific humidity level for the drying process. Then wet cleaners use pressing and tensioning equipment to prevent shrinkage and maintain garment shape. Wet cleaning can be used on some garments labeled "dry clean only."