To join the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) and the LDDI Working Group, please complete the form at http://www.healthandenvironment.org/roles/register?&phase=registerform. Be sure to mark that you want to join the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative Working Group at the bottom of the application.
For information about additional events, please visit our searchable calendar of events at http://www.iceh.org/calendar.html.
November 18, 2006
8:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
at the University of Minnesota, 300 West Bank Office Building, Room 142, 1300 S 2nd St
This half-day training program will introduce participants to a new clinical resource for practitioners, the Pediatric Environmental Health Toolkit. The toolkit, endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), was developed partially in response to the frequent requests by pediatricians for practical, clinical tools that enable providers to incorporate environmental health guidance into everyday practice. It includes materials for both providers and patients on preventing exposures to toxic chemicals and other substances that may affect child health. For more information, visit the website or contact Kathleen Schuler as listed below.
Website: http://www.iatp.org/foodandhealth/peht.cfm
Contact: Kathleen Schuler, kschuler@iatp.org
February 1 - 2, 2007
Washington, DC
at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
discounted registration rate until November 17th
The conference theme is "Integrating Environment and Human Health." Over 850 scientists, policymakers, businesspeople, and civil society representatives will explore the linkages between the environment and human health. The conference will address the many essential roles the environment plays on our well-being as well as the multi-dimensional relationships between human health and environmental components, which may have far-reaching consequences for society. Over 120 experts will speak in plenary sessions, symposia, and topical breakout sessions.
Website: http://www.NCSEonline.org/2007conference/
Contact: conference2007@ncseonline.org
December 4 - 6, 2006
Atlanta, Georgia
at the Hilton Atlanta Hotel
Presented by Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health, The 2006 Environmental Public Health Conference has a theme of "Advancing Environmental Public Health: Science, Practice, New Frontiers." The conference will address the need to revitalize environmental public health, and it will chart the nation's vision for the future. There will be six plenary sessions, up to 75 workshops, and up to 40 exhibits and poster displays that will address a wide range of topics from emerging threats to a myriad of everyday environmental public health issues. Topics will include bio-monitoring; climate change; environmental justice; environmental public health tracking; food and water protection; health disparities; healthy places and healthy homes; indoor air quality; injury prevention; laboratory science and service; preparedness & response; public health policy and law; toxicants, exposures, and contaminants; vector management; and workforce development.
Website: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/conference/
Contact: smargolis@cdc.gov
by Roni Rabin, New York Times
November 14, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/health/14men.html
In recent years, women's health has been a national priority. Pink ribbons warn of breast cancer. Pins shaped like red dresses raise awareness about heart disease. Offices of women's health have sprung up at every level of government to offer information and free screenings, and one of the largest government studies on hormones and diet in aging focused entirely on older women.
Yet statistics show that men are more likely than women to suffer an early death. Now some advocates and medical scientists are beginning to ask a question that in some circles might be considered politically incorrect: Is men's health getting short shrift? The idea, they say, is not to denigrate the importance of women's health but to focus public attention on the ways in which men may be uniquely at risk -- and on what a growing men's health movement has termed the "health disparity" between the sexes and its most glaring example, a persistent longevity gap that has narrowed but still shortchanges men of five years of life compared with women.
"We've got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don't know why," said Dr. Demetrius J. Porche, an associate dean at Louisiana State University's Health Sciences Center School of Nursing in New Orleans, and the editor of a new quarterly, American Journal of Men's Health, that will publish its first issue next March.
The Men's Health Network, a not-for-profit educational foundation based in Washington, has called for creating a federal office of men's health to mirror the office on women's health within the Health and Human Services Department, and it is backing a bill sponsored by Senator Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Representative Vito Fossella, Republican of New York, to do so. Several federal offices on women's health were recently established to compensate for years in which women were often excluded from medical research, but there is no federal office of men's health. Men's health advocates say that men are silently suffering through what may be a serious health crisis. "We keep throwing out lifestyle as an explanation for the differences in longevity, saying that men come in later for care and have unhealthy behaviors, but I'm not sure we really know the reason," Dr. Porche said. "And we haven't answered the question: Is there a biological determinant for why men die earlier than women?"
It is a question that has piqued the interest of some medical scientists, including Dr. Marianne J. Legato, founder of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia University. Five states -- Maryland, Georgia, New Hampshire, Louisiana and Oklahoma -- have either established or plan to establish offices or commissions on men's health, and the Nov. 15 issue of JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, is entirely devoted to studies on the topic. But the mere suggestion that men need their own health bureau or that they must advocate for their rights like a victimized minority rankles some women's health advocates, and some politicians are reluctant to take men's health on as a cause, for fear of alienating women. "Saying we need an office of men's health ignores the fact that men's health always was the main focus of medical research," said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network in Washington, a membership organization for improving women's health. "During the first half-century of our nation's investment in medical research, the majority of resources went to studying men and the conditions that affected men disproportionately," she said. "Is their health perfect? No. But they don't need a movement."
Still, by just about any measure, men's health is abysmal. American men have an average life expectancy of 75.2 years, and even less -- 69.8 years -- for black men, compared with 80.4 years for women over all. Men die of just about every one of the leading causes of death at younger ages than women, from lung cancer to influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease, diabetes and AIDS. One notable exception is Alzheimer's disease: more women than men die of it. Topping the list for both sexes is heart disease.
But while the American Heart Association has been conducting an aggressive public education campaign to raise awareness about heart disease among women, called Go Red for Women and featuring pins in the shape of dresses, progress among men has been slipping, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. Yet, he added, the illness exacts a disproportionate toll on men. Although heart disease occurs in women in their 30s and 40s, he said, it is "extremely unusual," while severe heart disease in men that age is "not exceptionally rare." Heart disease in women increases as they age, he noted. "We've got to put it all in perspective," Dr. Nissen said. "Coronary heart disease has a devastating impact on men, particularly on men who are in the prime of life -- 45-year-old men with major heart attacks, who may never work another day in their life, who may have children."
Cancer also strikes men disproportionately: one in three women at some point in life; one in two men. In part, that is a result of the fact that more men than women smoke, and possibly of occupational exposures. But experts and advocates say that when it comes to government financing for the most common sex-specific reproductive cancers, breast cancer financing exceeds prostate cancer financing by more than 40 percent, with prostate cancer research receiving $394 million in 2005, and breast cancer receiving $710 million. The figures, for financing by the National Cancer Institute and Defense Department, were provided by the not-for-profit Prostate Cancer Foundation.
More women die of breast cancer than men do of prostate cancer: some 40,970 women will die of breast cancer this year, compared with 27,350 deaths of men from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. Breast cancer also strikes young people more often. But men's chances of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis at some point in their lifetimes are high, with about 234,460 new cases expected to be diagnosed this year, compared with 212,920 new cases of breast cancer.
Nevertheless, said Dr. Peter Scardino, a prostate cancer surgeon and chairman of the department of surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, "there are still more people doing research on breast cancer than on prostate cancer, there's more industry support for research on breast cancer drugs, there's been more attention to the quality of life effects of breast cancer and we have more-effective chemotherapy agents for breast cancer because more trials have been done."
Men's vulnerability appears to start quite early. More male fetuses are conceived, but they are at greater risk of stillbirth and miscarriage, scientists find. Even as infants, mortality is higher among newborn boys and premature baby boys. As children, boys are at higher risk for developmental disabilities and autism. Boys and men are more likely to be colorblind, suffer higher rates of hearing loss and are believed to have weaker immune systems than women. They may also recover more slowly from illnesses. "It's not that we 'could be' the weaker sex -- we are the weaker sex," said Dr. Robert Tan, a geriatrics specialist in Houston who is on the advisory board of the Men's Health Network. "Even when men and women have the same disease, we often find that men are more likely to die. Hip fractures stand out, for instance: women seem more likely to recover, while men are more likely to die afterward."
Behavior plays a role in some of the extra deaths and illnesses among men: they tend to be more aggressive than women and to take more risks. Men smoke at higher rates than women, drink more alcohol and are less likely to wear seat belts or use sunscreen. Men also suffer more accidental deaths and serious injuries and are more likely to die of injuries and car accidents. They are three times as likely to be victims of murder, four times as likely to commit suicide and, as teenagers, 11 times as likely to drown.
Some experts think that depression contributes to these reckless and self-destructive behaviors, but that just as heart disease was initially defined by men's experiences and therefore ignored or missed in women, depression may have been framed by women's experiences and therefore may be missed and go untreated in men. In any case, as a result, even though more baby boys are born, among people in their mid-30s, women outnumber men. Among people age 100, women outnumber men by 8 to one.
Among the questions research might explore, Dr. Legato said, are: "Why are there more miscarriages of boy fetuses? What is it about the sexing of the fetus that makes a male more vulnerable? What makes a boy less mature in terms of lung function after he's born? And what is this propensity for risk-taking?" One theory is that males are vulnerable because of their chromosomal makeup: where women have two X chromosomes, men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. "It is said that even before implantation in the wall of the uterus, the newly fertilized XX entity has a leg up," Dr. Legato said, "because it can use that extra X to combat mutations in the chromosome that might be lethal or detrimental. And that might be a reason why females have a more sturdy constitution."
Scientists and advocates who are concerned about men's health are encouraging men themselves to take the first steps by accepting responsibility for their health status, seeking preventive care and making changes in habits, if necessary. New drugs for erectile dysfunction have helped bring men into doctors' offices in recent years, experts say, but that is not enough. "Men need to take as good care of their bodies as they do of their cars and trucks, and they don't," said Dr. Ken Goldberg, a urologist and the author of "How Men Can Live as Long as Women," among other books. "We need men to come in" to the doctor's office, he said, adding, "A lot of men think they're bulletproof and invincible."
Research based on a 2000 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that almost a quarter of all men had not seen a doctor during the previous year, compared with only 8 percent of women, and that one in three men had no regular doctor, compared with one in five women. More than half of men had not gone in for a routine checkup or cholesterol test during the previous year. Even if something was bothering them, the survey found, men often expressed reluctance to seek medical help. Nearly 40 percent said they would delay care for a few days, and 17 percent said they would wait at least a week.
Strangely, some insights into men's behavior in regard to their health have been gleaned from studies intended to yield information about women. A 2001 national study on ambulatory care found that women, who are in the habit of seeing doctors regularly if only because they need reproductive services, had double the number of annual exams that men had. Other studies have found that because poor women with children may qualify for Medicaid, poor men are more likely to lack health insurance.
Advocates say that research must be directed at how specific diseases develop in men, but that studies should also be done to explore the underlying reasons that men do not take better care of themselves. Many psychologists think the problems are rooted in how boys are raised. "We've socialized men from the time they are boys that 'You have to stand on your own two feet,' 'If you have a problem, handle it by yourself,' 'Be a man, take one for the team,' " said Dr. William Pollack, director of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., affiliated with Harvard Medical School. "All of which means, 'Don't complain, don't ask for help and solve the problem by yourself.'" He added: "Men think that being vulnerable is the worst thing. But to recognize there might be something wrong with you, you have to acknowledge: you're vulnerable."
by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post
November 13, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111201065.html
DA NANG, Vietnam -- For a stark reminder of the Vietnam War, people living near the airport in this central industrial city can still stroll along the old stone walls that once surrounded a U.S. military base. But Luu Thi Nguyen, a 31-year-old homemaker, needs only to look into the face of her young daughter. Van, 5, spends her days at home, playing by herself on the concrete floor because local school officials say her appearance frightens other children. She has an oversize head and a severely deformed mouth, and her upper body is covered in a rash so severe her skin appears to have been boiled. According to Vietnamese medical authorities, she is part of a new generation of Agent Orange victims, forever scarred by the U.S.-made herbicide containing dioxin, one of the world's most toxic pollutants.
For decades, the United States and Vietnam have wrangled over the question of responsibility for the U.S. military's deployment of Agent Orange. But officials say they are now moving to jointly address at least one important aspect of the spraying's aftermath -- environmental damage at Vietnamese "hot spots" such as Nguyen's city, Da Nang -- that are still contaminated with dioxin 31 years after the fall of Saigon.
Though neither Nguyen nor her husband was exposed to the Agent Orange sprayed by U.S. forces from 1962 to 1971, officials here say they believe the couple genetically passed on dioxin's side effects after eating fish from contaminated canals. "I am not interested in blaming anyone at this point," the soft-spoken Nguyen said on a recent day, stroking her daughter's face. "But the contamination should not keep doing this to our children. It must be cleaned up."
Vietnamese and U.S. officials last year conducted their first joint scientific research project related to Agent Orange. Testing of the soil near Da Nang's airport, where farmers say they have been unable to grow rice or fruit trees for decades, showed dioxin levels there as much as 100 times above acceptable international standards. Now the United States is planning to co-fund a project to remove massive amounts of the chemical from the soil. A senior U.S. official involved in Vietnam policy said the plan is evidence that the two countries, having embarked on a new era of economic cooperation, are finally collaborating to address the problem. "The need to deal with environmental cleanup is increasingly clear, and we're moving forward from talking to taking concrete actions to respond to the issue," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the project has not yet been publicly announced.
The more politically sensitive issues of responsibility and direct compensation for victims remain unresolved. Although medical authorities here estimate that there are more than 4 million suspected dioxin victims in Vietnam, the United States maintains that there are no conclusive scientific links between Agent Orange and the severe health problems and birth defects that the Vietnamese attribute to dioxin. Still, with a much-changed Vietnam now among Asia's most dynamic economies -- the French luxury house Louis Vuitton has opened a branch in Hanoi, and the hottest nightspot in the capital is a glitzy disco called Apocalypse Now -- both sides appear more willing to seek common ground. Ahead of President Bush's first official visit to Vietnam this week, some also express hope that they are taking the first steps toward a reconciliation on their most divisive wartime issue.
Coming Together
During the war, American forces sprayed about 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over the jungle canopies and jade-green highlands of Vietnam. The most toxic of the herbicides used for military purposes, it defoliated countless trees in areas where the communist North Vietnamese troops hid supply lines and conducted guerrilla warfare. Because Vietnam lacked the resources to conduct its own environmental cleanup, dioxin-related birth defects have been diagnosed in thousands of children whose parents were not exposed during the war. In many cases, families such as the Nguyens were not warned of the hazard until it was too late.
After doctors told them their daughter, Van, was a dioxin victim, the Nguyens cemented over the small garden in their front yard and stopped eating fish from nearby canals. Even now, however, many of their neighbors remain unaware of the danger. "What could any of us do, anyway?" asked Luu Thi Nguyen, whose family survives on the $1.50 a day her husband makes as a day laborer. "None of us can afford to move. Now I know the soil is contaminated. My daughter has already suffered from this, and I worry about what this soil might still be doing to all of us."
Vietnamese officials estimate the cost of cleaning up the country's three worst hot spots -- including the area near the old U.S. military base in Da Nang that is now the city's main airport -- will be as much as $60 million. Before year's end, they hope to launch the first phase, the development of a plan for cleanup and land use in the city, with an initial contribution of about $300,000 from the U.S. government. That kind of cooperation has appeared to give new momentum to the issue on other fronts. On Thursday, the Ford Foundation announced that it is putting $2.2 million toward environmental restoration, contamination education and victim relief projects related to Agent Orange. The United Nations Development Program is also set to piggyback with a major grant in coming weeks that would provide additional research funding for the cleanup effort, which Vietnamese officials hope to complete by 2010. "Vietnam is developing economically very rapidly, and I think the passage of time has played a role in both sides coming together," said Charles R. Bailey, the Vietnam director of the Ford Foundation, which has also funded key studies used to identify the country's most contaminated areas. "There is a sense that this is the last piece of unfinished business between the two countries. It is finally starting to be bridged."
But many here stress that the United States still needs to do far more to right past wrongs, and some are anticipating that Bush will offer a measure of apology for Agent Orange's wartime use when he visits. "There are new signs that we are moving forward on cooperation with the U.S. on technical issues," said Le Ke Son, Vietnam's top official on Agent Orange. "It is very important to close the past, to close the war between Vietnam and the United States. But for that to happen, the U.S. must agree to cooperate with us in a bigger way."
Push for Compensation
What many Vietnamese are waiting for is direct compensation for victims of Agent Orange as well as an unambiguous admission of responsibility from the U.S. government. In 1991, Congress authorized assistance for American veterans believed to be suffering from dioxin side effects, but at the same time, the legislation noted that conclusive links between illnesses and the herbicide remained "presumptive." That allowed U.S. officials to effectively sidestep a de facto admission of guilt in Vietnam and avoid offering compensation to Vietnamese victims.
At least one group of victims has already made a formal push for compensation, filing a lawsuit in New York against the chemical companies that produced Agent Orange, including Dow Chemical and Monsanto. In the late 1970s, U.S. veterans filed a similar case and settled out of court in 1984 for a $180 million payment. The Vietnamese case was dismissed last year, but an appeal hearing is expected next month.
The recent advances toward cleaning up the environment are of little solace to these Vietnamese. In a country where birth defects are considered by some an embarrassing reflection of the ill deeds of ancestors, many of the children born with the most severe defects end up abandoned or living in squalid conditions with families too poor to pay for adequate care. The lucky ones end up in the Peace Village ward for Agent Orange victims at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon. In rooms filled with stricken children, nurses tend to patients including a 2-year-old boy born without eyes and a 14-year-old girl whose head has grown bigger than her torso. Many of the 60 young patients have severely limited mental faculties, but existence appears tougher for those who are still alert.
U.S. officials have argued that Vietnam has exaggerated the extent of Agent Orange's effect, blaming the herbicide for birth defects that may have other genetic or environmental roots. But it's the kind of argument that infuriates people such as Duc Nguyen, 25, who began life as a conjoined twin. Nguyen, born in the south-central town of Sathay, an area heavily sprayed by Agent Orange during the war, was separated from his brother, Viet Nguyen, at age 7. Doctors here say that soon after their birth, their mother's tissues were found to contain high levels of dioxin. These days, Duc Nguyen, who has one leg and severe bone distortions, works as Peace Village's information technology specialist. He spends his days in an office one floor below his noncognitive brother, who is kept tied to a bed most of the time, unable to move his stump-like body and reflexively gargling on his own saliva.
A 2004 study by the Vietnamese government indicated that birth defects in Sathay were 10 to 20 times more common than the national average. Duc Nguyen is engaged to be married next month to a beautiful young woman he met through his work at the hospital. But he is still far from finding peace. "I find it ironic that on one hand you put [Saddam Hussein] on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility," said Duc Nguyen, who is not related to Luu Thi Nguyen in Da Nang. "The United States must admit it's responsible and compensate the Agent Orange victims in Vietnam," he said. "It is your moral obligation. Sooner or later, it has to be done."
from Sarah Gardner, Marketplace
November 13, 2006
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/11/13/PM200611135.html
KAI RYSSDAL: There's a vote scheduled in Brussels, Belgium, tomorrow that could ultimately require big changes from American companies. The European Parliament will be holding a preliminary head-count on what it calls its REACH legislation: New regulations covering the use of chemicals in business. Europe and Japan are beginning to restrict the kinds of chemicals used in everyday products, citing threats to human health. But the U.S. isn't following suit. Sarah Gardner reports from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk ... Americans often buy goods branded too toxic by other countries.
SARAH GARDNER: When Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer brought toys to work this past summer, she wasn't playing around. In fact, she was angry when she held up a set of plastic baby blocks at a Senate hearing:
BARBARA BOXER: "I don't want my grandchildren, and anyone else's grandchildren or great grandchildren or children puttin' this stuff in the mouth!" Boxer was holding up those soft plastic blocks that babies love to drool on. They're soft, though, because of controversial chemicals called phthalates. Europe banned them in baby toys but they're still legal here. Americans can also buy types of nail polish, weed killer and kitchen cabinets shunned by Europe and Japan. Yes, kitchen cabinets.
HARRY DEMOREST: "We have known for some time that formaldehyde was a chemical that more and more health agencies were saying was dangerous." Harry Demorest is CEO of Columbia Forest Products in Oregon. He says the glue commonly used in cabinet plywood gives off formaldehyde gases. According to the EPA, formaldehyde Is a probable cancer agent. It's also been linked to asthma and headaches. But the only U.S. agency that limits formaldehyde levels in plywood is HUD. Demorest says when his company hired a lab to test a dozen different plywood planks sold legally around the U.S., it compared them to the HUD standards.
DEMOREST: "All of the products we tested exceeded that standard. As a matter of fact, one piece of plywood from China exceeded that standard by a factor of 10."
Advocates of green chemistry like Michael Wilson at UC-Berkeley claim the United States risks becoming a "dumping ground" for toxic products as other nations clean up their acts. U.S. chemical laws are weak, he complains. Instead of forcing industry to prove a chemical is safe, the burden is generally on the EPA to prove it endangers people and places. And that legal standard of proof, he says, is too high.
MICHAEL WILSON: Most people seem to think that chemical consumer products, for example, that are on the shelves have been tested and somehow cleared for safety by a government agency or what have you, perhaps like pharmaceuticals. And that is just simply not the case in the U.S." Wilson thinks Europe's approach to regulating chemicals is smarter. Better safe than sorry is the general thinking on that continent. But the American chemical industry says Europe is overreaching. Europe's upcoming REACH legislation is alarmist, in their view, and risks banning chemicals that benefit not only consumers but the economy.
Mike Walls is managing director of the American Chemistry Council.
MIKE WALLS: "A chemical can be hazardous but it doesn't necessarily pose a risk either because the amounts are so low or because there's very little potential for exposure for example." Walls says just because Europe is restricting certain chemicals doesn't mean the U.S. need follow.
WALLS: "Europe has made regulatory decisions on particular chemicals that conflict in some cases with the scientific risk assessments done by them." But some companies already forced to reformulate their products for Europe and Japan are now doing the same for the American market. Not always happily.
STACEY MALKAN: "Really what it took, ultimately, was public pressure." Stacey Malkan at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics helped convince big nail-polish makers like Sally Hansen and OPI to take a controversial chemical out of their U.S. products, something they'd already done for the European market.
MALKAN: "Newspaper advertisements, public protest, women calling the companies.... And once the companies started to hear that people were concerned about this, that's when they changed." And it's not just consumer advocates pressing for cleaner cosmetics and less-toxic toys. Now retailers cultivating a greener image are demanding changes. Recently, Wal-Mart announced it will reward its suppliers who find alternatives to three suspect chemicals the store wants off its shelves.
by Sam Kennedy, Allentown [Pennsylvania] Morning Call
November 12, 2006
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5mercury.5559537nov12,0,512840.story
Melody Zullinger unhooked the shimmering 31/2-pound bass and let it slip from her hands back into the river. "The mercury," she said later, explaining why she let the fish go. For the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, the fight in Harrisburg over mercury emissions from power plants is more than political. She can't help wondering if consumption of contaminated fish when she was pregnant years ago contributed to her son's disability. He has attention deficit disorder, one of many health problems linked to mercury pollution. "It's a problem," Zullinger said of mercury. "We know it's a problem. So why shouldn't we do whatever we can to fix the problem?"
Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants, the state's greatest source of mercury pollution, spew five tons of mercury into the air every year. Some of the toxic metal, which is found in coal, rains down nearby; some blows into other states, and even into countries on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. New rules proposed by Gov. Ed Rendell would require the plants to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015, exceeding federal reduction requirements. The state rules would transform coal-rich Pennsylvania -- the country's second-biggest mercury polluter, behind only Texas -- into an exemplar of environmental protection.
The proposed state rules already have been approved by the state's Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee and its Environmental Quality Board as part of an elaborate regulatory review process. Next the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission will vote on the rules. Even if the commission approves them, the environmental committees of the Assembly and Senate could try to override the decision by moving the matter to the Legislature. But the rules must first overcome fierce opposition from business interests, particularly energy companies, including PPL Corp. of Allentown. Complying would be at best too expensive, and at worst technologically impossible, according to the Electric Power Generation Association, a lobbying group.
At a legislative hearing in Harrisburg in September, the association's president laid out a doomsday scenario: The rules would drive up costs of energy production, forcing energy companies to shut power plants and lay off workers. Pennsylvania could see electricity shortages, with the effects rippling throughout the economy. Reducing mercury emissions should be done in a "way that doesn't put power in jeopardy," said Robert Barkanic, PPL's director of environmental management.
The debate boils down to two sets of conflicting predictions. Both sides say science is on their side. Each cites expert testimony and published studies. Kathleen McGinty, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, says technology to control mercury emissions is both proven and affordable. "We are morally compelled to take effective action to safeguard our people against this toxic pollutant," said McGinty, the former chief of President Clinton's Council on Environmental Quality, at the legislative hearing. "And we can take that action at minimal cost."
The state's approach to curbing that pollution has won the support of a broad coalition of groups, such as the sportsmen's federation and religious organizations concerned with the plight of the unborn. Hearings this year drew an unprecedented 11,000 public comments -- all but 38 in favor of the rules. But state politicians also will have to consider the powerful constituencies who are opposed. The electric companies are allied with the coal companies with operations in the western parts of state. And both are giving money to sympathetic office-holders.
State vs. federal rules
Under the new state rules, Pennsylvania would opt out of the Bush administration's cap-and-trade system, which allows smaller, dirtier power plants to buy mercury pollution credits from bigger, cleaner plants. Proponents of the cap-and-trade system, who include electric and coal companies, say it balances mercury reduction and electricity production and protects the country's energy supply by ensuring that smaller plants, which would be very expensive to retrofit considering their limited output, can continue to operate.
Here's how it works: The Sunbury power plant in Northumberland County, for example, could forgo making changes by buying pollution credits from -- in other words, paying a fee to -- some California power plant that has earned credits with its top-of-the-line pollution-control technology. "Mercury control at particular points is purely optional under the president's plan," McGinty said. By comparison, the state rules would prohibit Pennsylvania power plants from buying emissions credits from out of state. This means that virtually all Pennsylvania power companies would have to cut emissions, as opposed to buying pollution credits.
Another difference between the federal and state rules has to do with the amount of mercury reduction. Under the federal rules, power plants are expected to reduce mercury emissions by 80 percent to 86 percent by 2018. Under the state rules, the goal is 90 percent by 2015. That difference could translate into additional hundreds of millions of dollars in how much electric companies will have to spend on pollution controls, according to Barkanic. Capturing mercury emissions, it turns out, is like picking fruit: It becomes more difficult after getting what's within easy reach. In fact, Barkanic said, 90 percent reduction might not be even possible with today's technology, which is the primary reason, PPL says, it is opposed to the state rules. "You can't put yourself in a noncompliance situation," he said. "It's not that we don't want to [comply]; we might not be able to."
Mercury poisoning vs. electricity shortages
Even tiny amounts of mercury can cause serious health problems, according to studies cited by proponents of the state rules. Exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage the brain and kidneys and result in death. Today, mercury poisoning is most commonly associated with fish, such as tuna. Pregnant women and children are advised to limit fish consumption. In Pennsylvania, 77 lakes, ponds and rivers have been found to have dangerously high levels of mercury.
A growing body of science -- including studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- suggests that mercury is finding its way into other foods, as well, and that it could be responsible for a wide array of health problems. Mercury is being absorbed by the grains that people and animals eat. Beef liver, for instance, has 44 times the amount of mercury considered safe by the EPA. Some scientists believe the rising prevalence of attention deficit disorder could be the result of mercury pollution. Mercury also has been linked to mental retardation, autism and cardiovascular problems.
But Pennsylvania could go too far in its efforts to reduce mercury pollution, according to opponents of the state rules. "We believe good public policy demands that as we protect the environment and public health, we also protect jobs, consumers and Pennsylvania's economic future," said Douglas Biden, president of the Electric Power Generation Association. "A thorough cost/benefit analysis is critical."
In response to Secretary McGinty, Biden said the state rules offer "no demonstrated environmental or health benefits" over the federal cap-and-trade system. As for the costs, according to Biden: Forcing electric companies to shut down smaller, dirtier power plants could threaten the power supply and send rates in a newly deregulated electricity market skyrocketing; they also could reduce demand for Pennsylvania coal by 14 percent, since Pennsylvania coal has a higher mercury content than coal from other parts of the country. The rules also would raise the overall cost of reducing mercury emissions -- another sore spot for PPL.
While McGinty said complying with the state rules will cost about $1 million per coal-fired power plant, PPL said in a recent financial filing that it is about $100 million, on average, bringing the total cost for its five coal-fired power plants to more than $500 million. "We're not saying we're against more reductions," Barkanic said. "Where we're disagreeing with the state is how to do that."
Cutting across political lines
The Electric Power Generation Association has framed the mercury debate as a contest between unreasonable environmentalism and jobs. In Harrisburg, more Republicans than Democrats oppose the state rules. Of 100 sponsors of a state House bill designed to block the rules, about a dozen were Democrats. Although some Democrats have received political contributions from the energy industry, the political action committees representing electric and coal companies have favored Republicans. Rep. David Reed, R-Indiana, who wrote a bill intended to block the state rules, has gotten at least $4,800 this year from groups such as the Pennsylvania Coal PAC and PACs representing PPL and Reliant Energy, of Houston, Texas.
Yet, outside the state capital, the debate cuts across political party lines. At least 15 states -- including some Republican strongholds such as Montana and North Carolina -- either have enacted or are considering their own rules, which would go beyond the federal cap-and-trade system.
In Pennsylvania, the electric and coal companies have recruited to their side both the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry and the Democratic-leaning International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Meanwhile, many outdoorsmen, typically a Republican voting bloc, and some Christian groups are siding with Democrat Rendell. "Forget whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. It's whether you are right or wrong," said Zullinger, the director of the sportsmen's clubs federation.
Anglers such as her are perhaps more aware of the dangers of mercury than most because they can't eat some of the fish they catch. "If you are a true conservationist ... you clean up your own backyard first," the Harrisburg resident said.
The plight of children is the primary concern of Christian groups, such as the National Council of Catholic Women and the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, that have spoken out. At a public hearing this summer, the Rev. William Thwing, representing the churches council, said he supports state rules "for the sake of my children and their children yet unborn ... for the sake of the young people who plan to have children in Pennsylvania."
The Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which consists of three Democrats and two Republicans, will meet Thursday to vote on the proposed state rules. According to people closely following the matter, whatever the commission decides is likely to be challenged.
by Randy Lee Loftis, Dallas Morning News
November 12, 2006
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/111006dnsunpowerplants.23560998.html
Texas law says if a power company obeys the rules, it will get its permit. But what if the rules are no good? That question is erupting into a big Texas political battle over permits for proposed new coal-burning power plants. In the next few months, lawsuits, administrative fights and demands for reform before the Legislature will challenge the way Texas regulates air pollution.
The biggest issue is whether Texas' environmental rules are up to the task of protecting public health, the overriding goal of the Texas Clean Air Act and its counterpart, the federal Clean Air Act. Critics say the rules don't even meet the legal minimums. "We think all the words in the law actually mean something," said Jim Marston, head of the Texas office of Environmental Defense, a national group that is suing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Travis County District Court over its coal-plant permit rules. Environmentalists could file another, similar lawsuit in federal court later this month. While judges consider those suits, however, permits for 16 new plants are moving forward.
This month a state administrative law judge will start a race to schedule and conduct hearings and issue recommendations for a half-dozen of them in just six months, the maximum allowed under Gov. Rick Perry's fast-track order for coal plant permits. Before the order, a single plant's hearing process could take a year. Meanwhile, Texas officials are crafting a new anti-smog plan for urban North Texas that must account for pollution from all sources inside and outside the metro area. Planners must do this without knowing how many new coal plants will be allowed.
At the same time, environmentalists intend to urge the Texas Legislature to strengthen the state's environmental laws and rules when its regular session convenes Jan. 9. A coalition of 21 cities and counties led by Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and Houston Mayor Bill White, which is already challenging the coal plants' permits, plans to tell legislators that the state's regulations favor power companies and other polluting industries -- a result, they say, of a too-close relationship between regulators and those they regulate.
Nationwide debate
Companies seeking state permits to build new coal-burning plants across East Texas maintain that they get anything but an easy-going, backslapping reception in state regulators' offices. Instead, they describe the process of getting a permit as often contentious and sometimes painful. "When we go to Austin, we feel like we go in with a big target on our backs," said Mike McCall, head of the wholesale unit of TXU. The Dallas-based power company wants to build 11 of the 16 new coal plants proposed in Texas.
Texas isn't alone in debating how the new boom in coal plants, fed by coal's lower price and growing power demands, should fit into federal and state procedures meant to keep people's lungs healthy. Regulators in Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, and other states also have squared off with public interest groups over what clean-air laws require. Power companies nationwide have applied for permits or already received them for about 150 new plants that would burn coal, the cheapest but dirtiest fuel for making electricity. But Texas' plans for coal are the biggest, followed by Illinois and Ohio.
For the most part, state rules dictate permit details, since Congress, when it rewrote the Clean Air Act in 1990, made enforcing air quality chiefly a state job. But federal laws and guidelines play a big role in shaping state rules. In general, states can set rules that are stricter than federal rules, but they can't soften them. Environmental groups and other critics of the coal boom say the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has done exactly that in three ways: by not requiring power companies to consider the lowest-polluting technology for their coal plants; by not making them assess each new plant's impact on Dallas-Fort Worth's air quality; and by not measuring the new plants' cumulative impact.
Courts will have to decide what the law really requires. For Ms. Miller, until legislators force reforms at the commission, headed by three appointees of Mr. Perry, Texas won't protect people from dangerous air pollution. "If we could change the process at the TCEQ, that could be changed," she added. The commission declined to comment.
Any affected area
All of the proposed coal plants are outside the metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth area, so they aren't in the federally designated "nonattainment area" -- the area that hasn't met the federal health standard for ozone, or smog. For that reason, Texas isn't requiring the power companies study how their emissions might drift into urban North Texas and affect local smog, even though the ability of a distant source to affect a city's air quality is well established. Environmentalists say Texas' failure to require studies of the potential effect on Dallas-Fort Worth is a clear violation of the Clean Air Act. The federal law requires studies of the potential impact of a major pollution source "in any area which may be affected."
Texas officials say they'll address the new plants' impact on North Texas through their new smog-fighting plan, due ext month. The plan will seek pollution cuts both from industries and vehicles inside the metro area and from industries beyond Dallas-Fort Worth, officials familiar with it said. But it's not known whether it will require power plant reductions outside the metro area. It's also unclear how the state can write a smog plan without knowing the cumulative impact of the new coal plants. Texas treats each proposed plant as if it were alone, instead of being part of a fleet of big new pollution sources that together might affect North Texas smog. Ms. Miller called that "a gigantic omission" by state officials. Lawyers for environmental groups said the omission violated federal requirements for assessing a new source's impact, as well as a provision of Texas law requiring the state to deal with cumulative impacts from pollution sources concentrated in an area.
It also raised concerns at the EPA, said Richard Greene, the agency's regional administrator, but for practical instead of legal reasons. EPA officials suggested to the state environmental commission that it compute the plants' cumulative impact early on, since they'll have to do it anyway in the new smog plan, Mr. Greene said. Mr. McCall of TXU said it wouldn't be fair for the state to deny one plant's permit because of the cumulative effect of other plants. "If they comply with the law," he said, "the state ought to give them the permit."
Behind closed doors
Late last year, a controversial move by the Environmental Protection Agency gave power companies a huge advantage in state permit fights across the country, including in Texas. The EPA's decision concerned a requirement in the federal Clean Air Act that new pollution sources must use the "best available control technology" to limit emissions. When an electric industry consultant asked the EPA if that meant companies had to consider using the cleanest coal technology -- integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC -- for their new plants, the EPA said no. Just two days later, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality embraced that guidance, ruling that Texas power companies could ignore the cleaner technology and go with cheaper but higher-polluting coal plants.
Environmental groups sued the EPA over the guidance, successfully arguing that the agency made the ruling behind closed doors and with no public input. In federal court last month, the EPA canceled the guidance and promised to revisit the issue in public. But it still maintains it has no power to make states consider IGCC for new coal plants.
Lawyers for environmental groups said the dispute showed federal regulators had lost interest in pushing for innovations, despite the federal Clean Air Act's instructions to keep forcing pollution levels down whenever possible. "The EPA's really operating on some very old information," said Ann Weeks, attorney for the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force, one of the groups that sued over the guidance.
IGCC converts coal to a gas before burning it. An EPA report in July said gasification offers lower emissions on nearly every front and makes it possible to capture carbon dioxide, the chief manmade culprit in global warming, before it reaches the atmosphere. A dozen states now require power companies to consider IGCC for their new plants. Texas still says companies don't have to study the cleaner technology. Companies in Texas are now seeking permits for 16 conventional coal plants and one that would burn petroleum coke, a coal-like refinery waste, without having to consider IGCC. Houston-based Tondu Corp. has voluntarily adopted IGCC for a proposed power plant on the Corpus Christi ship channel.
TXU's most recent permit applications, filed April 20, cite the now-invalid EPA guidance as justification for not considering IGCC. Mr. McCall, the TXU executive, said the pollution controls the company chose for its proposed new plants match IGCC on some emissions. A comparison of TXU's plans and a dozen IGCC plants being permitted across the country shows that the cleanest IGCC plants would beat TXU on all eight regulated air pollutants. In three cases -- nitrogen oxides, mercury and volatile organic compounds -- TXU's emissions would be lower than at least one of the new IGCC plants.
TXU has promised to reduce its overall emissions by 20 percent even as it adds new plants and doubles its coal use. That would require an overall 70-percent emissions cut from its existing coal plants, essentially meeting new federal emissions rules years early. TXU has not specified how it will accomplish those reductions. Mr. McCall acknowledged that none of TXU's proposed plants, which would operate for decades, would have the carbon-capturing ability that current IGCC plants can have, although TXU says future retrofits might be possible. TXU is also investing in research on controlling future carbon dioxide emissions.
Environmental groups contend that Texas' failure to press power companies to embrace IGCC -- which alone among existing coal technologies can handle future caps on greenhouse gases -- is a violation of the Clean Air Act and an abandonment of clean-air progress. "The issue is really about decision rights, about who gets to decide, the plant's developer alone, or the developer and the public together," said John Thompson, director of the Clean Air Task Force's coal transition project, which encourages cleaner technologies. "We need radically cleaner technology on the coal side."
Tight, crowded schedule
The timetables for the legal challenges, permit decisions and the smog plan are about to collide. No hearings are set so far for the Environmental Defense lawsuit against the state environmental commission, filed on Oct. 17 in Travis County District Court. A state response is pending. Another lawsuit is possible soon in U.S. District Court. Environmentalists gave TXU a 60-day advance notice on Sept. 29 that they would sue the power company over one of its proposed plants under the citizen-enforcement provision of the federal Clean Air Act. Dallas oilman and developer Albert Huddleston is bankrolling that lawsuit, saying he is deeply concerned over the plants' possible effects on North Texas air. The 60-day notice expires Nov. 28.
That same day, a state administrative law judge will convene a preliminary hearing on TXU's permit requests. Testimony isn't likely until late January, with the judge's recommendation for or against the permits due by April 23. The state environmental commission will then decide whether to issue the permits.
Mr. Perry said his October 2005 fast-track order for new coal power plants was simply meant to cut red tape. Environmentalists called it a giveaway to power companies, among his biggest campaign donors. Meanwhile, the state's new smog plan for urban North Texas is due out for public comment in December. By June, the state must submit the final plan to the EPA. That will be one month into next summer's ozone season.
by Bruce Henderson, Charlotte Observer
November 10, 2006
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/15975990.htm
North Carolina set its first limits Thursday on the amount of mercury that coal-fired power plants may release, joining several states that have set tougher standards than the Bush administration's for the widespread contaminant. Mercury, which occurs naturally in coal, takes especially hazardous form when it spews from smokestacks and falls into water. Pregnant women who eat contaminated fish risk giving birth to babies with lower intelligence and learning problems.
In March, state health authorities broadened their warnings about eating mercury-contaminated fish. In addition to four freshwater species caught in Eastern North Carolina, the list now includes largemouth bass caught anywhere in the state. The state Environmental Management Commission, which held packed mercury hearings in Charlotte and other cities last spring, struck a compromise Thursday that utilities and environmentalists praised. It gives Duke Energy and Raleigh-based Progress Energy until 2018 to install mercury controls on their 14 existing power plants or shut them down. That's six years sooner than had been earlier proposed. New plants, such as the two units Duke plans to build in Rutherford County, must come equipped with state-of-the-art mercury controls. Duke estimated that would drop emissions 90 percent, compared with older plants.
George Everett, Duke's environmental affairs vice president, called the rules a reasonable approach. "We'll see how reasonable it is in 2013," he joked, referring to when utilities have to file detailed plans describing controls they will install at existing plants. John Suttles of the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, which pushed for tough restrictions, said the N.C. rules "should stand among the strongest in the country." Public concern and rapidly evolving technology to control mercury, he said, led the commission to adopt rules that are stronger than earlier state proposals and those the Bush administration enacted last year.
Because they use so much coal, power plants account for more than 70 percent of the state's mercury releases. A study released this year by UNC Asheville researchers found that 15 percent of the 175 N.C. residents who volunteered for testing carried potentially unhealthy mercury concentrations.
Charlotte's Todd Glasier, policy chair of the Carolinas Clean Air Coalition, called Thursday's action "a compromise that strengthens the (federal) mercury control legislation, but not to the extent that we had hoped." Glasier said the group had preferred a shorter deadline for pollution controls to be in place at existing plants, as other states have done. But he said he was pleasantly surprised that new plants would fall under the rule as soon as 2007.
Unlike most states, North Carolina got a head start on mercury. Its 2002 Clean Smokestacks Act, adopted to reduce ozone- and haze-forming pollutants from power plants, also removes mercury. The 2002 act alone will reduce mercury emissions 74 percent by 2013, the N.C. Division of Air Quality estimates.
by Barnaby J. Feder, New York Times
November 9, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/science/09cnd-rust.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
A common mineral similar to rust, fashioned into a powder of tiny crystals, could provide a simple, inexpensive method for removing hazardous levels of arsenic from drinking water, researchers at Rice University in Houston are reporting today. That would help reduce the risk of cancer for tens of millions of impoverished villagers in China and southeast Asia, where high levels of arsenic occur naturally in many water supplies, the researchers said in telephone interviews. Arsenic contamination is also a threat to water supplies in parts of Latin America, Africa and the United States, where the Environmental Protection Agency this year lowered the allowable arsenic levels in municipal water systems to 10 parts per billion, down from 50 parts per billion.
The research, being reported in the journal Science, is the latest of numerous investigations into the environmental uses of nanotechnology -- the manipulation of materials so tiny that they are measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter. At such small scales, common materials often begin to exhibit novel properties. In this case, the researchers made crystals of a rustlike mineral called magnetite. They found that when the crystals were smaller than 40 nanometers wide, they were much more sensitive to low-strength magnetic fields than would have been expected based on the behavior of larger particles. At 12 nanometers wide, the researchers found, the magnetite particles could bind up to 100 times as much arsenic as the larger iron particles currently used in filters, yet still be extracted from test liquids with inexpensive magnets that are widely used as computer components.
While the particles' performance has been tested only in laboratories, the researchers said it seemed likely that removing arsenic could be as simple as pouring a small amount of magnetite powder into a pot of well water and waiting briefly while bound arsenic was pulled to the bottom by a simple magnet. "This should come out costing one to two cents a day for a family of four in the developing world," said Mason B. Tomson, a professor of engineering at Rice who was a co-author of the report. He added that the process would yield a small amount of arsenic-laced residue -- a year's worth would be about enough to fill a cooking bowl -- that villagers would have to collect and dispose of, probably in landfills.
Communities with centralized water systems might use filters rather than magnets to collect the particles, because such technology is already in place to collect contaminants from those systems, according to Vicki L. Colvin, a chemistry and chemical engineering professor who is director of Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology. The researchers said further research was needed to determine whether the magnetite would be an improvement on other nanoscale minerals already used in such systems, including zirconium, aluminum, iron and manganese compounds.
Even if Mr. Tomson's cost estimates are correct, researchers still have to demonstrate that the technology can be used safely. For example, no one knows the risks of the arsenic residue being consumed by accident or leaching from landfills back into water supplies. The first field tests of the material are expected to be mounted in Brownsville, Tex., next year; a study is planned in India as well, the researchers said.
Competing technologies, including the use of specialized clay filters and of plants that draw arsenic from the ground, are also being explored. Experts in arsenic contamination who were not involved in the Rice research said the magnetite approach sounded intriguing. "All of the arsenic removal systems so far require filtration of some sort," said Alexander van Geen, a senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Such systems perform poorly if they are not properly maintained, and they may become contaminated with bacteria and other microbes, he and others said.
But Mr. van Geen said a simple solution was to drill wells into deeper water supplies that are free of arsenic. He has estimated that most villages in Bangladesh, the country with the most wide-ranging problems, could be supplied with clean water through a $50 million investment in deeper wells.
by John Vidal, London Guardian
November 9, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1943059,00.html
This week, two scientists called for curbs on the use of 200 chemicals -- to protect very young children. They were accused of scaremongering, but anyone who dismisses worries about our toxic world, writes Sarah Boseley, should remember what happened to the Romans ...
Lead has been squarely blamed, in some scientific quarters, for the decline of the Roman Empire. Lead was the fabric of the cooking pots, the wine urns, the water pipes, and the plates in Roman times; it was used in makeup; it was even used for its sweet flavouring. It contaminated the food and drink and befuddled the brains of the wealthy ruling classes, the people who could most easily afford classy metalware and were therefore most exposed. Why was Caligula degenerate? Why was Julius Caesar apparently sub-fertile for all his sexual proclivity? (He had only one child.) Because of lead, the theory goes. However far-fetched some of that may sound, the Romans were certainly aware that lead was toxic. The slaves who mined it had a short and miserable existence. In fact, nobody has thought lead harmless for more than 2,000 years. In the 1900s, the deaths of children who had chewed on slivers of lead paint peeling from an Australian veranda were well documented. Yet through most of the past century there were few controls over the use of lead in paint, petrol, ceramic glazes and other products.
Lead is no longer permitted in paint and petrol in the UK. Children do not die from lead poisoning any more in this country, but the consequences of the lead-happy 1960s and 70s are with us still, according to two doctors who work in environmental and community medicine in Denmark and New York, and who have just published an alarming review of the potential for damage of the chemicals we use in our everyday lives. "Almost all children born in industrialised countries between 1960 and 1980 were exposed to substantial amounts of lead from petrol that could have reduced the number of children with far above-average intelligence (IQ scores above 130 points) by more than 50% and might likewise have increased the number with IQ scores below 70," they wrote in a journal this week. And this was not a minority journal for environmentalists. This was in the Lancet -- one of the four leading medical journals in the world.
Dr Philippe Grandjean, from the University of Southern Denmark, is surprised that anybody raises an eyebrow at the idea that you or I could be thicker because of petrol fumes. "The main discussion about lead is not whether there has been a drop in IQ," he says. "I think that is widely accepted. I have met a couple of industry consultants who wanted to doubt it, but I don't think any serious researcher or scientist does." No, the issue today, in his view, is not what substantial quantities of lead have done to your brain and mine, but what very small doses in the environment continue to do -- not so much to an adult, but to a foetus or a small baby, whose brain is still developing. Not just elsewhere in the world, but right here in the UK, where there are still low levels of lead in the environment (some from past pollution, "like a debt from the past", as Grandjean puts it, and some from modern electronics and new pollution).
The point that Grandjean and his co-author Philip Landrigan, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, want to make is that we know very little about the damage we could be doing to our babies' brains when we expose ourselves and them to modern cleaning fluids, cosmetics, pesticides, glues, plastics and other modern necessities made with potentially hazardous chemicals. And they believe that there may be already evidence of what these chemicals are doing to us. Neurodevelopmental disorders, for example, appear to be rising, they say, although they acknowledge this is controversial. Many doctors argue that we are simply better at diagnosing them. But certainly more cases of autism are being detected than before. And it is the same with attention deficit disorder, Grandjean and his colleague add. Cerebral palsy is now common.
Are chemicals really causing these things? "I think so, but we don't know," says Grandjean. "In this whole group of disorders ... the National Academy of Sciences says 3% can be explained by known chemicals, 25% is probably environmental exposures of some kind and probably a genetic predisposition. Of the rest, a lot are unknown and some are inherited. "We know with methylmercury, PCBs, arsenic and toluene that they can affect cognitive development so kids perform more poorly than they might have. Some are pushed over the edge ... but some are simply not doing so well in school. It definitely constitutes a problem for the kid and the family, but there are also consequences for economic production and social costs."
If all this sounds like scaremongering, it should be remembered that while only a handful of chemicals are now branded dangerous to neurodevelopment, a very long time was allowed to pass between people first becoming suspicious of them, and someone else imposing controls upon their use. Lead is the most stunning example of our complacency. Arsenic is another. Powdered milk contaminated with arsenic in 1955 led to more than 12,000 cases of poisoning and 131 deaths in Japan. Among survivors, there was a tenfold increase in the proportion who were mentally retarded. But regulations on the control of arsenic still do not emphasise the need for protection of the developing brain. It is the same story with the few other chemicals for which there is real evidence of harm to the growing brain, such as methylmercury (an organic mercury compound), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), solvents -- including alcohol -- and pesticides.
In this week's paper, Grandjean and Landrigan have pulled together a list of 200 chemicals in everyday use for which there is evidence of neurotoxicity although the case would not yet stand up in court. They argue that we should not wait for the final proof. It might take 20 years or 50 years to work out what the long-term consequences of exposure to some of these chemicals will be. We should act now, they argue, and put in strict controls for their use to protect babies. If it turns out that the chemicals are harmless after all, then the controls can be lifted, they say. Better safe than sorry.
The Lancet review is deliberately timed. The European Council of Ministers will next month consider new legislation, known as Reach, which could toughen controls over industrial chemicals. For the most part, the chemicals under consideration are those known to be cancer-causing, damaging to the immune system or hormone-disrupting. (Those that could possibly damage children's brains are not even up for discussion at this point.) And even though the list of hazardous chemicals on Reach is limited -- probably 1,000 out of some 30,000 currently in use -- the environmental health lobby is concerned that ministers may draw back from the main proposal -- which is that where there is a safer chemical, one with known hazards should not be used.
Colin Butfield, head of campaigns at the World Wildlife Fund, says there has been massive lobbying from the chemical industry. The official UK position at the moment, he says, is against. WWF ran its own tests on some 400 people, 300 of whom were in the UK, to find out just how polluted with everyday chemicals we all are. Many people had a cocktail of industrial chemicals in their bloodstream. "The levels were quite low -- they were in parts per billion," he says. But while that might be fine, even if it is an uncomfortable idea for adults, many -- but not all -- scientists would say it is not fine for a foetus. "There is a big scientific argument going on about it, but we are saying, why are you taking the chance?" says Butfield.
Some years back most of the medical establishment was silent about the possible hazards of chemicals in the environment because of a lack of evidence of real harm. But that is no longer the case. Today, at Unesco in Paris, a European network representing 2 million doctors, and including the British Medical Association, will demand that the Reach legislation is passed. The doctors, together with scientists and environmental lobbyists, are meeting to promote the "Paris appeal" -- 166 recommendations for improving environmental health. These include a ban on formaldehyde glue, a ban on the use of a chemical called DEHP (one of the phthalates) in medical plastics, and a ban on phthalates generally, as well as aldehydes and glycol ethers in cosmetic products.
Genon Jensen, director of the Health and Environment Alliance, which is convening the meeting, says many of the scientists speaking will, like Grandjean and Landrigan, be warning of the dangers of low doses of chemicals. 'We're not talking about the impacts you can see right now but what you may see in 20 or 30 years' time," she says. For example, "There is evidence from animal studies that shows that bisphenol A can affect genes, one of which may be implicated in obesity. Bisphenol A is used in the lining of canned food tins. "The argument is always that the levels are so low that it is not doing us any harm because we are not sick or dying, but maybe in 20 years we will have Parkinson's or maybe I'm passing it to my child who may have birth defects," she says.
Another speaker will tell the meeting how Sweden cut its use of pesticides and saw a decrease in cancers known as lymphomas. There will be a presentation on the increased rate of birth defects among women in the first trimester of pregnancy working in fields where there is high pesticide use. Several studies have pointed to this, says Jensen. "The argument is what is the appropriate political and precautionary public health response."
The impact of chemicals on our everyday lives will continue to be a hugely controversial field until there is incontrovertible evidence of harm. This week, there have been sceptical voices over the Lancet review. Alan Boobis, a professor in experimental medicine and toxicology at Imperial College London, thinks that some of the evidence lacked rigour. "This is a risk-management issue. In implementing the precautionary principle it is important to take into account all relevant information and not just the potential harm that might result from inaction. For example, what would the consequence (health, economic, societal) be if some of the compounds on the list were banned or severely restricted on the basis of the precautionary principle?"
And the chemical industry will continue to lobby as hard as the environmentalists. It has a lot to lose. Grandjean says (sounding upbeat) he has already had his first threatening letter, but will not be deterred. "I am a physician," he says. "I have to speak on behalf of human beings, not on behalf of money-making".
Safety first -- how to minimise your exposure to chemicals
Hazardous chemicals are everywhere, from the bedding and clothes we use, to the food we eat, the air we breathe and the cars we buy. It is impossible to create a totally safe haven, but you can minimise your exposure.
Cleaning Most dish-washing liquids and detergents are made from petroleum; some contain alkylphenol ethoxylates, which are suspected hormone disruptors. If in doubt, buy natural products (such as Ecover), wash your hands with plain soap, and clean your windows with vinegar or lemon juice.
Children Avoid most plastic feeding bottles, which can contain bisphenol A, a hormone-disrupting chemical. Don't use old dummies and PVC toys that may contain now-banned phthalates. If pregnant, avoid paint or using DIY products that emit fumes. Buy children's clothes and pyjamas without plastic logos or chemical treatments.
Air fresheners Aerosol propellants contain flammable and nerve-damaging ingredients as well as tiny particles that can lodge in your lungs. Fragrances of all kinds can provoke allergic and asthmatic reactions. The solution? If the room smells, open a window.
Mites Companies recommend you eradicate them with sprays, gels, powders and liquids, but most have very active chemical nasties. The solution is to ventilate rooms, air your beds, vacuum all surfaces and mattresses, and wash fabrics at high temperatures.
Living rooms Carpets and flooring materials may be treated with a wide array of chemicals that some people are allergic to. Use natural flooring such as cork tiles, or cotton rugs that can be washed at high temperatures.
DIY and gardens Avoid painting, paint stripping or using DIY products unless using eco-friendly brands. Don't occupy newly painted rooms, and avoid using pesticides indoors or in the garden. Use water-based varnishes and glues, paints, stain removers, sealants and adhesives; and buy paints made from plant oils.
Cars That "new car smell" comes from the high levels of chemicals escaping from the plastic, upholstery, carpeting and other synthetic materials. Beware!
Food Don't let food come into contact with PVC clingfilm. Buy organic fruit and vegetables. Wash and peel food.
by Bruno Giussani, Business Week
November 8, 2006
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2006/id20061108_116412.htm?chan=innovation_innovation+%2B+design_euroscan
Venice hardly counts among the most-polluted places in the world. There are no cars traveling its narrow streets, and all traffic is either by foot or by boat. So despite the crowded walkways and canals, the air in Venice is far cleaner than that of, say, Milan, Italy's economic capital, which recent figures indicate has some of the worst air quality in Europe. Even so, visitors to the Italian Pavilion of the architecture exhibition in the Venice Biennale, which will remain open until Nov. 19, will get a breath of fresh air. That's because parts of the concrete walls and grounds have been built with cement containing an active agent that, in presence of light, breaks air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, benzene, and others through a natural chemical process called photocatalysis.
The demonstration is a reminder that smart innovation applies also to mundane products and can offer unexpected solutions even for complex problems such as air pollution. The technology, called TX Active, has been under development for almost 10 years in the labs of Italcementi, the world's fifth-biggest cement producer, and is starting to be applied commercially to buildings and streets in Italy, France, Belgium, and elsewhere.
Painting the Town
The results so far are astonishing: A street in the town of Segrate, near Milan, with an average traffic of 1,000 cars per hour, has been repaved with the compound, "and we have measured a reduction in nitric oxides of around 60%," says Italcementi's spokesperson Alberto Ghisalberti. In a test over an 8,000 square meter (or approximately 2 acres) industrial area paved with active blocks near Bergamo, Italcementi's hometown, the reduction was measured at 45%. In large cities such as Milan, with persistent pollution problems caused by car emissions, smoke from heating systems, and industrial activities, both the company and outside experts estimate that covering 15% of all visible urban surfaces (painting the walls, repaving the roads) with products containing TX Active could abate pollution by up to 50%, depending on the specific atmospheric conditions.
Of course, this approach isn't meant to replace efforts to curb pollution, but it can significantly magnify their effects. Here's how it works: The active principle -- basically a blend of titanium dioxide that acts as photocatalyzer -- can be incorporated in cement, mortar, paints, and plaster.
The Big Bite
In the presence of natural or artificial light (this applies also indoors) the photocatalyzer significantly speeds up the natural oxidation processes that cause the decomposition of pollutants, transforming them into less harmful compounds such as water, nitrates, or carbon dioxide. "These aren't necessarily 'clean', but from an environmental standpoint they're much more tolerable," says Rossano Amadelli of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), the scientists who led the laboratory testing of the TX Active materials. The patented pollution-reduction technology -- which in Italy is becoming known as "cemento mangiasmog" or "smog-eating cement" -- comes at a premium, of course, but the extra cost is limited by the fact that the active principle only needs to be used on the surface.
Keeping It Clean
"To transform the facade of a five-story building into a photocatalytic surface would add only 100 or so euros ($120) to the cost of a traditional paint or plaster," Ghisalberti estimates. Paving a street or a sidewalk is a different story, but still not extreme: Photocatalytic blocks cost about one-third more than usual paving, which is still far less than the long-term cost of doing nothing about air pollution.
It turns out that the photocatalyzing cement has another advantage, one that has great appeal to star architects such as Richard Meier. TX Active not only hastens the decomposition of organic and inorganic pollutants, it also prevents their build-up on surfaces, helping to preserve a building's pristine appearance over time. The spectacular design of Meier's Dives in Misericordia Church in Rome, includes three concrete self-bearing white sails, topping out at 26 meters. One of Meier's material requirements was that the whiteness of the sails be durable. That has been achieved through the application of the active principle, which basically "self-cleans" the surfaces. The same system has been applied to the new Air France headquarters inside the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, a place with high concentrations of hydrocarbons and where, needless to say, a standard white facade would not remain white for long.
by Ben Arnoldy, Christian Science Monitor
November 8, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1108/p02s02-usju.html
BOSTON -- Hotel rooms, apartment complexes, and homes aren't your typical toxic waste sites. But then, methamphetamine isn't your typical drug. The drug -- which makers often cook up in their kitchens using household chemicals and tools -- is potent enough to transform homes into hazmat zones. When law officers bust a meth lab, the drugmaking materials are carted away. But what happens next to such former sites -- numbering more than 100,000 across the country -- varies dramatically.
Some states, led by Colorado, have enacted tough regulations that require former lab sites to undergo a formal safety assessment -- and more cleanup, if needed -- before they can be reinhabited. The laws are prompted by the extreme toxicity of the chemicals used to cook meth, and suspicions about the long-term effects of chemical remnants in the air and on surfaces. Other states mandate home sellers to disclose the presence of former meth labs. The patchwork of state approaches reflects the uneven spread of the drug, the potential costs of cleanup, and concerns about setting safety standards in the absence of definitive scientific research, experts say. "Until we fully understand what the potential health effects can be, we feel that it's better that states are more proactive as opposed to reactive," says Shawn Arbuckle with the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. Better safe than sorry, he adds.
Cooking meth just once contaminates a building with traces of acids and iodine in the air, as well as large amounts of meth on surfaces ranging from sofas to ventilation ducts, according to research done at National Jewish. Hydrochloric acid is an irritant to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, and iodine can trigger asthmatic reactions, says Mr. Arbuckle. Business contractors have sprung up to assess and decontaminate former meth labs. Basic cleanup involves hauling away carpets, furniture, drapes, and other items that can absorb airborne particles. Then all surfaces are thoroughly cleaned, including ceilings and walls. Sometimes dry wall must be replaced.
Meth Lab Cleanup Co., based in Texas, charges about $300 to $500 for a consultation, assessment, and site sampling. Basic decontamination costs from $4,000 to $6,000 for a modest home. But expenses can quickly skyrocket when further work is required. Joseph Mazzuca, the company's operation director, says cooks sometimes disconnect stove vents to prevent neighbors from smelling suspicious fumes. Instead the vent pipe is stuffed into the insulation, creating a bigger mess. He's also had to move a home to remove topsoil contaminated by dumped chemicals. While he has yet to see a well contaminated by dumping, he has seen PVC piping melted away.
Three-quarters of his calls are to sites that never involved law enforcement, suggesting there are many labs beyond the 100,000 reported to the Drug Enforcement Agency since 1998. "Our estimate is that there are about a million and a half meth labs in America, and less than 1 percent of them have been decontaminated," he says. He's noticed other disturbing trends. He sees children's clothing or toys at most sites. And 75 percent of labs are rentals. "Typically landlords, especially on the bad side of town, don't worry about [cleanup] so much unless there's a law," he says. Increasingly, states are addressing that, particularly those that have dealt with the problem the longest, such as in the Midwest and West. Colorado has been at the forefront, forcing property owners not only to have the mess cleaned up but to adhere to a very specific set of procedures and testing requirements.
Northeastern states -- which have yet to see high numbers of home labs -- have been slower to adopt new laws. Connecticut released a new set of nonbinding guidelines following a bust last year of two labs in East Hampton. After federal authorities came and went, the landlord of one of the properties, a small ranch house on a wooded road, began his own cleanup. He then sold the home, according to a local public health official and a former resident, without notifying the health department or telling the buyer beforehand of the existence of the former lab. (The attorney involved in the sale declined to comment, and neither the current owner nor the selling landowner could be reached.) Connecticut still does not compel an owner to decontaminate except in serious cases, and property sellers still are not required to disclose former meth labs -- a requirement now in 14 states. "There is not uniformity across all of the states, and frequently people look to the federal government to step in at that point [to put] out something that can serve as a standard for all states to at least consider," says Kevin Teichman, a scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA aims to offer standards by 2011 tied to demonstrated health risks. Arbuckle says that determining what is a healthy level of exposure over a long period of time will require more research -- something Mr. Teichman says the agency is pushing. Federal money is also going to assessments and cleanups. The EPA has revised its definition of brownfields to include former meth labs, though grants can go only to groups such as nonprofit organizations, not homeowners. The DEA offers free training and equipment to first responders and shoulders much of the bill for a contractor to remove lab materials whenever called to a scene. "Technically the contractor has cleaned it out," says Steve Robertson, a special agent assigned to DEA headquarters. "If it was my property I would rip out the carpet, I would scrub the floors, I would repaint everything, because these ... are very hazardous chemicals."
from the Canadian Press, Toronto Globe and Mail
November 7, 2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061107.wchem1107/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20061107.wchem1107
submitted to this bulletin by Chemical Sensitivity Network
TORONTO -- Environmental exposure from hundreds of industrial chemicals could be damaging the developing brains of children worldwide, but few of the potentially toxic compounds are regulated because too little is known about their effects, researchers say. In a paper published on-line Wednesday in The Lancet, two specialists in environmental medicine (each of whom have spent decades studying the effects of lead and mercury exposure on the fetus and children) compiled a list of 201 industrial chemicals they say have the capacity to cause irreparable damage to the developing human brain.
Lead author Dr. Philippe Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, said he and co-author Dr. Philip Landrigan of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine both had similar experiences while studying the neurotoxicity of lead and mercury. "First, things were seen in adults and later on, the disease was seen in children born to pregnant women or children exposed in early childhood at much lower doses," Dr. Grandjean said Tuesday from Copenhagen. "Later on, it was found that these effects were more serious and they were permanent (in children)."
"And then we wondered: Is this only happening with mercury and lead?" The two researchers then undertook an extensive review of published data on chemical toxicity to create a list of those agents most likely to harm the developing brain. Their tally of 201 compounds includes everything from arsenic to benzene and phenol. About half of the chemicals are ubiquitous in industrial processes and products -- and could make their way into the environment through air, water and food. But because there is a dearth of research on the effects of these chemicals specifically on children, their use has not been regulated in the same way as mercury, lead and PCBs.
Dr. Grandjean and Dr. Landrigan argue that the lack of international regulation is putting children around the globe at potential risk, and they worry whether exposure to such chemicals could be behind such conditions as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (The causes of these conditions remain unknown.) Calling the potential for harm a "silent pandemic," the researchers are urging governments worldwide to begin strictly controlling these chemicals, instead of waiting for years of testing to provide definitive scientific proof that they are either harmful or benign. "What we are saying is we cannot afford to wait decades because that way we will expose another generation of children to toxic chemicals that will affect their brains permanently," Dr. Grandjean said. "We cannot afford to do that. In the knowledge society of today -- and certainly in the future -- we need all the brain power we have ... It's a crucial resource that we need to protect and we're behaving as if it's not important at all."
But Warren Foster, director of the Centre of Reproductive Care at Ontario's McMaster University, said there is no data to support the idea that chemical exposure is harming children or that diseases such as autism are caused by such pollution. While Mr. Foster has high regard for the two researchers and calls the goal of their review "lofty," he said their suggestion that industrial chemicals are causing neurotoxic effects in fetuses and young children is "a hypothesis that requires testing."
"The kids actually have to be exposed," Mr. Foster said from Hamilton. "Simply because things are in the environment does not necessarily mean that children are exposed or are exposed to the concentrations necessary to create the neurotoxicity. I don't think it helps them to create fear when we don't have evidence of a problem." Still, Mr. Foster concedes that until there is definitive evidence of their effects, people should be cautious in limiting exposure to industrial chemicals, for instance, by not heating food in margarine tubs that can produce harmful compounds.
However, he's more concerned that governments could start banning chemicals based on insufficient data, only to replace them with compounds about which nothing is known. "We still need coolants, we still need plasticizers, we still need flame retardants, we still need solvents," he said. "So if we ban these, they're going to be replaced with something else. And just because something else comes along that we know nothing about doesn't mean it's safer. So I would rather live with and regulate something that we know might have problems and minimize release into the environment and minimize human exposure by modulating our behaviour."