To join the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI), please complete the form at http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html.
August 6 - 11, 2006
Madison, Wisconsin
at the Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center
This is an international forum for formal presentation and discussion of scientific advances concerning environmental mercury pollution. The conference organizing committee has set three principal goals for the conference: 1) to enhance the synthesis of information presented at the conference through an integration of focused plenary sessions, poster sessions, conferee discussions, and synthesis papers; 2) to focus and enhance the integration of science and policy concerning environmental mercury pollution; and 3) to increase participation by underrepresented groups, including graduate students, beginning professionals, and representatives of developing nations.
Website: http://www.mercury2006.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1435
Contact: conference organizing committee at info@mercury2006.org
The Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative welcomes these new members:
Organizational member:
Individual members:
For a full list of LDDI members, please visit http://www.iceh.org/LDDImembers.html.
by Keiko Morris, Newsday
July 31, 2006
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov4835315jul31,0,5436129,print.story?coll=ny-business-print
Kevin Schwartz is so confident in the safety of the household cleansers his company makes that he's not above taking a swig to prove his point. And for his sales reps, throwing back a shot is almost common practice in the field, he said. This is usually punctuated with the challenge to do the same with a shot of an ordinary cleaning solution. "We drink our shot, and nobody wants to drink theirs," said Schwartz, president of the Oceanside-based Healthy Home Products. ". . . All of the ingredients are noncaustic and nontoxic, which means they don't emit any fumes at all. There's zero percent risk of toxicity due to inhalation, ingestion, eye contact or skin contact."
Schwartz bills his company's new line of BabyGanics all-purpose household cleaner and tub and tile solution as vegetable-based, environment-friendly, "all-natural," nontoxic and safe to use around newborns and pets. Hence his willingness to imbibe it. Launched in April, BabyGanics joins a growing list of companies such as Seventh Generation, Method, Ecover, and Earth Friendly Products that offer what they say are kinder, gentler and "greener" household cleaners. Like Schwartz, the makers of the other nontoxic cleaners point to the conventional solutions as the major polluters of indoor air, with their harsh chemicals and fumes that can irritate airways and eyes. They say the cleaners contain chemicals linked to cancer in animals and toxic substances, some of which can damage the nervous system if exposed in high doses.
Slowly catching on
The market is still small, making up approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of all cleaning products sold in 2005, according to the Organic Trade Association. But the concept of using nontoxic, "green" cleaners for health or environmental reasons has gradually been gaining steam. Gov. George Pataki last year signed legislation to require schools to use such cleaners by the 2006-07 school year. Locust Valley and Great Neck school districts are ahead of the curve. Locust Valley has been experimenting with more environmentally friendly and less toxic cleaners for about five or six years. It has eliminated the use of most harsh cleaners and solutions with fragrances and switched to such unconventional products as liquid lye bacteria, which digest urine salts, to clean bathrooms, said Henry Alilionis, director of facilities and operations. The Great Neck district converted its cleaners about two years ago.
Once relegated to the realm of organic and specialty stores, these green cleaners are making their way into mainstream supermarkets and big-box chains. BabyGanics can be found at buybuyBaby and will also be sold, starting in September, at Babies "R" Us. Method, a San Francisco-based company, supplies Target, Costco, and now Gristedes, among other chains. Sales for nontoxic, green cleaners have tripled in the past five years, according to the Organic Trade Association. Those in the industry believe that the rise has been helped by young families and expectant parents increasingly wary of the possible ill effects of anything coming in contact with young, susceptible bodies.
"It's a personal experience," said Chrystie Heimert, a spokeswoman for Seventh Generation, a Burlington, Vt., company now 18 years in the business of making "environmentally responsible" home and personal products. Its name, according to company promotional materials, comes from the Iroquois' Great Law requiring its people to consider the impact on the next seven generations when making decisions. "Once you have kids you think about what they are eating, wearing, what they are exposed to," Heimert said.
Pets and babies sparked Schwartz's curiosity and eventual devotion to the subject. Schwartz, who also owns a company that supplies high-end nutritional food for dogs, cats and horses, had noticed that his dog Tucker had developed an irritation just below his chin. One of Tucker's begging methods is to rest his head on Schwartz's glass coffee table and stare plaintively. So Schwartz figured the cleaner being used on the table must have been playing a role. He said he stopped using the cleaner, Tucker's condition cleared up and he decided to look into alternative cleaners. Then his sister, who was pregnant at the time, was told by her doctor to avoid conventional cleaners. "It started me getting interested in what's out there and why should my dog be having a skin problem," said Schwartz, who, with his wife, is expecting a baby in September. "We started doing some research, and the lightbulb went off in my head." Schwartz's Healthy Home Products also has a brand of cleaners called PetGanics, which has a slightly different formula.
Why switch?
Makers of all-natural, nontoxic products present a host of reasons they believe people should switch to their brands. They note the abundance of toxic substances in the home and their potential ill effects. In 2004, household cleaners and other products such as pain relievers and personal care items played a role in the approximately 1.2 million calls to poison control centers for poison exposures involving children younger than 5, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. Seventh Generation's guide to nontoxic cleaning estimates the average home contains anywhere from 3 to 10 gallons of toxic substances, including ammonia and bleach, and that less than 10 percent of these products have been adequately evaluated for human and environmental safety.
Indoor air pollution is one related issue product manufacturers have cited as a major problem as technology has improved insulation for homes and introduced new synthetic chemicals to cleaners. They cite this alongside the increasing rates of asthma and respiratory illnesses among children as reason to convert to their products. "Every time a new technology comes out for better insulation and newer and better ways to clean a bathroom, that adds up to chemicals being trapped indoors and your air being much more toxic," Schwartz said.
Volatile organic compounds present in many all-purpose sprays and window cleaners are another potential hazard, these manufacturers say. Evaporation of these compounds, along with fragrances added to cleaning products, can act as asthma triggers, said Martin H. Wolf, director of Seventh Generation's product and environmental technology. He and others in the business of green cleaners point to one four-year study of household solutions showing among its findings that scrubbing a bathroom with a cleaner containing 2-Butoxyethanol -- common in many cleaners and polishes -- could present health risks. The study, released in May and conducted by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that a person who spends 15 minutes cleaning scale off a shower stall in a small, moderately ventilated bathroom could inhale three times the acute one-hour exposure limit for the compound set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Interior window cleaning was another activity the study found to pose risks for high exposure to the same chemical.
The "organic" label
The manufacturers of these nontoxic cleaners also profess to be environmentally conscious and, in the case of BabyGanics, organic. But experts caution consumers to find out exactly what such labels mean. Schwartz said Healthy Home Products uses 100 percent recyclable materials, all the ingredients come from renewable resources and are all vegetable-based, so nature's enzymes can break it down without any aid. He does advertise his product as "organic," which he defines as being derived from a renewable source and readily biodegradable. He said he uses oils from plants that are organically grown (meaning without conventional pesticides, synthetic materials and bioengineering) wherever possible.
Seventh Generation also operates with an environmentally responsible philosophy but does not use the term "organic." "I would take the term 'organic' with a grain of salt," Wolf said. "Any processing of organic oils results in it being declassified as organic. If they do something other than minimal processing, it's no longer 'organic.'"
Environmentally friendly, according to Seventh Generation, means not exacerbating the problems of global warming, waste, ozone layer depletion and reduction of precious resources such as old-growth forests, petroleum or potable water, Wolf explained. So Seventh Generation -- which sells paper products, dish liquid, dishwasher and laundry detergents, household cleaners, diapers and baby wipes -- produces its cleaning agents without chlorine and phosphates. It also uses vegetable-based ingredients in a process that uses less energy than cleaners depending on petroleum-based ingredients, he said.
Just how biodegradable a solution is is an important question for these environmentally conscious manufacturers of cleaners. The Soap and Detergent Association's fact sheet on "natural" cleaning products states that "major surfactants biodegrade quickly and thoroughly, and do not present a risk to organisms living in the environment." Using one type of surfactant (a solution's main cleaning agent) over another has no "inherent environmental advantage," the sheet states, adding that processing cleaning agents derived from plants and animals produces more emissions and solid waste, but production of petrochemical-based agents consumes more energy.
Reading the directions and properly using and storing products can improve safety, said Nancy Bock, vice president of the association and chair of the National Poison Prevention Week Council. "Every single day of our lives, the cleaning products we represent are being used safely by folks every day in their homes, in their schools, in their businesses and in their communities," Bock said. "What typically gets lost is that the proper use of the products is really the critical way to improve public health and think about disease prevention."
But the makers of green products question just how quickly conventional surfactants biodegrade. Petroleum-based cleaning agents can remain for a long time in soils and waterways, according to Seventh Generation's guide, Wolf said. Seventh Generation adheres to the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "ready biodegradable" -- meaning roughly 60 percent to 70 percent of the substances will convert to carbon dioxide and water within 28 days. Schwartz also questioned the pace at which these petroleum-based agents break down. "Their point is that over time all of the chemicals used will eventually biodegrade," Schwartz said of the Soap and Detergent Association's assertions. "The problem is that when you are talking about toxic chemicals that can be harmful to breathe and touch, what is the impact of having them sit over time until they are fully broken down and no longer pose a threat?"
Many green cleaners are sold in supermarkets such as Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's, Wild By Nature, and smaller stores and Web sites selling foods and products advertised as natural and organic. Though the market for nontoxic, green household cleaners is small compared with conventional cleaners, a Natural Marketing Institute 2005 survey showed that many consumers are interested in these products. The institute's consumer trends database reported that 84 percent of consumers said they are interested in environmentally friendly options in household cleaning products, but only 31 percent of consumers have purchased such cleaning products (including natural dish detergent) in the past 12 months.
The Method company relies on a different tactic than its competitors to sell its products to a mainstream audience. It focused not just on the effectiveness of the products but also on presenting the cleaners in a sleek design so that the containers become accessories to be displayed on the counter. "If you're going to ask people to buy green just because it's green, you're preaching to the converted, basically 3 percent," said Adam Lowry, Method co-founder and vice president of development. "The idea here is make your brand hip and cool and modern. Make it beautifully designed so it lives on the countertop rather than under the sink. Give it great performance and make green just one other aspect of the product so you're not asking people to sacrifice. "Ultimately," he added, "that's how you mainstream 'green.'"
by Harry Jackson Jr., St. Louis Post-Dispatch
July 31, 2006
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/lifestyle/stories.nsf/healthfitness/story/587801B0B3F2A608862571B500080F55?OpenDocument
If you have a dental filling, chances are you've got mercury in your mouth. Is that dangerous? It depends on whom you ask. For 150 years, dentists have used "silver fillings" in tooth cavities. Surprise: The major component of silver fillings is mercury. That has a lot of people concerned. Mercury in its many forms is poisonous, especially to children and pregnant women. The most heinous problems are neurological ones, which can hurt children's ability to learn, even before they're born.
Still, many dentists and all of the associations that back them say the fillings are safe. But some medical practitioners, holistic adherents and even the World Health Organization say mercury shouldn't be considered totally safe under any conditions. The answer as to whether you should fear your silver fillings falls to your own comfort level, dentists say. Reputable studies say silver fillings pose no danger; others, including some dentists, say that if they hurt one person, that's one too many.
The studies:
Silver fillings in teeth are called amalgams. They're about 50 percent mercury, plus a powder composed of silver, zinc, copper and tin. When those ingredients are mixed, the substance hardens and seals a cavity virtually forever. The mercury used in amalgam is elemental mercury. Its primary danger is the vapor it gives off over time. Tests show it's tiny -- about 0.03 to 0.27 micrograms a day, depending on the number of fillings in your mouth and what you've been chewing. The amount of mercury vapors needed to cause sickness -- neurological problems, kidney problems and other illnesses -- is about 1,000 times more than that, experts say.
Studies, including a big one as recent as April, say that years of research in Europe and the United States has found no ill effects in adults or children linked to mercury-based dental fillings. As a result, federal agencies have given mercury-based fillings a clean bill of health. Those agencies include the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medical applications such as mercury-based fillings, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which monitor medical research and applications.
Scientists consider the form of mercury found in some large fish a more immediate concern, especially to children and pregnant women. Go to http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html for the Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines on eating fish.
The doubts
Some people don't trust the government or the studies to be that precise. The fact is: Mercury is harmful even when it doesn't hurt enough people to sway a double-blind, controlled study. So it's the right of anyone who wants to avoid being the statistically insignificant person who might get hurt, said Dr. Ron Schoolman who practices dentistry with Cherry Hills Dental Group in Wildwood. He and his partner haven't used silver fillings for more than 15 years. "The possible toxicity of mercury has been an issue," he said. Despite the American Dental Association's endorsement, "... a mercury vapor analyzer can be placed in people's mouths and you can see the mercury vapors coming off of these (fillings)." Also, he cited the International Association of Oral Medicine and Toxicology as saying that mercury vapors come from a tooth when rubbed with an eraser -- something that might simulate chewing, he said.
Despite the reports of overall safety, and despite how small the amounts of mercury vapors might be, he said, "We don't know who is (sensitive) to mercury and who is not. It has to do with your genetics. Only people who can detox their bodies naturally can handle these fillings and other people may not. These mercury fillings could be a problem for their general health."
Some don't doubt
Proponents of using amalgam fillings -- or more precisely, people who don't fear them -- point to the latest study that was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. The studies were sponsored by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and agency of the National Institutes of Health. Both studies watched children from 8 to 10 years old, a total of more than 1,000 -- half getting amalgam fillings and half getting composite fillings made from plastic. The studies found no medical problems that could be linked to mercury poisoning. Scientists checked for neurological, digestive, kidney and mental problems. They even watched for drops in IQ as small as 3 points.
They found that children with amalgams excreted slightly higher amounts of mercury in the urine: about 1.5 micrograms per liter at the most. "However, these numbers fall within the so-called 'background' level of 0-4 micrograms per liter for an average person not exposed to industrial or other known sources of mercury," the researchers wrote.
Alternatives
This is where the proponents and opponents agree. Amalgam fillings are about to hit the end of their shelf life. Dr. Jeffrey Dalin, who practices dentistry in Creve Coeur, and is a spokesman for the Greater St. Louis Dental Society, says he finds amalgams safe, but that because of the alternatives, he hardly uses them any more. A plastic composite currently looks like real tooth material and are as dependable as amalgam fillings. "I like the composite plastics -- tooth colored materials. They look nice, they bond to the tooth and there's no post-operative sensitivity -- patients can eat right away without being on the 'dental diet,'" Dalin said. "It's not that I'm negative on silver or that I'm worried about it, I'm just more positive on the plastic."
The only problem is small, he said. The tooth surface must be perfectly dry when it's placed. If not, it won't hold. If that becomes a problem, the amalgams are the next option, he said. Still, he said he honors patients wishes. So the alternatives include gold fillings or other means of repairing a tooth that's falling apart. Schoolman of Cherry Hills also likes the alternatives: "If we have a material that's hard enough to withstand the chewing forces in the back teeth and isn't toxic to your body, why use something that could be toxic to some people's bodies?"
Taking action
Dentists said that the silver fillings can be removed, but no dentists questioned had seen a rush to have amalgam fillings removed. Nevertheless, removing them could cause more problems than they cure. Drilling, even accompanied by instruments that reduce the smoke and vapors, could produce more toxic vapors in a short time than someone would get for a long time simply by letting the tooth sit. Also, removing a filling could remove more of the tooth, and the only alternative after that is a cap, dentists said, a more expensive option. Still, dentists say they'll remove amalgam fillings upon request. Be aware, doctors say, that insurance companies are wishy-washy on what they will and won't reimburse. Before incurring a high cost, check to find out what an insurance company will cover and how much you have to pay from your own pocket.
by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore, Christian Science Monitor
July 31, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0731/p13s02-stct.html
PORTLAND, ORE -- On a recent sunny Saturday near the banks of the Willamette River, teenagers gathered on a warehouse loading dock called the "smash zone." Before a crowd of cheering onlookers, they took baseball bats to their old computer printers and fax machines, breaking them into hundreds of pieces before the remnants were swept into a giant recycling bin. Welcome to Geek Fair 2006. Inside, hundreds of technology aficionados -- some in business suits, others in Pink Floyd T-shirts or sporting a Mohawk -- competed in video games, tried to "dunk the geek" into a pool of cold water, or just lingered beneath a giant poster of the Linux penguin, the icon of open-source software. Ultimately, however, Geek Fair 2006 confirmed the success of Free Geek, a small computer recycling outfit located in a downtown warehouse. The five-year-old company has drawn accolades across the world for its ability to motivate large numbers of Portlanders to donate, recycle, and reuse old electronics.
Now it seems electronic waste recycling, or "e-cycling," is catching on nationwide. More grass-roots nonprofits are springing up, dedicated to tackling the waste problem caused by discarded electronics. A growing consumer awareness of the lasting environmental impact of "e-waste" -- more than 250 million personal computers and 100 million cellphones are tossed aside each year in the United States -- has prompted some states to pass legislation banning certain toxic materials from landfills. And a number of domestic manufacturers now offer e-cycling programs to their customers as an additional selling point. "In the last several years ... we discovered that this was an issue that resonated with many consumers," says Ted Smith, senior strategist for the Silicon Valley Toxics Association. "More and more people realized that they didn't know what to do with the old electronic gear that was building up in their homes."
Growing concern over where e-waste actually ends up is prompting many consumers to find better solutions than just leaving outdated computers on the curb. In its first five years alone, Free Geek salvaged more than 760 tons of electronics that would have otherwise littered landfills. Today, some credit the group's aggressive, multipronged approach as the inspiration behind a burgeoning e-cycling revolution across the US. "It's been interesting, the amount of attention we get for what we're doing," says Oso Martin, founder of the nonprofit, whose volunteers build computers out of donated parts for use by low-income families as far away as South Africa. "When we started in 2000, there was no model on how to take care of e-waste. We were the first to see that you can solve both problems right there -- digital divide and e-waste."
Simply producing the next best gadget is no longer satisfying environmentally aware consumers, manufacturers are discovering. More consumers are just as interested in how to handle the wake of outmoded electronics as they are the wave of the future. As a result, dozens of other nonprofits have begun their own programs for discarded electronics, and in recent months manufacturers such as Apple, Intel, and HP have come on board with their recycling programs. In September, Dell will offer its customers the country's first totally free recycling program. "We have a broad commitment to environmental responsibility and have set goals about educating customers; this is absolutely a move in the direction of doing the responsible thing," says Dell spokesman Bryant Hilton.
With most existing recycling programs, including Dell's, customers must buy a new computer to recycle the old one free of charge. Dell's new program, rolling out in September, allows any Dell owner to recycle for free -- even the shipping from their home to a recycler is free. The program was a fairly easy transition for Dell, as they have been required by law to provide totally free recycling in Europe for several years. Indeed, the US still lags far behind Europe in its commitment to e-cycling. The European Union enacted legislation in 2002 requiring manufacturers to pay the entire cost of recycling the electronic equipment they produce, from telephones and toasters to stereos and laptops -- an approach known as the "producer responsibility model."
However, there are signs that legislative movement to manage e-waste will continue to percolate at the state level in the US. California places the cost of recycling in the hands of consumers -- known as the "advance recovery fee." A half dozen other states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine have gone so far as to ban certain items such as computer monitors, televisions, and cathode ray tubes from landfills. In Washington State, the nation's most aggressive e-cycling statue was signed into law in March, requiring that by 2009 manufacturers be responsible for both collecting and recycling their products.
But today, the voluntary efforts of modest, grass-roots groups like Free Geek in Portland continue to lead the way. "Dell's move really is a big deal, a big breakthrough, but it's also a small step," says Mr. Smith. "What is the percentage of equipment manufacturers take back compared to what they sell? Even when you add in recycling through other vendors, the highest number I've seen is 10 percent. So 90 percent is not being recycled."
The environmental impact is enormous. Computers alone contain more than 100 chemicals, including lead, cadmium, barium, and mercury. Even if computers make it to a domestic recycler, laws about handling components of electronic waste, such as mercury, are far stricter in the US than in the Southeast Asian countries where much of the waste ends up. "The issue with mercury is what do they do with it after they extract it," says Mary Blakeslee, senior deputy and mercury expert at the Environmental Council of the States in Washington, DC. "There is no technology to destroy mercury. That's the key issue -- the storage of this stuff, and making sure it's managed in a way that doesn't create more mining, which is the global economics portion."
Meanwhile, as the technology behind such devices as laptops, cellphones, and MP3 players continues to advance at an accelerated pace, the life cycles of these gadgets shortens because they break or newer models are introduced. A National Safety Council report put the average life span of a PC in 2005 at two years, compared to 4-1/2 years in 1992. The average consumer goes through cellphones even faster -- about every 18 months, according to Tim Mohin, director of sustainable development at Intel, which has launched its own e-cycling efforts with educational and recycling programs.
"There are so many computer illiterate people out there who have lots of money," says Clayton Kern, an environmental biology major at Unity College in Unity, Maine, who makes it a habit to pick up and recycle computers left on the curb. "If some small, easily fixable thing breaks on their two-year-old computer, they just chuck it and get a new one." In the end, he reasons, regardless of whether manufacturers bear the burden of funding the recycling of e-waste they introduce, the success of e-cycling depends on consumers to exercise restraint in how quickly they go through their electronics -- and in how they choose to dispose of them.
by Amanda Lehmert, Cape Cod Times
July 29, 2006
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/baystate29.htm
Massachusetts became the first state in the nation yesterday to adopt a safe drinking water standard for the chemical perchlorate. There are several plumes of the toxic chemical flowing in the aquifer under the Massachusetts Military Reservation. The aquifer is the Upper Cape's main source of drinking water. The new safety standard of 2 parts per billion -- equal to a teaspoon in an Olympic-sized swimming pool -- regulates the level to which the military must clean up perchlorate-tainted water flowing under the base. "Massachusetts' new standards ensure that the water is safe to drink, and the monitoring requirement protects water supplies into the future," state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert Golledge said yesterday in a news release.
The Defense Department and the Environmental Protection Agency have set clean up goals of 24 parts per billion, but the EPA has yet to set a federal drinking water standard. Even if the agency adopts the weaker standard, pollution clean up in Massachusetts will have to meet the 2 parts per billion regulation. The new state standard comes as the Army prepares to flip the switch on a $5 million treatment plant to remove perchlorate from the aquifer.
On a recent afternoon, the wind blew hot air across the dirt and gravel road that cuts a swath through the former artillery impact area at Camp Edwards. Below the road, deep in the earth, plumes of perchlorate contamination flow through the aquifer. Perchlorate, used in military munitions, explosives and fireworks, can disturb the function of the thyroid gland, which regulates metabolism and development in children. State environmental officials, who promoted the strictest standard in the nation, argued that 2 parts per billion is necessary to protect children from overexposure.
There are more than a half dozen plumes of perchlorate that are heading toward the base boundary. Perchlorate, a component of rocket propellant, was carried into the aquifer by rain and melting snow as it flowed through tainted soil. Two new treatment systems at the base were built with the Massachusetts standard in mind, said Ben Gregson of the Army's groundwater studies program. "We want to make sure we get it done." The clean up systems will treat two plumes with the highest concentration of perchlorate. The plumes contain as much as 770 parts per billion of the chemical.
One is located in former contractor ranges at the eastern border with Sandwich. The other plume, the so-called J-2 plume, flows in the direction of the Upper Cape water supply wells on the northeastern portion of Camp Edwards in Sandwich. It also contains high levels of explosive residues. The new clean up systems include three extraction wells that plunge deep into the earth to collect contaminated water from the aquifer. The wells pump the tainted water to three above-ground, garage-like stations. Inside the stations, water surges at a rate of 125-175 gallons per minute through a series of six cylindrical containers that hold resin and carbon, which strips all contaminants from the water so they are no longer detectable. The treated water then travels back to the ground through a series of underground infiltration beds.
The treatment systems could clean the contamination in 10 to 15 years in their current configuration, Gregson said. But the systems could be expanded if more perchlorate contamination is found as the Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA continue groundwater monitoring at the base. The clean up is scheduled to begin by the end of the summer.
by Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press, Washington Post
July 28, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801376.html
WASHINGTON -- A House panel on Friday approved federal security regulations for chemical facilities, angering the industry because manufacturers may in some cases be forced to replace toxic materials with safer but more expensive substitutes. The bipartisan compromise, approved by a House Homeland Security Committee voice vote, would also let states enact tougher standards as long as they do not impede the federal regulations. The bill marks the first major House step to regulate chemical manufacturing and storage plants since 2002.
Environmentalists call it a far better plan than a stalled Senate bill that does not mandate the use of substitute materials, so there is less of a risk to the public if there were a terrorist attack or accidental release. "In an election year, when you're coming up on September, and you're coming up on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, members both in the House and Senate are going to start looking at what they can show in way of accomplishment in the area of security," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who helped broker the compromise plan.
Both the House and Senate bills give the Homeland Security Department regulatory authority by accepting or rejecting chemical facility security plans, but do not set specific minimum standards for the industry to meet. Currently, the industry -- which experts believe is a top target for terrorists -- generally self-regulates its 15,000 plants nationwide. Under the House plan, however, Homeland Security could mandate the use of safer substitute materials at the high-risk facilities if it can be reasonably done, significantly reduce risks, and won't threaten the plant's ability to stay in business. Facilities could still appeal Homeland Security's decision to a review board of officials selected by federal and state agencies, industry officials and security experts.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., said the tougher guidelines could help reduce "the impact of a terrorist attack on high risk chemical plants that could kill thousands of Americans." But the chemical industry, which has resisted requirements for the more expensive materials, described the House bill as taking "several steps backward." The industry has spent nearly $3 billion in security measures since 9/11. The safer substitute materials "cannot be considered a "silver bullet" solution to improving chemical security," said the American Chemistry Council in a statement.
from the New Zealand Herald
July 28, 2006
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=204&ObjectID=10393422
A report out today was expected to show that all New Zealand Vietnam War veterans exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange may have suffered genetic damage. The Massey University study is also expected to show that the genetic damage caused by exposure to toxins in the herbicide may affect both the children and grandchildren of servicemen.
All 25 Manawatu veterans involved in the research are believed to have had genetic degeneration, some of it significant. Veterans and their families who have battled with serious health problems and birth defects have argued for 30 years that Agent Orange has had a genetic impact upon them and their children. Successive governments have said there was no proof the veterans had been exposed, let alone hurt. Two years ago, a select committee confirmed that Agent Orange was sprayed on New Zealand soldiers in Vietnam.
Ex-Vietnam Servicemen's Association spokesman Chris Mullane said the study endorsed the findings of overseas research and confirmed what they had known for decades. It was, however, good to have a study which specifically targeted the New Zealand experience, he told National Radio. Mr Mullane acknowledged the study was a small one and hoped the Government would now support a wider study involving more veterans and their progeny.
A research team based at Massey's Institute of Molecular BioSciences studied what is known as "sister chromatid exchange" in cells. This test analyses the way chromosomes reproduce themselves. It looks for clastogens, which are environmental agents that cause genetic damage and can cause cancer. A joint working group involving the Ex-Vietnam Servicemen's Association and the Government, set up to study the health of Vietnam veterans and look at the possibility of paying compensation to those who have suffered health problems, is due to report back soon. Veteran Affairs Minister Rick Barker has had the report since April.
Mr Mullane said he hoped the findings of the latest research would be considered by the group and would strengthen the families' case for compensation. The full results of the research are due to be released later today. The Green Party said the study showed the Government should reconsider its position on paying compensation. "This study indicates these men have suffered irreversible effects from their exposure to the defoliant during their time in Vietnam," said health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley. "It is time the Government acknowledged this and gave the veterans the compensation they have been seeking."
by Nikki Wittner, Pascagoula Mississippi Press
July 28, 2006
http://www.gulflive.com/news/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/news/1154081734299010.xml
MOSS POINT -- A Louisiana chemist and environmentalist will share her soil sample findings with citizens Saturday night, and the results are surprising and disturbing, Ocean Springs resident Cynthia Wright said. An Outreach of Love, a local environmental organization, will hold the meeting Saturday at 7 p.m. in the Archie Osborne Family Life Center at Restoration and Revival Center, 3430 Machpelah St. Wilma Subra, president of Subra Company Inc., began testing soil samples along the Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana coasts following Hurricane Katrina. "I was part of the first wave of relief help and I noticed the abundance of soil that came in with the storm surge," Subra said.
Subra began sediment sludge sampling along the Coast, specifically in the areas were storm surge drove sledge onto land. Her findings are surprising and alarming, she said. "I found high levels of arsenic, well above the safe standards," she said. In Mississippi, more than 90 percent of samples exceeded the acceptable standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. The highest concentrations of arsenic were found in Moss Point, Gulfport and Pearlington, Subra said. The findings were 27 times the state and federal standards, Subra said. Subra concentrated her efforts in areas on the first line of defense, as she terms it. Those who live along the water bodies on the Coast where water surge pushed the sediments into living spaces.
Subra also discovered high levels of heavy metals and hydrocarbons in addition to hosts of bacteria. E-coli and Staph, which can cause soft tissue infections, allergies and salmonella, were two of the bacteria present in the area. Wright, group ambassador, said many members of Abundance of Love are suffering the ill effects of the soil sediments. Pascagoula resident Sandra Douglas of Lanier Road, had five feet of water in her home. Ten months after Hurricane Katrina, she said she is still suffering its impact. "Ever since the storm I have had a really heavy voice and have noticed skin discoloration," she said point to her upper lip. "I have stayed sick with respiratory problems." Douglas said although she has seen many doctors, they have yet to diagnose her problem. "I wake up coughing up black phlegm," she said.
Subra, who is currently vice-chair of the Environmental Protection Agency National Advisory Council for the Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, said misdiagnosis is common along the Coast. "The problem in the medical community is not treating the patients for both gram negative and gram positive organisms, thus the patients continue to be ill," Subra said. Upper respiratory infections and rashes are other illnesses being reported to the group. In fact, Wright said about 50 individuals were tested in the Escatawpa community in October. Some of them, she said, are still suffering from pneumonia and other illnesses.
Subra, who holds degrees in microbiology and chemistry from the University of Southwestern Louisiana, received the MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award from the MacArthur Foundation for helping citizens understand, cope and combat environmental issues in their communities. She was also one of three finalists in the environmental category of the 2004 Volvo for Life Award.
An Outreach of Love was formed in the months following Hurricane Katrina, and has partnered with many non-profit organizations around the country and in Mississippi. The public is invited to attend the meeting, where Subra will provide handouts on her findings and other vital information on dealing with the effects of the soil. "The goal of this meeting is to get information to the public so that all citizens can make decisions regarding their health," Subra said.
by Randy Lee Loftis, Dallas Morning News
July 28, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072806dnpropowerplants.1227d94.html
Texas power plants dominate the list of the nation's biggest emitters of toxic mercury and are among the biggest sources of carbon dioxide, a study released Thursday shows. The Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit group headed by a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement chief, analyzed the federal government's emissions data for all U.S. power plants. Texas' worst showing by far was for mercury, a powerful nerve poison released into the air when power plants burn coal.
Five of the top 10 plants in total emissions of mercury were in Texas, including the No. 1 polluter, TXU's Martin Lake plant, south of Longview in East Texas. American Electric Power's Pirkey plant, also near Longview, ranked No. 1 in mercury emission rate -- the amount of emissions per power generated. Several Texas plants also ranked high in total emissions or emissions rates of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. TXU's Martin Lake plant and NRG Energy's Parish plant in Fort Bend County were No. 5 and 6, respectively, in total carbon dioxide emissions nationwide. Five of the country's top 50 carbon dioxide emitters were in Texas.
More coal plants ahead
The report looked at emissions from existing power plants. It did not include the 16 new coal-burning generating units that power companies plan to build in Texas in the next three to five years. Those plants are on a fast-track permit review under an executive order that Gov. Rick Perry issued last year. The order cuts the time for the public to review and possibly challenge a plant's draft permits from about a year to six months. Mr. Perry's opponents for re-election -- Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman -- have criticized the fast-track order and say they would crack down on power plant pollution.
Nationwide, about 120 new coal-burning units are in the works. Higher natural gas prices, plus political support from the White House, are spurring the coal boom. The report's authors said their findings point out the need for states to act on emissions, such as mercury and carbon dioxide, where they say federal action has been inadequate or, in the case of carbon, nonexistent. "Some electric power companies have made long-term commitments to clean up their plants, either to settle legal actions or in anticipation of future regulation," said Ilan Levin, the report's chief author and counsel to the Environmental Integrity Project. Former EPA enforcement head Eric Schaeffer is the project's director. Other companies have resisted, Mr. Levin said. "Until the public and policymakers hold the electric industry to its promised cleanup of the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants, Americans will continue to bear unnecessary health and environmental costs," he said.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency, declined to comment on the study. A spokeswoman said the agency's mercury policies are based on instructions from the Legislature. Mercury is a health hazard when it builds up in fish and other parts of the natural environment. It is especially dangerous for pregnant women and their children. Coal-burning power plants are by far the nation's biggest mercury source.
The Bush administration adopted a mercury rule in March 2005 that requires overall reductions from power plants across the country but does not order each plant to cuts its own emissions. Plants can choose not to reduce emissions but still comply by buying credits from other plants that made extra reductions. Administration officials said their approach would achieve reductions while giving companies flexibility in making those cuts. Environmental and health advocates criticized the rule because it does not protect people living near power plants that don't cut their emissions. They were also unhappy that companies have until 2015 to comply.
Companies respond
The Texas plants listed with high mercury emissions mostly burn lignite, a low-energy Texas coal that generally has more mercury than coal from other regions. Most of the new coal-burning units planned in Texas would burn cleaner Wyoming coal. Mike Young, spokesman for Southwestern Electric Power Co., the unit of American Electric Power that owns the Pirkey plant in Harrison County, said lignite's higher mercury content explains the state's national ranking in mercury emissions.
The Pirkey plant has the nation's highest mercury emissions rate, 219 pounds of mercury for each million megawatt-hour of electricity the plant generates. Mr. Young said the plant already removes half of the total mercury from its coal and 70 percent of the most toxic form, oxidated mercury. The company is testing equipment to achieve deeper cuts required by the 2015 under a new federal rule, he said. TXU spokesman Chris Schein said the company would cut its emissions, including mercury, by 20 percent from 2005 levels even after adding 11 new coal-burning plants. The new units would rise at existing TXU plants, mostly east or south of Dallas-Fort Worth.
In a letter dated Thursday, TXU asked the state's environmental commission to make the pledge legally enforceable, a step meant to counter critics who have questioned the company's commitment to cutting its pollution. TXU plants with the highest mercury emission rates are Big Brown, in Freestone County, No. 3 nationwide; Sandow Unit 4, Milam County, No. 7; Martin Lake, Rusk County, No. 13; and Monticello, Titus County, No. 17.
Texas power plants also occupied five of the top 50 spots for carbon dioxide emissions, which are not subject to any federal or Texas controls. The biggest Texas emitter was TXU's Martin Lake coal plant, which ranked fifth. It released 21.6 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, the report noted. Mr. Schein said TXU was addressing carbon dioxide emissions by pledging $2 billion to seek new technological fixes. But Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen, said TXU and other Texas companies would dramatically increase emissions of global warming gases when they build new coal plants. The new plants would boost Texas' carbon dioxide emissions by 115 million tons per year, equal to emissions from 20 million cars, he said. Meanwhile, 28 other states are acting to curb global warming by restricting emissions or pushing energy efficiency, he added. The Texas Legislature could consider carbon regulations when it convenes in January.
To silence critics, TXU asks state to set emissions cap
Dallas-based TXU, which pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent as it builds 11 coal-burning units, asked Texas regulators Thursday to make its promise legally binding. TXU asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to put a firm cap on its pollution. Under a cap, TXU could adjust its cuts from plant to plant instead of committing to a set level at each plant. It's unclear how enforcement might work.
TXU spokesman Chris Schein said TXU hoped to silence critics who have doubted the pledge. "We've met or exceeded every one of our promises for emissions reductions," he said. But Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen, said TXU was "trying to deflect your attention from the fact that they're putting more smoke in the air in Dallas-Fort Worth."
by Dena Bunis, Orange County Register
July 28, 2006
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1224762.php
WASHINGTON -- With a bowl of lead-contaminated Mexican candy on the table between them, California's senators vowed this morning to do all they can to prevent a bill that would require national rules for food safety from passing. The National Uniformity for Food Act, said Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, would gut the food safety protections included in California's Proposition 65, passed 20 years ago. The bill, authored by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., would ban states from setting requirements or posting warnings on foods that differed from federal rules. "This bill is a major assault on California's initiative," Feinstein said at a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing. "On behalf of my colleague Senator Boxer and I, if this bill were to come to the floor, we would use every parliamentary device available to us to stop it."
Proposition 65 requires warning labels on products containing chemicals known to cause cancer or harm the reproductive system. Supporters say that measure over the years has help protect state residents. Opponents -- most notably the food industry -- say it has led to frivolous lawsuits. "The bill before us seeks consistency in substantive standards between state and federal requirements," said panel chairman Sen. Mike Enzi, "Do consumers really benefit from a 50-state hodgepodge of different warnings and labels on these products?"
The federal food-safety bill has passed the House. Enzi, R-Wyo., hopes to get a bill to the floor by the end of this year. Feinstein and Boxer -- backed up by a letter signed by 37 state attorneys general who oppose the measure -- said that the federal government is not equipped to do the food-safety regulation that has always been done by the states. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also opposes the bill, they said. "This is candy with lead in it, dangerous lead," Boxer said pointing to the lollipops and other treats in the bowl on the witness table. "This is a photograph of lead-tainted candy being given to little children," she added, referring to a blow-up of a picture that appeared as part of The Orange County Register's series last year on lead in candy. "In our state, we have blocked this, and the federal government has no such law," Boxer said.
Three of the four other witnesses supported the bill. They included the manufacturer of Wheatina, a hot cereal, who says he is being sued by a California lawyer because his product contains acrylamide, a substance recently discovered to possibly cause cancer. Food-safety agencies around the world have been studying acrylamide, said William Stadtlander, who produces Wheatina, "and none of them have found any significant health risk or recommended any acrylamide warnings." Peter Hutt, a former Food and Drug Administration lawyer, said California's law has led to unnecessary litigation. But William Hubbard, who recently retired from the FDA, insisted that the bill "is a solution in search of a problem" and that food safety should be left to the states.
by Paula M. Felipe, Oroville [California] Mercury-Register
July 27, 2006
excerpts from the article at http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_4100682
This is the first of a three-part series on the drug called methamphetamine. Part 1 focuses on environmental hazards and toxic waste associated with the drug.
"The most important tools to combat the epidemic of methamphetamine are education and public awareness." -Dr. Michelle R. Chesley
"Methamphetamines: An Epidemic of Clandestine and Health Risks"
Meth is made by people in their homes, motorhomes, garages, hotel rooms, bathrooms, vehicles, trunks, apartments, and other outbuildings. It is known by many names: meth, speed, chalk, ice, crystal, crank, or glass. It is a white, bitter tasting crystalline powder that is snorted, smoked, or dissolved for intravenous use with needles. The drug is methamphetamine, and the number of "meth labs" continues to rise across the United States. In 2005, the Butte County Interagency Narcotics Task Force (BINTF) seized 17 clandestine labs in Butte County and investigated and disposed of eight clandestine lab dump sites and/or remnants of labs. Of the 35 counties reporting lab seizures last year, Butte County ranks fourth in the state per capita for lab seizures and sixth in the state for total number of lab seizures. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control was responsible for $25,181 in cleanup costs for 25 clandestine labs and dump-related sites seized in Butte County, according to BINTF.
Clandestine or secretive lab cooks often seek out rural areas to avoid detection from law enforcement or neighbors who might detect the strong odors associated with cooking of various materials and chemicals. Labs contain corrosive, toxic ingredients anyone can buy in a store. Recipes for making meth can be simple and are continually evolving and passed along to other people on the streets, in bars, in jails, among other meetings places, and even over the Internet. Methods of cooking range from large scale or "super" labs (producing more than 10 pounds of meth in a 24-hour period) in California and Mexico to small homemade varieties, using jars, microwaves, bathtubs, crockery cookers, blowtorches, and hot plates. Some people known as "lab cooks" will mix different ingredients and cook and simmer them over a heat source, contaminating the surrounding areas and risking explosions and fires.
The dwellings where a meth lab has been operating becomes contaminated and poses health risks to future inhabitants because the ceilings, floors, carpets, walls, drapes, furnishings, are all contaminated by the toxic fumes and residue from the dangerous chemicals. According to the Meth Task Force website, "Many of the contaminants present during the meth cooking process can be harmful if humans or pets are exposed to them. Meth labs can cause health problems including respiratory illness, skin and eye irritation, headaches, burns, nausea and dizziness. Short-term exposures to high concentrations of some of these chemicals are common to first responders, such as fire departments or law enforcement officers first entering a lab. "These exposures may cause severe health problems, including lung damage and chemical burns to the body. Fires caused by these labs have killed innocent children and meth 'cookers' alike throughout California. Touching these chemicals or just breathing their fumes can cause sickness, permanent injury and, even death. One rash act by a meth cooker can also turn our fields and waterways into environmental waste dumps."
BINTF Commander Keith Krampitz said, "It is estimated about five to six pounds of hazardous waste are generated for every single pound of meth produced." The hazardous waste materials from meth labs are dumped on the ground, thrown in dumpsters, along a highway, or flushed down the sewer or other water source, he added.
The environmental contamination is expensive to clean up once it is discovered. According to a study by the United States Attorney's Office, in some cases, cleaning up a large scale lab can cost up to $150,000 and often times the building needs to be condemned. "The safest way to clean up a former meth lab is to hire environmental companies trained in hazardous substance removal and cleanup. Owners that clean their own properties should be aware that household building materials and furniture can absorb contaminants and give off fumes. Use caution and wear clothing to protect your skin, such as gloves, long sleeves, and eye protection during cleaning. Smoking should not be permitted during the cleanup process," the Task Force's website added.
Assembly Bill 1078 called "Contaminated Property: Methamphetamine," by Assemblyman Rick Keene, was enacted to provided some protection to innocent property buyers from buying contaminated properties and holding property owners accountable for clean-up, Krampitz said. The Meth Contaminated Property Cleanup Act of 2005 established interim remediation standards for meth, mercury, and lead (the latter two only when used in making meth). "These standards will become inoperative when the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment adopts a health-based target remediation standard for meth. The bill also establishes a remediation management program for local governments to use in cleaning up properties contaminated by the illegal manufacturing of meth," according to the Department of Toxic Substances, Office of Legislation's summary of bills report dated 2006.
"It takes the whole community working together with law enforcement to stop the meth epidemic," said Krampitz. "The Task Force needs the trust and support of the public, and we want people to call us at (530) 538-2261 and provide information if they suspect someone is cooking meth," Krampitz said.
by Thomas Caywood, Boston Globe
July 27, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/27/mosquito_spray_system_starts_a_buzz/
The sprinklers spray Ed and Fran Smith's Burlington yard twice a day, all summer long, but it's not water jetting from those nozzles. It's pesticide. The Smiths paid $2,500 last year for the system, which works on a timer and sprays a mist of mild pesticide in the mornings and evenings, when mosquitoes are most active. "We love it. We're in our yard all the time now," Fran Smith said. "Once in a while you might see a mosquito, but I haven't been bit since we got it." Their boys, ages 13 and 9, now swim in the backyard pool and play on the sand volleyball court without needing bug spray. Ed Smith even sets up his movie projector and a screen, to show films to his children in the yard. "The kids get their little sleeping bags to lay on, and we watch movies," Fran Smith said.
The idea of spraying twice a day to eliminate mosquitoes and then lolling in the backyard might seem extreme to some, when pesticides have been linked to illnesses among humans and damage to the environment. But specialists say the pyrethroid pesticide used by the Smiths is relatively safe. Pyrethrum is produced naturally in chrysanthemum plants, and man-made versions synthesized in laboratories have been used as insecticides for more than a century, said Stephen Rich, an entomologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a specialist on pesticides. "Pyrethroids are very toxic to insects. They attack the central nervous system," Rich said. "But the really neat thing about them is they don't have much toxicity to mammals at all. They've been used for a long time to spray grain products for livestock and so on."
The compounds break down rapidly under sunlight and thus do not accumulate in the environment like harmful pesticides such as DDT, Rich said, adding: "It's one of the safer insecticides there is." Pyrethroids also are used in many bug sprays, and in flea treatments for dogs and cats. There's even a line of insect-repelling clothing called Buzz Off, which comes with the compound embedded in the fabric.
Fran Smith said she much prefers to have pyrethroids sprayed along the perimeter of her lawn twice a day to frequently slathering her sons with bug sprays containing substances such as DEET and other potentially noxious chemicals. Worse, there is always the chance that the boys might be bitten by a mosquito infected with a potentially deadly virus. Mosquitoes infected with eastern equine encephalitis were detected this month in Carver. Mosquitoes trapped in Needham last month tested positive for the West Nile virus, health officials said. Last summer, mosquitoes that had been trapped in Holliston and Westborough were found to have been infected with eastern equine encephalitis, while a mosquito from Westborough tested positive for the West Nile virus.
"I know it's an aggressive way to get rid of mosquitoes, but, in my eyes, it's become necessary," said Anthony Santoro, whose Waltham-based company, Mistguard Mosquito Control Systems LLC, installed the spraying system at the Smith home. "You feel safer, and you can sit out in your yard again," Santoro said. Similar systems have been popular in marshy parts of Texas and across the South for years, but are catching on here only now.
Mario Vottola of Waltham heard about the systems two years ago from Santoro, who had left a family heating-oil operation to try the automatic mosquito-spraying business. Vottola said at first that he was dubious of Santoro's assertions of a nearly mosquito-free backyard. But he could not enjoy his pool or deck without suffering dozens of mosquito bites a night, so he opened his wallet and took a shot. "The only time I've had some mosquitoes in my yard for two years now is when I ran out" of pesticide, Vottola said.
Santoro said most potential customers seem to be initially skeptical. So far, he has installed 15 systems, most of them this year, but he has been scrambling lately to keep up with calls for estimates. The misting system's quarter-inch tubing and metal spray nozzles can be buried in the yard like in-ground sprinklers, or installed above ground, along a fence, for example. A tank-and-pump mechanism about the size of a small trash barrel is installed in an inconspicuous spot along the fence, or in a garage. Newer models are even smaller, Santoro said.
The chemical spray can harm some plants and flowers, but does not hurt anything that can survive a New England winter, Santoro said. "We arrange the system to be a little further away from those delicate plants," he said.
Lucia Dolan, a member of the Committee for Alternatives to Pesticides, an offshoot of the Green Decade Coalition in Newton, said the pyrethroid pesticide may not pose much of a risk to humans, but it could be harmful to the environment. "According to what I've seen, it's indiscriminate," Dolan said. "It's toxic to bees and toxic to certain kinds of fish. If it's used near water, it could be hurting fish."
The spray starts to cut down on mosquitoes after three days, but the most dramatic results come after two weeks, a full mosquito breeding cycle, according to Santoro. A one-gallon container of the insecticide costs $130, and can last for several months, depending on the size of the yard.
"All you do is turn it on at the beginning of the summer, and then you don't have to touch it," Smith said. Santoro has traveled as far as Vermont to install the system, and has customers in a number of communities, including Lexington and Framingham, he said. Vottola said the only time he thinks about mosquitoes is when visiting someone else's house. "I went to a barbecue on Saturday," Vottola said last week, "and the next morning it looked like I had the measles, I got bit so much."
[Editor's note: For a different view of the effects of pyrethroids on human health, see http://www.ehponline.org/members/1999/suppl-3/431-437landrigan/landrigan-full.html]
news release from Pesticide Action Network North America
July 26, 2006
submitted to this bulletin by Chemical Sensitivity Network
In 1996, under the Food Quality Protection Act, Congress gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 10 years to complete its assessment of the health impacts of hundreds of pesticides being used in homes, gardens and agriculture. The most acutely hazardous neurotoxic pesticides -- the organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates -- were the first group to be evaluated under EPA's review process.
August 3, 2006 marks the end of that 10-year period. Although the EPA apparently plans to have its review of OPs and most of the carbamates complete by that date, thousands of scientists within the Agency have expressed serious concern that the evaluations are incomplete and that the EPA is threatening to allow the continued use of toxic pesticides despite ample information showing that they are too hazardous to be used safely.
Scientists at the EPA, along with public health and environmental advocacy groups, are calling for the EPA to refuse approval of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. Pesticide Action Network North America is asking the public to send comments before August 3rd to the EPA to stop the registration of several OP and carbamate pesticides. (http://ga4.org/campaign/revokeOPs)
Toxic Pesticides Harm Human Health
Organophosphates and carbamates are highly toxic classes of pesticides used to kill insects. OPs are linked to ill health effects, such as cancer, neurological problems (including Parkinson's Disease), respiratory illness, and developmental problems. Not only are farmers and farm workers adversely affected but well-documented evidence now shows that children and families living near agricultural areas may suffer serious short and long term health problems from OP exposure. Symptoms of low-dose exposure to these pesticides may include headaches, agitation, inability to concentrate, weakness, tiredness, nausea, diarrhea and blurred vision. At higher doses, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, tearing, muscular tremors, low blood pressure, and slow heartbeat and breathing may occur.
9,000 EPA Scientists Call for an End to Compromising Safety; Pesticide Cancellation Needed to Protect Born and Unborn Children. In May 2006, unions representing more than 9,000 EPA scientists made public their serious concerns that pressure from pesticide manufacturers is directly responsible for EPA administrators' actions to compromise the Agency's regulatory responsibilities. The scientists assert that it is a "perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the Agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the Food Quality Protection Act."
PANNA joins EPA staff scientists and advocacy groups in calling for an overhaul of an EPA regulatory process that has been corrupted by individuals on staff of EPA working in collusion with the pesticide/chemical industries to blatantly dismiss appropriate precaution and push forward policy that is harmful to public health.
The scientists also call for the EPA to immediately pull OPs and carbamates from the market. The May 24, 2006 letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson states, "Until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not hurt the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children, there is no justification to continue the registration of the use of the remaining OP and carbamate pesticides."
EPA scientists feel strongly that substantial data gaps remain leading to underestimates of risks, especially neurotoxicity. In addition, they stated: "EPA's risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development."
by Nancy Lofholm, Denver Post
July 26, 2006
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4095475
Grand Junction -- As president of the Grand Junction Newcomers' Club, Carol Todd hears over and over the reasons folks trade life in the Denver-metro area for the less congested environs of the Western Slope's largest urban area: not as much traffic, milder winters and cleaner air. But former city dwellers heading west for healthier environs can strike that last item from the list. An air-toxin study begun by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 has found that, when it comes to toxins, Grand Junction's perceived clean air is on par with a city once renowned for its brown cloud. Grand Junction has its own haze that contains a brew of exhaust-pipe toxins such as formaldehyde, toluene, arsenic and manganese that, on average, are as high as -- and sometimes higher than -- Denver's. "I would say people would be real surprised by that," said Todd, admitting being surprised herself.
Air-quality researchers have been taken aback too. "It was quite a surprise to see that our emissions situations were very similar," said Perry Buda, an air-quality specialist who has monitored Grand Junction's air for 16 years for the Mesa County Health Department. The surprise lies in the fact that the Denver metro area has 30 times more traffic than Grand Junction and 2.1 million more registered vehicles than Mesa County. Also, metro Denver has 2.6 million more people than Grand Junction.
There are no health standards for the toxins being measured in Denver and Grand Junction and 20 other cities and smaller urban areas around the country. The EPA's first-of-its-kind study is designed to identify carcinogenic toxin levels of compounds that haven't been measured before and that prove to be high enough to warrant concern. The EPA will use that information to set thresholds for those toxins after the study is completed in 2007.
Gordon Pierce, the environmental protection specialist for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the levels of toxins found at three air-toxin sampling areas in Denver and one site in Grand Junction show measurements that are reason for concern but not alarm using the EPA's current parameters. Pierce said the other areas being studied across the country show similar levels of toxins that don't seem to vary that much from cities to smaller urban areas.
He said one anomaly is Grand Junction's highest-in-the-study levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. He said researchers attribute those high levels to the fact Grand Junction is at a higher altitude than other urban areas in the study. Higher altitude creates more UV radiation, which can lead to increases in certain toxins. Buda said the study probably will eventually lead to pushes for cleaner-burning fuels and better auto-emission standards.
Grand Junction has never violated air-quality standards for ozone and the old air-quality bogeyman of carbon monoxide, as Denver routinely did in its brown-cloud heyday decades ago. Grand Junction's only violations have come from high particulates in the air during the building frenzy of the oil-shale boom in the late 1970s and early 1980s. That era was also marked by more stringent auto-emission controls in Denver that may have inadvertently led to more pollution in Grand Junction. Buda said it is believed that older vehicles that couldn't pass emission standards in Denver were driven over the mountains and sold in Grand Junction, where there is no emission testing.
Grand Junction is also hemmed in by mountains and mesas that hold dirty air to about a 5-mile radius rather than dispersing it over the 50 miles where it tends to hover around Denver. And if weather conditions are right, the smoggy air is trapped in the Grand Valley by clouds that act like a lid on a Tupperware bowl. It may not be visible from downtown Grand Junction where an air-monitoring and air-sampling station on the roof of the county's work-release facility constantly measures toxins. But it is obvious from higher terrain. "It's very clear as you approach Grand Junction from the West that there is a dome over the valley," said Dr. Rob Kurtzman, who observes that dirty-air cap often when he is taking photographs from Colorado National Monument. "It makes for great sunsets."
by Geoffrey Lean, Daily Mail
July 26, 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=397677
For a government with one of the most appalling recycling records in Europe, the decision to force manufacturers to take back old and unwanted TV sets and other electrical equipment marks the end of another sorry saga of delay and prevarication. Not only was the measure agreed as long as three and a half years ago but it won't be implemented until next July -- two years after the official deadline which had been followed by most other countries in Europe. But at least ministers have, for once, stood up to bullying tactics from the electrical industry's big companies who had threatened to pull their businesses out of Britain if the Government refused to relax the terms of the measure.
The truth is that the familiar old telly is full of poisonous materials and it is classified as toxic waste. The cathode ray tube contains several pounds of lead -- a poisonous metal that damages children's brains. Every year we Britons throw away two million tubes as we trade up to a new generation model as flat-panels and high-definition TVs become all the rage. As prices have almost halved over the past year, the numbers sold have trebled. Indeed more than 350,000 were sold in Britain in the run-up to the World Cup.
Measures to reform electrical goods recycling started with the European WEEE directive (on waste electrical and electronic equipment) which laid down that the discarded TV sets should be recycled. As a result, special recycling plants in Scotland and the north of England, which can dismantle and reuse the materials, have been on stand-by. But they have been forced to wait because the British government failed to honour its commitments.
And it's not just televisions that were affected by this shameful delay. Each year, we throw away almost a million tons of electrical goods. This massive waste mountain -- the weight of 2,400 jumbo jets -- includes two million computers and 2.2 million fridges and freezers. The amount of such white goods rubbish is growing three times faster than other type of waste. When such equipment breaks down, it is often cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it. As a result, plenty of perfectly working electrical appliances, from fridges to mobile phones, are discarded. Mobile phones are also jettisoned simply because they are deemed out of date. Ninety per cent of these old handsets end up in landfill where they can pollute groundwater and damage the environment. They contribute to 40 per cent of the lead found in landfill sites and watercourses, threatening to contaminate drinking water. Also, 3,000 tons of methylated mercury -- an more potent brain poison -- is released into the environment every year, much of it from its use in sensors, thermostats, switches, relays and mobile phones. Cadmium, another poisonous metal which causes kidney damage, is used in plastics, computers and infrared detectors. Arsenic is also found in circuit boards. There are also substances such as hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers which may cause cancer and damage to the liver, kidneys, thyroid gland and the nervous and immune system.
Apart from ending up in landfill sites across the country, this toxic trash is also unscrupulously shipped to the Third World, where countless electronic junkyards in countries such as China attract child workers who salvage precious metals from the rubbish. Eighty five per cent of them suffer from lead poisoning. In one village near such a site, the drinking water was found to contain 2,400 times the maximum amount of the toxic metal permitted by the World Health Organisation. Its soil has over 1,300 times the U.S. limit for chromium.
The European WEEE directive of 2003 was aimed at stopping this horrific trade by forcing manufacturers to take back discarded equipment and ensure that it is recycled properly. The directive has already been brought into effect throughout most of Europe. Norway implemented it in full even before it became law.
Worst performance in the EU
But not in Britain -- which has vied with Malta for the worst performance in the EU. By law, the directive had to be in operation by last August but ministers twice delayed its introduction -- only forced to act after the European Commission started legal proceedings against Britain.
The decison to implement the measure is in defiance of severe pressure from the industry. Less than two months ago, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances called for the directive to be supended and the heads of leading companies -- including Electrolux, Philips, Dyson and Hoover -- told Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling that the measure could force them to cease production in Britain. Malcolm Wicks, a junior trade and industry minister, commented that he did not believe their threats and said: 'It is a little bit sad that some manufacturers are coming up with all sorts of arguments to dodge the responsibility they should take on.'
The row centred on the question of who should be responsible for recycling equipment that was made several years ago. The companies have been happy to foot the bill for the appliances they are making NOW -- and are designing them specifically to be recyclable -- but they wanted consumers to pay an extra charge for the disposal of their old appliances. The Government has refused to let them win. Yesterday's announcement is a belated attempt to control the toxic side effcts of our consumer society, but ministers and the electronics industry have a long way to go if they are to dispel Britain's richly deserved reputation as 'the dirty man of Europe'.
by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News
July 25, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i31/8431toxicology.html
As the number of human biomonitoring studies begins to escalate, many challenges surround their effective use, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Biomonitoring means measuring a chemical or its metabolite in humans, usually in blood or urine, for assessing exposures to natural and synthetic chemicals. Interpreting what biomonitoring data mean in terms of public health is often difficult, the report says. The ability to detect a chemical in humans often exceeds the ability to determine whether that chemical causes a health risk or to evaluate the source of exposure to the chemical.
And the design of biomonitoring studies is often problematic, the report says, as there is no coordinated, public-health-based strategy for selecting the chemicals to be measured. "There is a need for a consistent rationale for selecting chemicals for study based on exposure and public health concerns," the NRC panel wrote.
Many population-based studies on chemical exposure are conducted in the U.S. by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health. CDC has published periodic reports on human exposure to environmental chemicals.
The NRC report recommends several areas of research that could improve biomonitoring. It wants a coordinated strategy developed for selecting chemicals based on their potential to cause harm and on widespread population exposure. It also wants studies conducted that could help interpret the risk from chemicals in the environment. Where possible, researchers should "enhance exposure assessment, epidemiologic, and toxicologic studies with biomonitoring to improve the interpretation of results," the report says.
In addition, research on public communication is needed to understand how to communicate the results of biomonitoring studies effectively. For example, participants in biomonitoring studies almost never learn what their own exposure levels were for the chemicals measured. However, sharing results raises ethical issues, the report says. In some cases, it might be important to provide clinical follow-up to those participants with exceptionally high levels of harmful chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council praises the report. "We believe the [NRC] report provides a very useful benchmark for future as well as current research efforts," says Richard A. Becker, ACC's senior toxicologist. "In particular, it emphasizes the need to use rigorous scientific methods for sampling, evaluating, and reporting the data." The report can be found online at http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/11700.html.
by Felicity Lawrence, London Guardian
July 25, 2006
excerpts from http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1828158,00.html
For Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, the saga of soya began in Monty Python-style with a dead parrot. His investigations into the ubiquitous bean started in 1991 when Richard James, a multimillionaire American lawyer, turned up at the laboratory in New Zealand where Fitzpatrick was working as a consultant toxicologist. James was sure that soya beans were killing his rare birds. "We thought he was mad, but he had a lot of money and wanted us to find out what was going on," Fitzpatrick recalls.
Over the next months, Fitzpatrick carried out an exhaustive study of soya and its effects. "We discovered quite quickly," he recalls, "that soya contains toxins and plant oestrogens powerful enough to disrupt women's menstrual cycles in experiments. It also appeared damaging to the thyroid." James's lobbying eventually forced governments to investigate. In 2002, the British government's expert committee on the toxicity of food (CoT) published the results of its inquiry into the safety of plant oestrogens, mainly from soya proteins, in modern food. It concluded that in general the health benefits claimed for soya were not supported by clear evidence and judged that there could be risks from high levels of consumption for certain age groups. Yet little has happened to curb soya's growth since.
More than 60% of all processed food in Britain today contains soya in some form, according to food industry estimates. It is in breakfast cereals, cereal bars and biscuits, cheeses, cakes, dairy desserts, gravies, noodles, pastries, soups, sausage casings, sauces and sandwich spreads. Soya, crushed, separated and refined into its different parts, can appear on food labels as soya flour, hydrolysed vegetable protein, soy protein isolate, protein concentrate, textured vegetable protein, vegetable oil (simple, fully, or partially hydrogenated), plant sterols, or the emulsifier lecithin. Its many guises hint at its value to manufacturers.
Soya increases the protein content of processed meat products. It replaces them altogether in vegetarian foods. It stops industrial breads shrinking. It makes cakes hold on to their water. It helps manufacturers mix water into oil. Hydrogenated, its oil is used to deep-fry fast food. Soya is also in cat food and dog food. But above all it is used in agricultural feeds for intensive chicken, beef, dairy, pig and fish farming. Soya protein -- which accounts for 35% of the raw bean -- is what has made the global factory farming of livestock for cheap meat a possibility. Soya oil -- high in omega 6 fatty acids and 18% of the whole bean -- has meanwhile driven the postwar explosion in snack foods around the world. Crisps, confectionery, deep-fried take-aways, ready meals, ice-creams, mayonnaise and margarines all make liberal use of it. Its widespread presence is one of the reasons our balance of omega 3 to omega 6 essential fatty acids is so out of kilter.
You may think that when you order a skinny soya latte, you are choosing a commodity blessed with an unadulterated aura of health. But soya today is in fact associated with patterns of food consumption that have been linked to diet-related diseases. And 50 years ago it was not eaten in the west in any quantity.
In 1965, the earliest year for which the Chicago Board of Trade keeps figures, global soya bean production was just 30m tonnes. By 2005, the world was consuming nine times that a year, at 270m tonnes. World soya oil production, meanwhile, has increased sevenfold over the same period, from 5m tonnes to 34m tonnes a year. To feed demand, new agricultural frontiers are being opened up in Brazil, where large areas of virgin rainforest have been illegally felled to make room for the crop. US-based transnationals are now exporting soya back to China, the country from which it originated, as newly urbanised Chinese switch to industrialised western diets. Thanks to US agribusiness, we have developed an apparently insatiable global appetite for the bean produced by farmers in the Americas.
James and Fitzpatrick became convinced early on that this entirely new dependence on soya was, in fact, a dangerous experiment. The dead parrots were no joke -- they were the canaries in the coalmine. For James and his wife Valerie, breeding the exotic birds down under was a retirement dream. They wanted to feed their young birds the best, so they began giving the chicks a soya feed. Parrots do not eat soya beans in the wild but the high-protein animal feed had been marketed in the US as a new miracle food. The result was a catastrophic breeding year. Some of the birds were infertile; many died. Other young male birds aged prematurely or reached puberty years early. "We realised there was some sort of hormonal disruption going on but we'd eliminated other possible hormone disrupting chemicals such as pesticides from the inquiry," Fitzpatrick says.
So the toxicologist began a systematic review of the scientific literature on soya. After finding out about the plant oestrogens in soya, Fitzpatrick says, "My next thought was: what about children who are fed soya milk?" He calculated that babies fed exclusively on soya formula could receive the oestrogenic equivalent, based on body weight, of five birth control pills a day. In fact, it had been known since the early 1980s that plant oestrogens, or phyto-oestrogens, could produce biological effects in humans. The most common of these were a group of compounds in soya protein called isoflavones. Food manufacturers had variously marketed soya foods as an antidote to menopausal hot flushes and osteoporosis, and as a protective ingredient against cardiovascular disease and hormone-related cancers. Large quantities of mainly industry-sponsored scientific research have been produced to back up these claims. The American soya industry spends about $80m every year, raised from a mandatory levy on producers, to research and promote the consumption of soya around the world. The rash of new soya foods can be seen as the latest in a line of innovative ways devised to use soya.
The hypothesis behind the health claims is that rates of heart disease and certain cancers such as breast and prostate cancer are lower in east Asian populations with soya-rich diets than in western countries, and that the oestrogens in soya might therefore have a protective effect. Fitzpatrick, however, looked into historic soya consumption in Japan and China and concluded that Asians did not actually eat that much. What they did eat tended to have been fermented for months. "If you look at people who are into health fads here, they are eating soya steaks and veggie burgers or veggie sausages and drinking soya milk -- they are getting over 100g a day. They are eating tonnes of the raw stuff."
Mass exposure to isoflavones in the west has only occurred in the past 30 years due to the widespread incorporation of soya protein into processed foods, a fact noted by the Royal Society in its expert report on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in 2000. When the independent experts on the scientific committee on toxicity trawled through all the scientific data, they concluded that soya milk should not be recommended for infants even when they had cow's milk allergies, except on medical advice, because of the high levels of oestrogenic isoflavones it contains.
On breast cancer, they decided that "despite the suggested benefits of phyto-oestrogens in lowering risk of developing breast cancer, there is also evidence that they may stimulate the progression of the disease". The lower risk of certain cancers among Asian populations might be due to other factors -- their high consumption of fish, for example. They advised caution. On the effects on menopause symptoms, the evidence was inconclusive, the experts ruled. On bone density, the committee thought there might be some protective effects, but the data was unclear. The evidence on prostate cancer was mixed. Since isoflavones cross the placenta, the implications of pregnant women eating large quantities of soya were unclear. There was some evidence that soya-based products had a beneficial effect on the good HDL cholesterol but they were not sure that was down to the isoflavones. On the other hand -- reassuringly -- they judged that a study linking soya consumption to decline in cognitive function was not convincing.
What the committee also pointed out was that the way soya was processed affected the levels of phyto-oestrogens. Traditional fermentation reduces the levels of isoflavones two- to threefold. Modern factory processes do not. Moreover, modern American strains of soya have significantly higher levels of isoflavones than Japanese or Chinese ones because they have been bred to be more resistant to pests. (One way to tackle pests is to stop them breeding by making them infertile. It turns out that unfermented soya did play one role in traditional Asian diets -- it was eaten by monks to dampen down their libido.)
Sue Dibb, now food policy expert at the National Consumer Council, was a member of the CoT working group that compiled the final report. She questions whether infant soya milk should still be on public sale and is troubled by the latest marketing of soya. "We looked in detail at the claimed health benefits for adults for soya consumption and concluded there was not sufficient evidence to support many of them. There may be benefits but there are also risks. The groups of adults of particular concern are those with a thyroid problem and women with oestrogen-dependent breast cancer. It worries me that soya is being pushed as a health food by a big soya and supplements industry. We ought to be taking a more cautious approach."
The Food Standards Agency advice is that soya's potential to have an adverse effect on babies' hormonal development is still controversial, but that soya formula should only be given to infants under 12 months old in exceptional circumstances.
Professor Richard Sharpe, head of the Medical Research Council's human reproductive sciences unit at Edinburgh University, was also a member of the committee's working group on phyto-oestrogens in food. He has been studying the decline in male fertility in the past half-century. He recently completed studies on the effects of soya milk on young male monkeys which showed that it interferes with testosterone levels. "In the first three months after birth, baby boys have a neonatal testosterone rise. The testes are very, very active in hormone production at this point and there is a lot of cell activity going on that will determine sperm count in adults and will affect the developing prostate. If you introduce a phyto-oestrogen, which can, in large amounts, alter these changes, you may predispose children to later disease. Soya formula milk is a [recent] western invention. There is not the historical evidence to show it is safe."
Manufacturers, however, argue that soya infant formula has been widely used without problems. "The industry has said that if the CoT comes up with clear science, we will take note, but the case is not proven," says Roger Clarke, director general of the industry's Infant Dietetics Food Association. "A lot of the work it looked at was based on experimental work with animals. There does not seem to be clear evidence of adverse effects, and there is demand for it. There are some markets, such as vegan usage, where soya is the only alternative."
While 30-40% of all infants in the US are raised on soya formula -- not least because it is given away in welfare programmes -- soya milk for babies has always been confined to a small minority in the UK. So does Sharpe think exposure to soya from other sources -- vegetarian soya proteins, the soya flour in factory bread, the hydrolysed proteins added as flavourings, for example -- has a cumulative effect that might be worrying to other age groups? He says he is not concerned about people who eat soya foods in moderation or in the way they are traditionally used in oriental diets, but when it comes to modern processed foods, which use soya proteins in different ways, he prefers to turn the question round. "If someone said they were adding a hormone to your foods, would you be happy with that? There may be lots of effects, some of them may be beneficial, but would you be happy with that? I am not a fan of processed foods, full stop. And these quick fixes for protecting against ill-health -- you know they can't be true," he adds.
Most commercial soya milk today is made from soya isolates, although some of the pioneers of soya foods as health products in Europe avoid the chemical extraction process and use whole beans to make their milk. The key selling points for both types of soya milk are that they contain complete proteins and oestrogenic isoflavones. Bernard Deryckere, president of the European Natural Soyfood Manufacturers Association, says that his members' products, made using natural processes, are a healthy alternative to dairy products. "A lot of people in Europe are lactose-intolerant. Soya milk was invented in China 4,000 years ago and today it's consumed by all types of people as a cholesterol-free source of quality protein."
Daniel's detailed examination of the history of soya milk, however, suggests that soya milk was made not to drink, except in times of famine, but as the first step in the process of making tofu. After the long, slow boiling of soya beans in water to eliminate toxins, a curdling agent was added to the liquid to separate it. The curds would then be pressed to make tofu and the whey, in which the antinutrients were concentrated, would be thrown away.
Dibb points out that if you are drinking non-dairy milk because you want calcium without cow's milk, there are plenty of other sources such as green leafy vegetables and nuts. And only those eating extremely limited diets are likely to be short of protein as adults.