You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Environmental Health' category.
By Michael Stebbins, orginally published at Scientists & Engineers for America Action Fund
As the sweat-soaked crowd entered the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall, to hear Al Gore’s energy challenge they were greeted by a blast of air conditioning. Relief! Sweet ironic relief! DC is obscenely hot today, yet, thousands of people were lined up along the street to hear Gore issue what was promised, a truly grand challenge. They were not disappointed.
Al Gore issued the challenge of our lifetime…
Starting in August, roughly 17,000 employees of the state of Utah will switch from five-day to four-day workweeks. Essential services like police and public schools won’t be affected, but an estimated 1,000 of the state’s 3,000 buildings will be closed on Fridays. The state expects to save $3 million, and affected workers will pay for fewer commutes, which have gotten pricier as gas prices have risen.
It’s a smart way to save energy, but how will workers deal with the new 7am – 6pm workdays? For anyone doing a job that’s very demanding, either mentally or physically, longer workdays might cause excessive strain. For the many parents (and caretakers of elderly relatives) who’ve carefully scheduled their routines around the hours of a school, day care, or babysitter, rearranging schedules will be challenging. The success of Utah’s plan depends largely on how supportive and flexible the state is in addressing these kinds of concerns.
Other states are investigating shorter work weeks and telecommuting, without taking such drastic steps. Daniel Petty reports for Stateline.org (via SEJ Tip Sheet):
Read the rest of this entry »
The United Steelworkers, North America’s largest private sector union with 1.2 million members, and Unite the Union, the largest labor organization in the United Kingdom and Ireland with 2 million members, signed an agreement to create the world’s first global union called Workers Uniting. The announcement was made at the USW’s 2008 Constitutional Convention.
In a video news release featuring USW Int’l President Leo W. Gerard and Unite the Union’s General Secretary Derek Simpson, the two trade unionists describe the power of the two institutions coming together with a shared “vision of a world where workers globally unite.”
The State of Rhode Island’s efforts, which began in 1999, to force lead-paint manufacturers to clean-up contaminated homes received a mortal blow when the State’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s 2006 decision. (Full decision from 7/1/2008) This early ruling was a result of the longest civil jury trial in Rhode Island history, with the decision going against the defendants Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, and Millennium Holdings, holding them liable for creating a public nuisance by selling lead-based paint.
The R.I. Supreme Court said:
“We do not mean to minimize the severity of the harm that thousands of children in Rhode Island have suffered as a result of lead poisoning. Our hearts go out to those children whose lives forever have been changed by the poisonous presence of lead. But, however grave the problem…public nuisance law simply does not provide a remedy for this harm.”
This tells me that we need some better laws so that we can hold peddlers of dangerous products accountable for their actions. As David Rosner and Jerry Markowitz masterfully document in their paper “Cater to the Children” and their book Deceit and Denial, the lead industry knew by the 1930’s the adverse health consequences that would be caused by their actions, but they didn’t care and greed won out. The R.I. Supreme Court’s decision gives a free pass to the lead industry’s despicable behavior.
In recent months, we’ve learned about the Department of Defense hampering EPA’s chemical risk assessments and slowing the study of health effects from the TCE contaminating Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Now, the Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton reports that DoD is refusing comply with EPA orders to clean up military bases where chemical contamination poses “imminent and substantial” dangers to public health.
When EPA issues “final orders” to polluters, those that don’t comply can be hauled into court and forced to pay fines of up to $28,000 per day for each violation. When the polluter in question is a government agency, though, the picture changes. Layton explains:
As we’ve noted before, research on nanotechnology safety has lagged behind the use of nanomaterials in consumer products. Three recent stories describe the potential rewards and risks of nanotechnology and some of the efforts to learn more about nanomaterials’ effects on humans and our environment.
Much of the use of nanotechnology in today’s consumer products is of questionable value to society – the tiny particles are used to make tennis rackets more lightweight, skin cream more sheer, and socks less smelly. But nanomaterials also hold great promise for making solar cells and water filtration, which can help tackle the global problems of climate disruption and insufficient clean drinking water. Researchers are also studying the use of nanomaterials in cancer therapies, and Health Affairs has just published an interview with Nelson Alderson, the associate commissioner for science at FDA’s Office of Science and Health Coordination, in which Alderson explains how nanoparticles can target disease (access is free online until 7/1).
Carole Bass’s article in Yale Environment 360 focuses on the risks of nanotechnology, and provides a list of concerns raised in the last month alone about the use of nanomaterials. Bass also gives a pithy explanation of why we ought to be cautious:
By Michael Stebbins, originally published at Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund
Last month I wrote about the White House’s apparent involvement in the denial of California’s request for exemption from the Clean Air Act to set their own guidelines for the regulation of auto emissions standards. Now the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been forced to postpone a vote to hold EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Susan Dudley in contempt for not turning over documents relating to the role of the White House because the administration is claiming executive privilege.
Under the law, California is the only state that can set their own standards for auto emissions, but it has to have a waiver by the EPA to do so. If granted, other states are permitted to adopt either the federal standard or the California standard.
On Saturday, Firedoglake hosted an online discussion on David Michaels’ Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health – and David was lucky to have the chat hosted by Jordan Barab, whose wonderful Confined Space blog provided so much inspiration for The Pump Handle. In his introduction, Jordan not only did a terrific job summarizing the lessons contained in the book, but added some telling details from his own decades of experience promoting workplace health and safety. Here he is describing the demise of the long-awaited OSHA ergonomics standard:
Updated (6/19/08) below
Just before last year’s holiday season, Charles Budds Bolchoz, 48; best friends Karey Renard Henry, 35, and Parish Lamar Ashley, 36; and company owner Robert Scott Gallagher, 49, lost their lives in a violent explosion at T2 Laboratories in Jacksonville, Florida (previous posts here, here). The firm manufacturered Ecotane®, a gasoline additive “methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl” (i.e., MMT® or MCMT), which increases the octane rating of gasoline. Both OSHA and the CSB began their investigations, with CSB providing several updates in the early weeks of their work.
Now that the six months anniversary of the four worker’s deaths is here, I wondered what the workers’ families, co-workers and the community have learned from OSHA’s investigation. (Under Section 9(c) of the OSH Act, OSHA has six months to issue citations.)
Back in April, a Government Accountability Office report explained how the White House Office of Management and Budget was holding up EPA’s IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) assessments. OMB had started requiring an “interagency review” process allowing agencies that might be affected by the IRIS assessments to provide comments on the documents – and as result, some of these outside agencies can effectively block completion of IRIS assessments, which inform federal environmental standards and many environmental protection programs at the local, state, and even international level.
The GAO explained that this interagency review process came about because the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and NASA were upset about how EPA was addressing “controversial” chemicals such as perchlorate, napthalene, and trichlorethylene (TCE). DOD, DOE, and NASA view these hazardous substances as “integral to their missions.” EPA IRIS assessments of them could lead to regulatory actions that will require lots of protection and cleanup spending by the responsible agencies.
Last week, the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held its second hearing on the IRIS process. One witness was particularly vocal about DOD’s foot-dragging on TCE.
by revere, cross posted at Effect Measure
Our post on what is behind the Right Wing attack on science drew a lot of attention and numerous comments. I’d like to emphasize some key points that may have gotten lost in the details (for the details, please see the original post). We’ll use climate change skepticism as an example, but the principles hold for other kinds of assaults, for example, on public health concerns regarding bis phenol A.
The cardinal point is that the attacks aren’t about science. Refuting false statements about whether CO2 is or is not a driver of global warming may seem (and be) necessary, but it is not the objective of the attackers. Karl Rove is famous for his doctrine that you attack your adversary at his strongest point. Environmental science’s strongest point is the scientific integrity and credibility of the developing consensus that human activities are driving a significant increase in mean global temperatures. It is not the science of global warming that the Right Wing is concerned about but the policy consequences it entails. It is therefore necessary to destroy its authority and credibility.
The attack on the science has two components. The first is the most obvious: to use what appear to be scientific arguments to cast doubt on what the scientific community deems valid arguments about climate change. But the second may be the most important: to do it in a way that casts aspersions on all kinds of scientific argument. The attackers don’t care if they are accused of political or economic bias in making their own scientific arguments because one of their objectives is to establish a covert narrative that says science is always biased and tainted by political corruption. The aim is to destroy the moral authority of science, not its factual basis. They then erect a new standard based on economic promise and the virtues of “progress” and modernity.
In our view an important element in countering the attack is not only to respond by pointing out what is behind the attack (which we have just done), but who is behind the attack and why. Our original post discussed this in some detail, where we document that, almost without exception Far Right ideologues and wealthy elites are the material force behind the assault on mainstream environmental science. Is this a conspiracy theory? There is nothing theoretical about the demonstration that over 92% of books in English questioning the science supporting climate change, endocrine disruption, air pollution effects and other environmental issues with obvious consequences for policy are directly and explicitly affiliated with Right Wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and their ilk.
That’s not a side issue. That’s the issue.
by revere (cross posted at Effect Measure)
If you want to see what difference environmental protection enforcement makes, just go to eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union. Or China. In the 1970s the US led the world in cleaning its environment and was consolidating its gains with well-staffed, motivated federal and state environment agencies. But that was then. Last weekend the US Senate couldn’t even manage a paltry 60 votes to stop a filibuster of a bipartisan and none too strong global warming bill. This kind of failure isn’t new. The US slow motion fall in environmental leadership has been going on for decades. In the Bush administration it is no longer covert but displayed blatantly and without shame. The lack of commitment is not a result of public disinterest or hostility. Polling throughout this period shows continuing support for environmental protection, and mainstream environmental organizations have even increased their membership. So what’s going on? A recent scholarly paper pulls back the curtain on one reason for the long slide (cf. Jacques, Dunlap and Freeman, “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”, Environmental Politics 17:349 - 385, 2008).
Today’s Washington Post includes a great article by Lyndsey Layton that contrasts European Union and U.S. chemical laws and explores how EU actions might affect products on U.S. shelves. Here’s Layton’s explanation of EU law and the philosophy that guides it:
DuPont was busted a couple of years ago by U.S. EPA for failing to report information about adverse health effects associated with exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8), the chemical used to make Teflon and other non-stick surfaces. Now it seems that DuPont is dutifully submitting information to EPA’s TSCA 8(e) docket and we can thank the Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward for trolling through the docket to find items of public interest.* Ward recently reported on an analysis conducted by DuPont which identified 19 cases of carcinoid tumors among DuPont employees; 6 of the cases were among workers at the Parkersburg, WV Washington Works plant.
In the submitted report to EPA, the DuPont official wrote:
“Six cases of this rare tumor type among approximately 5,000 workers at the Washington Works plant introduces the possibility of a cancer cluster…”
Devra Davis’s book The Secret History of the War on Cancer (which we covered favorably here and here) advocates shifting our emphasis from treating cancer to preventing it – and, in particular, focusing on environmental factors implicated in the explosion of certain types of cancer. The book has raised some controversy, and a recent exchange in the New York Review of Books exemplifies one of the points of contention. Gayle Green writes in a letter responding to Richard Horton’s review:
An attorney representing a large group of PFOA-exposed individuals sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and ATSDR Director Howard Frumkin, urging them not to delay any further the release of hazard information and risk assessments on the contaminant perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, a.k.a. C8). Mr. Bilott was writing on behalf of residents who live near DuPont’s Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, WV and
“who continue to be exposed to this poison in their residential drinking water on a daily basis.”
By Michael Stebbins, originally published at Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund
The House just passed the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 by a vote of 407 to 6. H.R. 5940 reauthorizes and refines the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), notably strengthening the commitment to environmental and safety research. This seems particularly important considering the recent news on the potential danger of carbon nanotubes.
According to House Science and Technology Committee chairman, Bart Gordon (D-TN) “The federal interagency nanotechnology research program has not yet put in place a well designed, adequately funded, and effectively executed research program focused on the environmental and safety aspects of nanotechnology. H.R. 5940 addresses this deficiency by requiring that a research plan, with detailed objectives and funding targets, be developed and quickly implemented.”
The bill requires the White House “to ensure that a detailed implementation plan for Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) research is developed and executed.” It also requires the plan to be responsive to recommendations from the NNI external advisory committee and requires the development of a publicly accessible database containing every EHS research project supported under the NNI.
“We need to protect the public health and allay any safety concerns,” said Gordon. “I believe H.R. 5940 will help ensure the safety of new products for the benefit of both the business community and the public generally.”
Finally, the bill also creates new nanotechnology education programs to attract secondary school students to science, now a hallmark of just about every science bill that Congress introduces.
For more information, please visit the Committee’s website.
By Susan F. Wood, PhD
Much has been written at the Pump Handle and elsewhere in the media and scientific literature about ensuring that science appropriately drives government policies. Questions and concerns have abounded regarding inappropriate non-scientific interference, while at the same time many health and environmental agencies (and the scientific staff within them) continue their incredibly important work in research, evaluation, development, regulation and service delivery. Several organizations have done surveys and developed principles on scientific integrity including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Scientists and Engineers for America.
At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we are launching a multi-part study to get a strong handle on the written policies regarding the role of scientists in government that are currently in place, an understanding of how they are implemented at various agencies, and what recommendations can be made to specifically create policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
This is where we need your help:
We are seeking current and former government scientists to participate in interviews for the Scientists in Government project. Interviews will be conducted in Summer 2008.
If you are a current or former government scientist (with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency), you can help us in our work to strengthen policies on science in the federal government. Participation involves a phone or in-person interview of 1-2 hours. Our study is approved by George Washington University’s IRB (#030823).More information about the project can be found at: http://www.defendingscience.org/Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm.
If you are interested in participating, please contact Ruth Long at 202-994-7993 or eohrwl@gwumc.edu. If you know others who might be interested in participating, please send them to this webpage: http://www.defendingscience.org/Participate-in-the-Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm
Susan F. Wood, PhD is Research Professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, where she is part of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). She also served as Director of the FDA Office of Women’s Health from 2000-2005 and is a member of the Board of Directors for Scientists and Engineers for America.
For the first time since 2005, the full Senate chamber is debating climate legislation: the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, or CSA. Although the chances of this legislation becoming law this year are slim, it could lay important groundwork for the next Congress and Administration.
If you want to know the key details about what the CSA proposes and what the remaining sticking points are, go read this excellent Gristmill post by Kate Sheppard – and don’t seek your information from today’s New York Times. As the title suggests, John M. Broder’s NYT article “Senate Opens Debate on Politically Risky Bill Addressing Global Warming” focuses not on the measures Senators propose to address this crucial-to-human-survival issue, but on how they’re spinning the situation. Here’s the opening paragraph:
A study just published in the journal PLoS Medicine (and written up in the LA Times) suggests a link between childhood lead exposure and adult arrests for violent crimes. Studying 250 adults for whom they had prenatal and childhood blood lead level measurements, University of Cincinnati researchers found that each 5-microgram-per-deciliter increase in blood lead levels at age 6 was associated with a nearly 50% increased risk of arrest as a young adult (the risk ratio was 1.48).
The good news is that overall, U.S. children’s blood lead levels have dropped dramatically since manufacturers started phasing lead out of paint and gasoline in the mid-1970s. The bad news is that 40% of the nation’s housing still contains lead-based paint, and hundreds of thousands of children still have blood lead levels associated with neurological problems.
When we as a society consider whether or not to regulate hazardous substances, we need to remember that allowing their continued use can have severe consequences. The lead saga demonstrates that even when environmental and health advocates succeed in getting hazardous substances out of consumer products, the damage can be extremely costly and long-lasting.
Asbestos is internationally recognized as a carcinogen and blamed for 100,000 deaths each year, but neither the U.S. nor Canada has managed to ban its use. Two mines in Quebec still produce asbestos, and about 95% of their production is exported. Last year, The Globe and Mail’s Martin Mittelstaedt reported that Canada’s government is a strong backer of asbestos, and spent roughly $19.2 million from 1984 to 2007 to promote asbestos use.
In February, Mittelstaedt reported that Health Canada, the country’s health agency, had “quietly begun a study” on the dangers of chrysotile asbestos. He cited government critics who believe that the government plans to use the research to try to scuttle efforts to put chrysotile on the list of hazardous substances subject to international trade restrictions under the Rotterdam Convention.
The seven experts hired by Health Canada to prepare the report submitted it in March, but the report has not yet been made public – and now two of the experts are decrying the delay. CBC News reports:
By Sarah Vogel
On Wednesday, May 14 the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held a hearing on Plastics Additives in Consumer Products to discuss the safety of two chemical compounds, bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, in consideration of new legislation and calls for regulatory reform. Both of these chemicals are used in plastics production and have long been known to be endocrine disruptors. In response to mounting evidence of the harmful health effects of BPA at very low doses of exposure, some manufacturers, the Canadian government, the State of California, and now members of Congress are taking action to restrict the use of this chemical. But the FDA’s position remains unchanged. The agency persists in considering BPA as a safe indirect food additive, despite the conclusion by the National Toxicology Program that there is some concern about neurological and reproductive effects of low doses of BPA in fetuses, infants and children.
In stark contrast to the position of the regulatory agency, members of Congress have taken the lead in pushing for greater protective health measures for children.
By Ally Petrilla
I read the Jackson Sun’s (Tennessee) headline “Churches ‘go green’ as they as they aim to protect God’s creation from more harm” and said to myself, “Finally!” I am not that excited that my home state is catching the Go Green bug (although that’s a great thing, too!); I was more excited to see that people are having enough sense to use churches as an outlet for health messages for people in the South.
The story of asbestos in this country ought to serve as a cautionary tale: A seemingly miraculous fiber was widely introduced into common consumer products; only after it was already in millions of homes did the general public realize that it causes a particularly terrible form of cancer. Now, treating victims and cleaning up contaminated communities is costing billions of dollars, while thousands of people endure the toll of a debilitating and deadly disease.
Nanotechnology is another innovation that promises to bring consumer products to a whole new level – and, once again, it looks like nano products will become widespread and entrenched before we have a complete picture of what the risks are.
Nanotechnology involves extremely small particles measuring 1 – 100 nanometers (down to 1/100,000th the width of a human hair). This gives the particles more surface area relative to their weight, which can make them more reactive and change their properties in other ways. Such changes can offer new opportunities, but they can also pose dangers. In fact, a pilot study published in the latest issue of Nature Nanotechnology suggests that carbon nanotubes behave like asbestos, causing mesothelioma-like lesions in the body.
Over the past few years, it’s become harder to access several sources of useful, up-to-date information about the substances we’re exposed to. There were the EPA library closures; the changes in Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements; and a dramatic slowdown in the pace of Integrated Risk Information System assessments. Now, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has announced it will not be collecting agricultural chemical usage data on 2008 field crops.
Today, 45 prominent public interest groups – including NRDC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Consumers Union – have written to USDA Secretary Ed Shafer to urge the restoration of this important information:
After dinner last night at a local tavern, I asked the waiter for a container to carry home our leftovers. He promptly returned with a No. 5 plastic container (damn!). Have you ever looked at the carry-out containers you receive from your local restaurants? Are they made of a recyclable material? Are they made of a recyclable material that the city you live in will actually recycle?
By Olga Naidenko
After lead, asbestos, aromatic amine dyes, Minamata disease, Bhopal, and fluorochemicals, we presumably have learned something about worker safety, especially when it comes to large-scale production in cutting-edge chemical industries. So here comes the test: can we use this knowledge to ensure worker safety in the up-and-coming nanotechnology industry?
An international survey published in the May issue of Environmental Science and Technology addressed precisely this question: are nanomaterials firms and laboratories installing adequate, nano-specific environmental health and safety (EHS) programs, engineering controls, personal protective equipment, exposure monitoring and product stewardship programs?
Despite worsening problems with climate disruption and air pollution, politicians and individuals have kept making bad transportation choices for decades. As a result, we’ve got an unsustainable transportation system full of single-passenger gas-guzzling vehicles, and the only “solution” that politicians have been able to unite around is ethanol, which worsens global hunger and nutrient runoff without producing net energy savings.
There’s a little bit of good news, though. Recent stories suggest that the negative consequences of bad gas choices are finally starting to steer consumers and politicians towards better options:
Companies have evidently realized that marketing anti-bacterial products to U.S. consumers is a good way to make money, and are pushing a wide array of products that claim to have bacteria-fighting properties. (I’ve seen socks, computer products, toys … and even a handy hook you can use to avoid touching a potentially germ-ridden door handle.) This might seem like a good thing - bacteria cause some pretty nasty diseases, after all - except that they’re using nano-sized silver particles to fight the bacteria, and we don’t know nearly enough about the effects of all the nano-sized particles that are entering our environment as we wash, wear, use, and dispose of the hundreds of nano-containing products now on the market.
In the latest issue of The New Republic, Carole Bass provides an excellent overview the issue and why we should be concerned:
The Chicago Tribune has just reported that Mary Gade, the Bush administration’s top environmental regulator in the Midwest, has been forced to quit her job after months of efforts to get Dow Chemicals to clean up dioxin contamination around its Michigan headquarters. The Tribune’s Michael Hawthorne explains:
Just as the 60-day deadline approached for filing a legal challenge to a new health standard to protect mine workers from asbestos exposure, mining industry trade associations submitted their petitions in federal court. MSHA’s rule was published on February 29, and tick-tock, like clockwork, the National Mining Assoc, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Assoc (NSSGA) and others filed suits in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting judicial review of MSHA’s rule. Under both the OSHA and MSHA statutues, ”any person who may be adversely affect by a [newly promulgated] standard” may file a petition in the US Court of Appeals challenging the “validity of the standard.”
These legal challenges to worker health and safety standards are typical—nearly every final OSHA health standard was challenged by some industry association—It’s just part of the standard-operating due-process protections afforded hazardous materials to which workers are exposed. Even in this case, for ASBESTOS, a known carcinogenic and respiratory toxin which has been responsible for the death and disability of hundreds of thousands of individuals, is still granted its “day in court.”
On the heels of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report on political interference with EPA scientists, the Government Accountability Office reports that the White House Office of Management and Budget is taking a major and non-transparent role in EPA toxic chemical assessments.
At issue is the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of chemicals. There are 540 chemicals in the system now, but the process of adding them has slowed in recent years, and now there’s a backlog of 70 chemicals. This slowdown has serious consequences, because IRIS assessments inform federal environmental standards and many environmental protection programs at the local, state, and even international level. NRDC’s Jennifer Sass notes that the IRIS database received an average of roughly 600 requests a day this month.
The GAO cites multiple reasons for the slowdown, including the growing complexity and scope of risk assessments, but the “interagency review process” requested and managed by the OMB is at the top of the list of problems. In this process, agencies that might be affected by the assessments get a chance to provide comments and questions to EPA. The GAO explains why OMB instituted this policy in the first place:
Angry Toxicologist makes a good point about Earth Day:
What’s wrong with Earth Day?
The name, for one. Earth day. Protecting mother earth. Saving the environment. What’s wrong with these? They’re all about the earth. No humans mentioned. For a day that’s supposed to highlight the damage we are doing and to energize some action, it’s woefully off the mark. The degredation of the environment is harmful for people, this is what matters. Doubtless, there are those who care about the environment for the environment’s sake. You are entitled to your value but let me tell you that the majority of humanity does not share your outlook. They majority may, however, agree with the same means and ends with different a different ‘why’. Concerns for human health, recreation, and preservation of our natural heritage for culture’s sake can cover the same ground and the tent of ‘environmentalists’ can pretty much be expanded to include a vast majority of Americans.
I expect that most of us who consider ourselves environmentalists care about the condition of water, air, and ecosystems because we know people’s lives depend on them. Maybe we should rename this annual holiday Health Day, in recognition of the fact that human health is inextricably linked to the health of our environment.
by Lindsay Wheeler
Although today’s the official Earth Day, I’ve been reflecting more and more on my own lifestyle and the efficiency with which I live. It started a few months ago, when I was watching the BBC series Planet Earth with my brother, and I found myself almost to the point of tears thinking about what we, as a human race, have done to the planet. I grew up spending summers in the backcountry of Wyoming and I have always considered myself as a person who has loved the outdoors. However, living in Washington, DC, I often find it easy to forget the fragility of the world around us when I feel sheltered by looming buildings. With these reflections and to mark Earth Day, I have set three standards for myself in order to lessen my environmental impact.
The front page of yesterday’s Washington Post provided a stark reminder of the cost of powering the DC region: a scarred and denuded landscape once graced by mountains and wildlife. Mountaintop removal mining (MTR) in West Virginia feeds coal-powered plants that have been demanding more and more of the fuel; in the DC area, demand for electricity grew 18% since 2001. The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold explains the process and its effects:
Today the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and other news sources report that the National Toxicology Program has issued a draft brief stating concerns about the effects of low levels of bispehnol A on fetusus and children. Exposure to bisphenol A can interfere with the development of children’s brains and reproductive organs, including alterations to breast and prostate tissues that can incrase the risk of developing cancer later in life. Bisphenol A is used in many plastics and in the liners of some food and beverage containers, and most of us have measurable concentrations of it our bodies.
While the NTP doesn’t have any power to regulate BPA, its findings will influence EPA and FDA regulation and state laws. To truly appreciate the importance of this NTP brief, it helps to know how the research on this chemical has emerged, and how federal agencies have dealt with science, conflicts of interest, and industry bias. At DefendingScience.org, we’ve just posted a bisphenol A case study by Sarah Vogel, a PhD Candidate at Columbia University in the Department of Sociomedical Sciences’ Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health and Medicine. It’s a comprehensive look at what’s happened with bisphenol A and what needs to happen to protect public health. Here’s her summary of where things stand:
by Emilie Hedlund
A recent article in the New York Times (”Flooded Village Files Suit” 2/27/08 ) focuses on the Alaskan village Kivalina, which is disappearing because of flooding caused by the changing climate. The residents are accusing five oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company of creating a public nuisance. Similar suits which blame major companies for adverse effects caused by their emission of green house gases (GHG) have been seen for some time now, but this particular suit is unique in that it accuses the defendants of conspiracy. The companies have been trying to convince residents that changes to their property and the coastline are ”natural” and not caused by global climate change.
We’ve written before about how the beryllium industry – and Brush Wellman in particular – staved off OSHA’s attempt to revise the beryllium exposure limit (blog post here, article here). Their chief tactics were denying the validity of evidence showing the existing standard was insufficiently protective, and then, when that was no longer credible, insisting that more research was needed before the limit could be changed.
Now, CBS News Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian raises the question of whether CDC officials caved to political and corporate pressure in dramatically downscaling a health study of residents living near Brush Wellman’s largest beryllium-manufacturing plant:
No, not V-8 the vegetable drink, but C8, the common name for ammonium perfluorooctanoate, an ingredient in Teflon and other non-stick products. Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette reports today on the levels of perfluorooctanoic acid in the blood of about 69,000 residents living near the DuPont Co.’s Parkersburg, WV plant where C8 was manufactured. The results are posted on the West Virginia University’s Health Science’s center website. The median C8 blood-level was
“more than five times the U.S. general population.”
The highest median blood-concentration levels (i.e., 132 ppb) were found among residents who get their tap water from the Little Hocking Water Association in Ohio. Ward’s story indicates the median level in the general U.S. population is 5 ppb.
By Vera Toulokhonova
Over spring break, my family and I traveled to spend a weekend in New York City. One of our expeditions included a visit to the Statue of Liberty and, naturally, to the large restroom located on Ellis Island. The first thing I noticed about this notably modern facility is the proliferation of green signs all over its walls. Each had a large, bold, green heading, which read “Green Restroom.” I was curious to see exactly what constitutes a restroom that prides itself on being “Green.”
The Palm Beach (Florida) Post is reporting that Ag-Mart has settled a civil suit filed by a migrant farmworker family who alleged their son’s serious birth defects were associated with the company’s improper handling of pesticides. Earlier reporting in March 2005 by the PB Post exposed the working and living conditions of this family and other farmworkers, and birth defects among some of their children.
At the same time this settlement was reported, another Florida newspaper wrote that violations against Ag-Mart for failure to comply with the State’s pesticide use rules had nearly all been dropped by an administrative law judge. Oddly, these violations (e.g., failing to provide protective equipment for employees working with pesticides, allowing workers to harvest crops too soon after chemicals were sprayed, burning pesticide containers) all seem like the type of practices that might have contributed to the workers’ exposure and possible link with the infants’ malformations. This development, coupled with the fact that the Ag-Mart case settlement is protected by a confidentiality agreement, creates serious obstacles for public health prevention.
In a welcome contrast to the disappointing ozone rule the agency announced last week, EPA has issued tougher air-pollution standards for diesel locomotives and marine engines. When fully implemented in 2030, the new standards will reduce particulate matter pollution by 90% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80%. The new standards only cover ships traveling on inland waterways and between U.S. ports – which means that LA and Long Beach residents will still be breathing lots of pollution from international cargo ships – but EPA estimates that its benefits will still be substantial:
Just a heads-up for our DC readers: the Environmental Film Festival is going on right now. On Saturday, the last day of the festival, there’s a special World Water Day tribute at the Carnegie Institution (1530 P St. NW, DuPont Circle Metro) featuring the following:
Welcome by Peter O’Brien, Managing Director, Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital. Opening remarks by Guest Curator Linda Lilienfeld, followed by: AGUAS CON EL AGUA; UMBRELLA; WATER FIRST; TIROL - LAND OF WATER; THE STAVE WEIR IN LUCERNE; RIVERGLASS; VILLAGE OF DUST, CITY OF WATER; and SWITCH-OFF. The World Water Day Tribute will continue with a panel discussion entitled “Global Water Challenges,” and the film finale FLOW: FOR THE LOVE OF WATER.
There’s plenty of worrying environmental news out there, but over the weekend bloggers and reporters highlighted a few glimmers of hope, too:
EPA has set the limit for pollution-forming ozone in the air to 75 ppb, despite the unanimous advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to set it between 60-70 ppb (more here on the health effects of ozone). This is hardly a surprise, given the Bush Administration’s record. But in this case, it’s apparently not enough to make a single standard insufficiently protective; administration officials have decided to take on the rulemaking requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin explains:
In the largest Superfund cleanup settlement ever, W.R. Grace has agreed to pay $250 million to cover government investigation and cleanup costs associated with the asbestos-laden ore the company mined in Libby, Montana.
EPA has already spent roughly $168 million removing asbestos-contaminated soils and other dangerous materials, EPA Emergency Coordinator Paul Peronard told the Missoulian. He estimates that it will take another $175 million to get to the point where cleanup efforts are considered a success – which doesn’t mean that the town will be entirely clean. EPA cleanup efforts started in 2000, and the agency filed suit against W.R. Grace in 2001 to recover costs. The company was already facing thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits, and filed for bankruptcy.
Andrew Schneider, who first drew national attention to Libby’s plight in a series of Seattle P-I articles, points out that W.R. Grace still faces a criminal trial:
The Associated Press has another following up on yesterday’s investigative report about pharmaceuticals found in drinking-water supplies. They delve into the issue of who’s studying water supplies, and whether they’re revealing their findings. Accompanying the article is an alphabetical list of cities, so you can see whether your area’s water has been tested, and whether traces of drugs have been found; here in Washington, DC, for instance, tests have turned up carbamazepine, caffeine, ibuprofen, monensin, naproxen and sulfamethoxazole.
It’s nice that AP is supplying this list, because water providers and researchers often stay silent about test results:
The Associated Press conducted a five-month investigation and found that drug residues have been detected in the drinking water of 24 major U.S. metropolitan areas, which serve roughly 41 million Americans. Concerns about these drug residues have largely focused on wildlife, as estrogen from birth control pills and other hormonal drugs has been interfering with fish reproduction (see past post here). Now, though, the AP is highlighting the number of people exposed and the potential for human health effects:
Some good news on endangered species, for a change (via Dateline Earth): the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will retain existing critical habitat currently designated under the Endangered Species Act for marbled murrelet populations on the West Coast. This is a reversal from the Bush Administration, which had been trying to reduce the habitat in order to allow more logging in the old-growth forests where the bird nests. The AP’s Jeff Barnard explains:
Environmentalism sometimes gets treated as a luxury, something that countries can pursue once they’ve attained a certain GDP. In China, though, galloping economic growth has created an unprecedented environmental crisis, and citizens are organizing to stop industrial pollution, even though they know it might mean fewer jobs.
In today’s Washington Post, Edward Coody reports that residents of southern Chinese fishing towns are protesting a planned chemical facility that has already been rejected by residents of another city:
We’ve written before about the problems with conflicts of interest on EPA scientific advisory panels. In particular, we think scientists working for product defense firms, whose money comes from clients seeking to avoid regulation of their products, ought to be barred from such panels. Now, a group is raising concerns about bias on an EPA panel reviewing the brominated flame retardant deca – but the charge comes from an industry group that’s concerned about the state-government scientist chairing the panel, and the EPA has acceded quickly to their wishes.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that California’s regulation of pollution from ships using its port is pre-empted by the Clean Air Act, and thus requires a waiver from the EPA. This is bad news for the state, since the last time it requested a waiver from EPA, the agency delayed for a long time and then denied the request – against the advice of its legal and scientific staff.
As the recent problems with tainted food, drugs, toys, and other consumer products have made clear, our regulatory system