Sep 10, 2010   

register for free | contact us  
   - Home Page
   - News
   - Arts and Entertainment
   - Senior Living
   - Cool Tips
   - Automotive
   - Go Green
   - Red, White, & True Mysteries
   - Fun Zone
   - About Us


  
     
Sign in   or   Register

forgot password?

   Viewed 106 times - Published on Feb 26, 2010

EathTalk: Nuclear Waste Stored On Tribal Lands

EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Some time ago there were issues with Native American tribes storing nuclear waste on their land, something that was both unhealthy to the communities and caused considerable controversy among tribal leaders. Where is this issue today? -- M. Spenser

Dear M.: Native tribes across the American West have been and continue to be subjected to significant amounts of radioactive and otherwise hazardous waste as a result of living near nuclear test sites, uranium mines, power plants and toxic waste dumps.

And in some cases tribes are actually hosting hazardous waste on their sovereign reservations-which are not subject to the same environmental and health standards as U.S. land-in order to generate revenues. Native American advocates argue that siting such waste on or near reservations is an "environmental justice" problem, given that twice as many Native families live below the poverty line than other sectors of U.S. society and often have few if any options for generating income.

"In the quest to dispose of nuclear waste, the government and private companies have disregarded and broken treaties, blurred the definition of Native American sovereignty, and directly engaged in a form of economic racism akin to bribery," says Bayley Lopez of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He cites example after example of the government and private companies taking advantage of the "overwhelming poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host nuclear waste storage sites."

The issue came to a head-and Native advocates hope a turning point-in 2007 when public pressure forced the Skull Valley band of Utah's Goshute tribe to forego plans to offer their land, which is already tucked between a military test site, a chemical weapons depot and a toxic magnesium production facility, for storing spent nuclear fuel above ground. The facility would have been a key link in the chain of getting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, the U.S. government's proposed permanent storage facility.

In February 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced intentions to scale back efforts to make Yucca Mountain the nation's sole repository of radioactive nuclear waste and to look into alternative long-term strategies for dealing with its spent nuclear fuel. The National Congress of American Indians, in representing the various tribes around the region, no doubt breathed a sigh of relief.

The issue essentially goes much deeper: As long as we continue to make use of nuclear energy-and many in Congress are looking to expand its role to get away from fossil fuels-the waste and spent nuclear fuel will keep coming and need to be stored somewhere. Groups like Honor the Earth, founded by author and activist Winona LaDuke to promote cooperation between Native Americans and environmentalists, are trying to persuade tribes that availing their land to nuclear power and other toxic industries isn't worth the potential long-term damage to the health of their citizens. Honor the Earth helped convince the Goshutes to turn down a lucrative deal to store waste on their land, and is working with dozens of other tribes to try to do the same.

CONTACTS: DOE, www.doe.gov; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, www.indian.utah.gov/utah_tribes_today/goshute.html; National Congress of American Indians, www.ncai.org; Honor the Earth, www.honorearth.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.





Comments:
Be the first to leave a comment!


Submit Your Comment:

Name: 

Your comment on the story above:

   Comments containing "http" will not be accepted in an effort to reduce spam posts

If you are trying to contact the Star-Journal, do not use this form. Click Here to send us an email.
 More Go Green 
        127 Articles: Showing 1 to 20     <<    >>  

Craig Grant doesn't like cats. But that all changed when his son moved out, leaving his cat Pepper behind. And just when Craig was getting used to having one cat, he found out Pepper was pregnant. Five kittens later, Craig was ready to adopt them out until his son said they must stay with their mother for 8 weeks. "It wasn't long before the kittens were swinging from my curtains," he notes on his website.<br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/cat3.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Photo via caboodleranch.com<br><br>The cats started to be a problem for Craig. Not only were neighbors complaining but the cats were being harassed, like being shot with B.B. guns. A newspaper advertisement led him to a tree farm 100 miles away from his Jacksonville condo. A home he wasn't quite ready to give up with its short walk to the beach and it was also close to his work.<br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/cat2.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Photo via caboodleranch.com<br><br>He immediately loved the tree farm and bought 25 acres where he quickly erected an office trailer as a cat shelter. It had pet doors, padded shelving for long cat naps. The sanctuary is in the middle of 100 acres of wildlife. <br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/cat.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Photo via caboodleranch.com<br><br>Craig moved there himself in 2003. By that time he had 11 cats, he had been adopted strays and abandoned cats. By 2004, he had 22 cats. As you can tell by these pictures, he now has quite a few more than 22. All of the expenses for the sanctuary have come out of Craig's pocket and he even travels 250 miles roundtrip to work many times a day to keep the cats safe and cared for. All cats have been spayed or neutered, and all shots are kept up to date.<br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/cat4.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Photo via caboodleranch.com<br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/cat5.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Photo via caboodleranch.com<br><br>::::second:::: Man Builds Cat-Sized Village for Homeless Cats
   from Sep 7, 2010



By http://www.Care2.com | Mon Sep 6, 2010<br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/care1.png hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><br>::::start::::This year marks the 25th anniversary of Farm Aid. In 1985, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, and John Mellencamp organized the first Farm Aid concert to raise awareness about the loss of family farms and to raise funds to keep farm-families on their land.<br>Organized during the "farm crisis" of the 1980s, twenty-five years later the economic conditions of that time seem to be repeating, and their work remains just as important.<br>But the group is about more than just an annual concert; it works year-round on behalf of family farmers and good food and their mission remains the same: to keep family farmers on their land.<br>To date, the nonprofit organization has raised over $37 million and they work to promote food from family farms, grow the good food movement, help farmers, and take action to change the food/farming system.<br>As they say, "family farmers in the United States are under extreme economic pressure and thousands are pushed off their land every year. This crisis in farm country is threatening the very existence of the family farm in America. As family farms are forced out by large, factory farms, the quality of our food, our environment and our food security is in danger."<br>As I have written about before, family farmers are important because they provide economic vitality to their communities, grow high quality food, and are stewards of the land working to protect the soil, air, water and biodiversity.<br>Some of the ways Farm Aid helps farmers include developing The Farmer Resource Network, 1-(800) FARM-AID, to provide immediate support services to farmers in crisis. Now the network is also online and it connects farmers to an extensive network of resources across the country to help find new markets, transition to more sustainable and profitable farming practices, and survive natural disasters.<br>They also point out that family farmers can only thrive if there are markets for them. Farm Aid works to connect farmers and eaters by creating local and regional markets, and working to get family farm food in urban neighborhoods, restaurants, schools, and other public institutions.<br>The group's main event remains the iconic, yearly concert featuring the founders and others raising money for America's family farmers.<br>This year's concert, called "Farm Aid 25: Growing Hope for America" is focusing on sustainable practices on farms and local and regional food systems. It takes place Saturday October 2 at Miller Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.<br>In addition to board members Willie Nelson, Neil Young, John Mellencamp, and Dave Matthews (who joined the Farm Aid Board of Directors in 2001), this year's line up also includes Kenny Chesney, Norah Jones, Jason Mraz, Jeff Tweedy, Band of Horses, The BoDeans, Amos Lee, and Robert Francis. Tavis Smiley is hosting the event.<br>The concert is part of an all day-festival that features HOMEGROWN vendors, family farmed, local and organic food, and the HOMEGROWN Village that "give concertgoers a chance to meet farmers, get their hands dirty and learn how family farmers are growing good food, protecting our natural resources and connecting us to our roots."<br>You can fan Farm Aid on Facebook, follow them on Twitter, and check out one of their newest ventures HOMEGROWN. It encourages people to get good food from family farms.<br>You can also get involved in Farm Aid's Action Center where concerned citizens can become advocates for farm policy change. Part of this work includes working alongside farmers to protest family farms and inform farmers and eaters about issues such as growth hormones and genetically modified foods.<br>Judi Gerber is a University of California Master Gardener with a certificate in Horticultural Therapy. She writes about sustainable farming, local foods, and organic gardening for multiple magazines. Her book Farming in Torrance and the South Bay was released in September 2008.<br>This year marks the 25th anniversary of Farm Aid. In 1985, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, and John Mellencamp organized the first Farm Aid concert to raise awareness about the loss of family farms and to raise funds to keep farm-families on their land.<br>Organized during the "farm crisis" of the 1980s, twenty-five years later the economic conditions of that time seem to be repeating, and their work remains just as important.<br>But the group is about more than just an annual concert; it works year-round on behalf of family farmers and good food and their mission remains the same: to keep family farmers on their land.<br>To date, the nonprofit organization has raised over $37 million and they work to promote food from family farms, grow the good food movement, help farmers, and take action to change the food/farming system.<br>As they say, "family farmers in the United States are under extreme economic pressure and thousands are pushed off their land every year. This crisis in farm country is threatening the very existence of the family farm in America. As family farms are forced out by large, factory farms, the quality of our food, our environment and our food security is in danger."<br>As I have written about before, family farmers are important because they provide economic vitality to their communities, grow high quality food, and are stewards of the land working to protect the soil, air, water and biodiversity.<br>Some of the ways Farm Aid helps farmers include developing The Farmer Resource Network, 1-(800) FARM-AID, to provide immediate support services to farmers in crisis. Now the network is also online and it connects farmers to an extensive network of resources across the country to help find new markets, transition to more sustainable and profitable farming practices, and survive natural disasters.<br>They also point out that family farmers can only thrive if there are markets for them. Farm Aid works to connect farmers and eaters by creating local and regional markets, and working to get family farm food in urban neighborhoods, restaurants, schools, and other public institutions.<br>The group's main event remains the iconic, yearly concert featuring the founders and others raising money for America's family farmers.<br>This year's concert, called "Farm Aid 25: Growing Hope for America" is focusing on sustainable practices on farms and local and regional food systems. It takes place Saturday October 2 at Miller Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.<br>In addition to board members Willie Nelson, Neil Young, John Mellencamp, and Dave Matthews (who joined the Farm Aid Board of Directors in 2001), this year's line up also includes Kenny Chesney, Norah Jones, Jason Mraz, Jeff Tweedy, Band of Horses, The BoDeans, Amos Lee, and Robert Francis. Tavis Smiley is hosting the event.<br>The concert is part of an all day-festival that features HOMEGROWN vendors, family farmed, local and organic food, and the HOMEGROWN Village that "give concertgoers a chance to meet farmers, get their hands dirty and learn how family farmers are growing good food, protecting our natural resources and connecting us to our roots."<br>You can fan Farm Aid on Facebook, follow them on Twitter, and check out one of their newest ventures HOMEGROWN. It encourages people to get good food from family farms.<br>You can also get involved in Farm Aid's Action Center where concerned citizens can become advocates for farm policy change. Part of this work includes working alongside farmers to protest family farms and inform farmers and eaters about issues such as growth hormones and genetically modified foods.<br>Judi Gerber is a University of California Master Gardener with a certificate in Horticultural Therapy. She writes about sustainable farming, local foods, and organic gardening for multiple magazines. Her book Farming in Torrance and the South Bay was released in September 2008.<br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/care2.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>At Care2, we believe that individual actions can collectively make a difference. Whether you start making differences in your home, your community, or across the globe, we are glad to help you on your journey. Join us today! With more than 11 million members, Care2 is the largest online community of people making a difference in healthy and green living, human rights and animal welfare. Join us today!<br> Why Farm Aid Still Matters
   from Sep 7, 2010



Dear EarthTalk: What is happening with various programs initiated over the years in the U.S. to return to the wild certain animal species that had been endangered or threatened? And do environmentalists tend to be for or against such efforts? <br><br>From the standpoint of species and ecosystem health, limited attempts at predator reintroduction in the United States have for the most part proven very successful. The gray wolf, extirpated by hunters in the Yellowstone region some 90 years ago, is now thriving there in the wake of a controversial reintroduction program initiated in 1995, when the National Park Service released 31 gray wolves into the park's expansive backcountry. Today as many as 170 gray wolves roam the park and environs, while the elk population--which was denuding many iconic park landscapes in the absence of its chief predator--has fallen by half, in what many environmentalists see as a win-win scenario.<br><br>Other reintroduction efforts across the U.S. have also been successful. From the lynx in Colorado to the condor in California to the Black-footed ferret on the Plains, scientists are pleased with how well reintroduced species have taken to their new surroundings. As a result, many conservationists now view the reintroduction of iconic wildlife species as key to restoring otherwise degraded natural landscapes. <br><br>"When we kill off big cats, wolves and other wild hunters, we lose not only prominent species, but also the key ecological and evolutionary process of top-down regulation," says the non-profit Rewilding Institute, adding that the recovery of large native carnivores should be the heart of any conservation strategy in areas where such predators have disappeared. "Wolves, cougars, lynx, wolverines, grizzly and black bears, jaguars, sea otters and other top carnivores need to be restored throughout North America in ecologically effective densities in their natural ranges where suitable habitat remains or can be restored."<br><br>Not everyone is so bullish on wildlife reintroduction programs, despite their success. As for the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction, ranchers operating on private land outside park boundaries still complain about the threat of free-roaming wolves poaching their livestock. In response, the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife has implemented its Wolf Conservation Trust whereby donated funds are channeled toward paying ranchers fair market value for any stock lost to wolf predation. The group hopes the fund will "eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery" by shifting the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.<br><br>Some environmental advocates also oppose wildlife reintroductions. One argument is that people have "played God" enough and should stop tinkering even more with wildlife and ecosystems, especially given that the overall long-term impact is always uncertain. And some animal advocates dislike such strategies from a humanitarian perspective: "Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always stressful for them, and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs," claims People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), adding that, when predators are reintroduced to an area where they have long been absent, prey species tend to scatter and "their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down."<br><br>CONTACTS: The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), www.peta.org.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.<br>::::second:::: EarthTalk: Endangered Programs for Endangered Species
   from Sep 6, 2010



Dear EarthTalk: Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like?<br><br>The short answer is...maybe. Critics of the health care industry postulate that our society's quickness to test for disease may in fact be causing more of it, especially in the case of medical scans. To wit, the radiation dose from a typical CT scan (short for computed tomography and commonly known as a "cat scan") is 600 times more powerful than the average chest x-ray.<br><br>A 2007 study by Dr. Amy Berrington de González of the National Cancer Institute projected that the 72 million CT scans conducted yearly in the U.S. (not including scans conducted after a cancer diagnosis or performed at the end of life) will likely cause some 29,000 cancers resulting in 15,000 deaths two to three decades later. Scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest and head were deemed most likely to cause cancer, and patients aged 35 to 54 were more likely to develop cancer as a result of CT scans than other age group.<br><br>Another study found that, among Americans who received CT scans, upwards of 20 percent had a false positive after one scan and 33 percent after two, meaning that such patients were getting huge doses of radiation without cause. And about seven percent of those patients underwent unnecessary invasive medical procedures following their misleading scans. CT scans are much more common today than in earlier decades, exacerbating the potential damage from false positives and excessive radiation exposure.<br><br>"Physicians and their patients cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public-health time bomb," says Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at University of California-San Francisco. "To avoid unnecessarily increasing cancer incidence in future years, every clinician must carefully assess the expected benefits of each CT scan and fully inform his or her patients of the known risks of radiation." <br><br>CT scans are not the only concern. Mammograms are now routine for women over 40 years old. But some studies suggest that these types of screenings may cause more cancers than they prevent. Because of this, the federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women not otherwise considered high risk for breast cancer wait until age 50 to begin getting mammograms--and then to get them every two years instead of annually. However, the American Cancer Society argues that such restraint would result in women dying unnecessarily from delaying screenings.<br><br>Women with a family history of breast cancer may be at greatest risk. Researchers from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands found that five or more x-rays--or any exposure to radiation--before the age of 20 for "high risk" women increased the likelihood of developing breast cancer later by a factor of two and a half.<br><br>Individuals should ask tough questions of their physicians to determine if and how much screening is absolutely necessary to look for suspected abnormalities. Our knowledge of the risks of radiation-based screenings will only help us to make more informed decisions about our health.<br><br>CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; University Medical Center Groningen, www.umcg.nl.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.<br>::::third:::: Earth Talk: The Truth Behind Radiation
   from Sep 6, 2010



Hydroelectric dams are among the greenest and most affordable electricity sources in the world--and by far the most widely used renewable energy sources--but they also take a heavy environmental toll in the form of compromised landscapes, ecosystems and fisheries. Hydroelectric dams have been an important component of America's energy mix since the powerful flow of rivers was first harnessed for industrial use in the 1880s. Today hydroelectric power accounts for seven percent of U.S. electricity generation--and some two-thirds of the country's renewable power--according to the U.S. Geological Survey.<img border=0 src=../article-photos/damn.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br>Globally, about 19 percent of electricity comes from hydroelectric sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that China is the world's largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil and the U.S. Some two-thirds of the economically feasible potential for hydro power remains to be developed around the world, with untapped resources most abundant in Latin America, India and China.<br><br>Of course, despite the inexpensive and emissions-free power, many environmentalists consider hydroelectric dams to be man-made abominations that prevent salmon and other fish from swimming upstream, divert otherwise natural riparian settings, and fundamentally change the character of surrounding ecosystems. Green groups including American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are pushing the federal government to mandate the removal of four dams along the Snake River in Washington State that help the region have the lowest power-related carbon footprint in the country. The dams have decimated once teeming salmon runs, and upstream forest ecosystems have suffered accordingly.<br><br>But the Bonneville Power Administration, the quasi-federal utility that runs the dams and distributes the electricity they produce, says that keeping them going is crucial even as wind plays an increasingly larger role in the region's electricity mix. Since hydro power can be generated and released when most needed, it is an important resource for backup power when intermittent sources like wind (and solar) aren't available.<br><br>The scheduled removal of two century-old dams on the Elwha River in Washington State's Olympic National Park beginning in 2011 may well serve as test cases for larger dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. Planners hope wild salmon numbers will rebound as a result, and that other wildlife--such as bald eagles and black bears--will follow suit.<br><br>President Obama has committed $32 million to modernize existing hydropower dams, increase efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. "There's no one solution to the energy crisis, but hydropower is clearly part of the solution and represents a major opportunity to create more clean energy jobs," U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told reporters last year. "Investing in our existing hydropower infrastructure will strengthen our economy, reduce pollution and help us toward energy independence."<br><br>CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov; Bonneville Power Administration, www.bpa.gov.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial<br> Earth Talk: What's with all the DAM talking?
   from Sep 6, 2010



<b>From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>Dear EarthTalk : Is the dairy industry really trying to stop soy milk makers from calling their products "milk?" They must feel very threatened by the preponderance of soy milks now available in supermarkets<br>. --<i>Gina Storzen, Weymouth, MA</i><br><br> Indeed, just this past April the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), a trade group representing dairy farms, petitioned the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to crack down on what it calls "the misappropriation of dairy terminology on imitation milk products." NMPF has been asking for such a ruling for a decade, and argues that the soy industry's "false and misleading" labeling is now more common than ever.<br><br>According to NMPF president and CEO, Jerry Kozak, the FDA has let the issue slide so that the meaning of `milk' and even `cheese' has been "watered down to the point where many products that use the term have never seen the inside of a barn."<br><br>Furthermore, Kozak adds, the use of "dairy terminology" on non-dairy products can lead people to think they are eating healthier than they really are, especially because non-dairy products "can vary wildly in their composition and are inferior to the nutrient profile of those from dairy milk."<br><br>The website FoodNavigator-USA.com reports that on the other side of the Atlantic, the European Dairy Association (EDA) has also called for the term `soy milk' to be replaced with `soy drink'. EDA also suggests other options including `soy beverage', `soy preparation' and `soy-based liquid'. It's no wonder the soy industry isn't quick to give up the milk moniker, given how catchy the alternatives could be!<br><br>Jen Phillips of Mother Jones magazine takes issue with the dairy industry's sense of ownership when it comes to terms like `milk', `cheese' and `dairy'. "The word `milk' has lots of uses and has been used for non-dairy milks like coconut for a long time," she reports, adding that consumers already know that soy milk isn't dairy milk. "Instead," she writes, "the move to ban `milk' from non-dairy products is a transparent ploy by the NMPF to hurt the soybean industry that, thanks to increasingly health-conscious consumers and ethanol production quotas, is growing stronger every year."<br><br>She also disagrees with Kozak's claim that dairy milk is healthier than soy: "Actually, soy milk and dairy aren't that different nutritionally, except for that milk is fattier," she says, explaining that a cup of vanilla soy milk has 30 fewer calories than a cup of two percent cow's milk. And while dairy does have twice the protein, soy milk has 10 percent more calcium. "It's a bit of a toss-up nutritionally, but I'm lactose-intolerant so I'll choose the `milk' that doesn't make me gassy and crampy."<br><br>Phillips adds that, since 90-100 percent of Asians and 50 percent of Hispanics--two of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the U.S.--are lactose intolerant, "NMPF might want to think less about fighting soy and more about how they're going to deal with people who can't drink milk to begin with."<br><br>CONTACTS: NMPF, www.nmpf.org; FDA, www.fda.gov; FoodNavigator-USA.com, www.foodnavigator-usa.com; EDA, www.euromilk.org; Mother Jones, www.motherjones.com.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.<br><br> EarthTalk: MILK Battle
   from Sep 6, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>::::start:::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> I am a bartender in Sacramento and I would love to be able to use some sort of locally made or sustainable version of sugar. What's out there? <i>- Ryan</i><br><br><b>Dear Ryan:</b> It sure would be nice if we could obtain all of our food and drink items from local sources, but sugar provides an excellent example of why such a desire may remain a pipe dream in the United States for a long time to come. The sugar we consume that is produced domestically comes from sugar cane grown in Hawaii and the Southeast and sugar beet from the Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, California and elsewhere. However, it is likely milled and refined hundreds if not thousands of miles from where it is harvested, and then shipped all over the country-causing untold greenhouse gas emissions-in various sized packages for our consumption in our coffee, on our cereal and, for some of us, in our cocktails.<br><br>Massive government subsidies and land giveaways to the sugar industry in the American Southeast beginning in the early 18th century established a market for American-grown sugar despite the fact that the region's climate was not tropical enough to grow cane efficiently. To add insult to injury, the rerouting of south Florida's fragile water table to irrigate thirsty sugar plantations contributed to the decimation of the Everglades, one of the nation's most unique and diverse ecosystems-and now the subject of a multi-billion dollar restoration effort.<br><br>While you might be hard pressed to find commercially available local sugar anywhere in the U.S., you could make your own. "Years ago, when sugar was an expensive commodity, many people of lesser means made their own sugar from sugar beets," reports writer Kat Yares on the eHow.com website. "Every farm and every home garden had a spot reserved for beets, and a day was set aside to cook the beets down into sugar." While very few of us grow our own food these days, growing sugar beets and making sugar from scratch can be a fun, educational and tasty project for parents and kids or for foodies intent on local sourced, preservative-free ingredients. Yares explains the whole process in her "How to Make Sugar from Beets" article on eHow.com.<br><br>If that all sounds like too much work, perhaps you can settle for store-bought organic sugar, which may not be local but which is at least produced without chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Florida Crystals, Hain, C&H, Domino and others each offer organic sugar varieties in many traditional grocery stores coast-to-coast. There are even more choices at natural foods specialty stores (like Whole Foods). Believe it or not, there are even vegan sugars out there-that is, sugars not processed with animal-derived bone char in the refinement process.<br><br>While sugar itself may be a staple item for many cocktails, some interesting alternative natural sweeteners, some of which may be locally sourced in your region, do exist. Agave nectar, honey or even maple syrup are some options that might just give that Tom Collins the extra kick it needs to make it stand out from the other bartender's drinks down the street-or in your breakfast cereal, for that matter. <br><br><i>CONTACTS: eHow, www.ehow.com; Florida Crystals, floridacrystals.com; Hain, www.hainpurefoods.com; C&H, www.chsugar.com; Domino, www.dominosugar.com.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.</i><br><br>::::second:::: EarthTalk: Sustainable Versions Of Sugar
   from Jul 23, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> I heard about a supposed dangerous chemical called "triclosan" that is in many personal care and other consumer products. Can you enlighten? <i>-- Carl Stoneman, Richland, WA</i><br><br>Triclosan is a synthetic chemical compound added to many personal and household care products to inhibit illness by preventing bacterial infection. It works by breaking down the biochemical pathways that bacteria use to keep their cell walls intact, and as such kills potentially harmful germs if used in strong enough formulations. First developed as a surgical scrub back in 1972, triclosan is now used in upwards of 700 different consumer-oriented products, many of which people use more than once a day. They include hand soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, kids' toys, yoga mats and, of course, hand sanitizers.<br><br>Whether triclosan is actually as effective as advertised, especially in the small doses found in consumer products, is a topic of much debate. Manufacturers insist that the product helps reduce infections. But researchers from the University of Michigan's School of Public Health found, after surveying 27 different studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 on the effectiveness of antibacterial soaps, that washing hands with products containing triclosan was no more effective in preventing infectious illness-and did not remove any more bacteria-than plain soaps. The analysis, "Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?" was published in 2007 in the peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases. According to lead researcher Allison Aiello, triclosan-because of the way it reacts in living cells-may cause some bacteria exposed to it to become resistant to amoxicillin and other commonly used antibacterial drugs, but she adds that more research is needed to bear out this hypothesis.<br><br>Anti-bacterial soaps and other products utilizing triclosan may in fact be doing more harm than good for the people who use it regularly. According to the non-profit Beyond Pesticides, triclosan has been linked to various human health problems. "It is associated with skin irritation, has been shown to interfere with the body's hormones, and has been linked to an increased risk of developing respiratory illness, or asthma, and cancer, as well as subtle effects on learning ability," reports the group, adding that 75 percent of Americans are walking around today with trace levels of triclosan in their bloodstreams. Tests using lab animals have verified that exposure to large doses of triclosan can cause irreparable health damage, but industry representatives say that the levels found in consumer products are much too small to do so.<br><br>Beyond its potential human health effects, triclosan can also harm the environment. According to Beyond Pesticides, some 96 percent of the triclosan from consumer products is washed down drains where it flows into wastewater treatment plants often ill-equipped to deal with it. Inevitably some of the triclosan escapes treatment and is released into local waterways, where exposure to sunlight can convert it into dioxins, a highly toxic group of chemicals responsible for contaminating waterways and wreaking havoc on wildlife.<br><br>While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is finally taking a fresh look at triclosan after years of controversy, consumers can do their part by asking the places they shop to stop selling products containing the controversial chemical additive. The Beyond Pesticides website offers a customizable sample letter designed to help consumers convince local retailers to forego stocking items with triclosan.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: Clinical Infectious Diseases, www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/cid/current; Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, www.fda.gov.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.</i> EarthTalk: Tell Me About The Chemical Triclosan
   from Jul 23, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> OK, so are cell phones emitting dangerous radiation or not? If so, which phones are safer that others and what do we do to minimize exposure? <i>-- Luke Alderman</i><br><br>The jury is still out as to whether or not the radiation emitted by cell phones can cause negative health effects for callers. Mobile phones emit signals to communicate with cellular towers via radio waves, which are comprised of radio-frequency (RF) energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation.<br><br>The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) limits the amount of radiation any phone sold in the U.S. can emit to what it considers a safe level of 1.6 watts per kilogram of body weight (a measure of the energy absorbed by the body when using a wireless device). But some health practitioners are concerned that even this level of exposure may be too high, resulting in people unwittingly exposing themselves to potentially harmful radiation every time they make or take a call. <br><br>Such radiation is known to heat up living tissue it comes into close contact with by a fraction of a degree, but this level of temperature increase is less than that caused by exposure to direct sunlight, and the brain's blood circulation typically disperses this excess heat quickly by increasing local blood flow.<br><br>Some recent studies have found higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer, while other research has found little if any risk. Other research has looked at the reproductive, cognitive and sleep effects of RF energy at levels similar to what cell/smart phones emit. Results have been mixed. More studies are now underway to resolve whether or not cell phones are safe for people to use, but some electronics manufacturers aren't waiting around to cut down on the radiation emissions of the phones they make and sell.<br><br>If you are in the market for a new cell phone, check out the nonprofit Environmental Working Group's (EWG's) rundown on which of the thousand or so popular cell/smart phone models give off the most and least radiation. Levels vary widely, from as little as 0.3 to the legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram of body weight. Sanyo's Katana II, Samsung's Rugby, Nokia's 7710, and the Blackberry Storm, among others, get top marks from EWG for giving off lower amounts of radiation (in the 0.3 range). Meanwhile, more than a dozen different cell/smart phones (including some of the most popular models such as Motorola's Droid, Blackberry's Bold 9700, LG's Chocolate Touch and HTC's Nexus One by Google) are categorized as "worst" by EWG for giving off larger amounts of radiation (pushing the 1.6 limit). Apple's iPhone 3Gs is in the middle of the spectrum, leaking between 0.52 and 1.19, depending on usage.<br><br>Regardless of which cell/smart phone you use, you can minimize your exposure to RF radiation by taking a few simple precautions. For one, using a headset (these give off significantly less radiation) or speaker phone keeps the phone itself away from your head. Also, your phone emits far less radiation when used to text instead of call-and the phone isn't next to your brain when texting-so the more you tap (just not while driving, please!) instead of talk the better. Also, a poor signal (fewer bars) means that your phone has to work harder-and emit more radiation-to connect up to a wireless tower, so wait to make that call until you are somewhere with a stronger connection. <br><br><i>CONTACTS: FCC, www.fcc.gov; Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.</i> EarthTalk: Do Cell Phones Emit Dangerous Radiation
   from Jul 10, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> What is "kenaf" paper? From what I've heard, it's good for the environment. But what exactly are its benefits and where can I obtain some? <i>-- Tiffany Mikamo</i><br><br>Kenaf, a fast-growing, non-invasive annual hibiscus plant related to cotton, okra and hemp, makes ideal paper fiber as well as great source material for burlap, clothing, canvas, particleboard and rope. Its primary use around the world today is for animal forage, but humans enjoy its high-protein seed oil to add a nutritious and flavorful kick to a wide range of foods. In fact, kenaf has been grown for centuries in Africa, China and elsewhere for these and other purposes, but environmentalists see its future in replacing slower-growing trees as our primary source for paper.<br><br>U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research shows that kenaf yields some six to 10 tons of dry fiber per acre per year, which is three to five times more than the yield of Southern Pine trees-now the dominant paper pulp source in the U.S. And to top it off, researchers believe kenaf absorbs more carbon dioxide-the chief "greenhouse gas" behind global warming-than any other plant or tree growing. Some 45 percent of dry kenaf is carbon pulled down from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.<br><br>No wonder environmentalists are so bullish on kenaf for our common future. "The more kenaf we grow, we can not only absorb significant amounts of the carbon dioxide that is responsible for global warming," says Bill Loftus of the non-profit Kenaf Research Farm, "but also educate the world on how to be self-sustainable through kenaf's many properties of providing food, shelter and economic opportunities."<br><br>As to its use for paper, 10 major U.S. newspapers have tested kenaf-based newsprint and were pleasantly surprised by how well it held up and how crisply it displayed text and pictures. And since it is already brighter than wood-based pulp, it requires less bleaching before it can be used to carry ink. But since kenaf is not mass-produced the way paper trees are on big plantations across the Southeast and West, it still costs more than regular paper and as such has not gone mass market, despite its environmental.<br><br>Also, while some policymakers and many environmentalists would like to see our paper feedstock switched from Southern Pine and other trees to kenaf, entrenched timber companies with big investments in tree farms (and who employ many a Washington lobbyist) do not. And with many timber companies already suffering economically, lawmakers are unlikely to mandate changes that could make matters worse.<br><br>Even if kenaf doesn't become the paper of tomorrow, it may still have a bright future. The Kenaf Research Farm reports that Toyota is already using kenaf grown in Malaysia for insulation and interiors in some cars. Toyota is also experimenting with using kenaf to reinforce the sugarcane- and maize-based biopolymers it hopes can replace many of the plastic and metal parts in the vehicles it is designing today.<br><br>Your best bet for finding some kenaf paper is to try a specialty art supply or stationery store. One good online source is The Natural Abode. Photographers might try using kenaf photo paper, such as Pictorico's ART Kenaf, in their ink jet printers to give their snaps a unique look and a green pedigree.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: USDA, www.usda.gov; Kenaf Research Farm, www.kenafresearchfarm.com; The Natural Abode, www.thenaturalabode.com; Pictorico ART Kenaf, www.pictorico.com.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: HYPERLINK "http://www.emagazine.com/subscribe" www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: HYPERLINK "http://www.emagazine.com/trial" www.emagazine.com/trial.</i><br><br>::::second::::<br> EarthTalk - What Is Kenaf Paper?
   from Jul 10, 2010



<b>EarthTalk<br>From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Can airplanes be run on cleaner fuels or be electric powered? Are there changes afoot in the airline business to find cleaner fuels? <i>- Reema Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh</i><br><br><b>Dear Reema:</b> Given air travel's huge contribution to our collective carbon footprint-flying accounts for about three percent of carbon emissions worldwide by some estimates-and the fact that basic passenger and cargo jet designs haven't changed significantly in decades, the world is certainly ready for greener forms of flying.<br><br>But since air travel emissions were not regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement signed in 1997 that set binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the friendly skies aren't much greener than they were a few decades ago. And most national governments have been reluctant to impose new environmental restrictions on the already ailing airline industry. <br><br>Nonetheless, some airlines and airplane manufacturers are taking steps to improve their eco-footprints. Southwest and Continental have implemented fuel efficiency improvements, waste reduction programs and increased recycling, and are investing in newer, more fuel efficient airplanes. Another airline on the cutting edge of green is Virgin Atlantic, which made news in early 2008 when it became the first major carrier to test the use of biofuels (liquid fuels derived from plant matter) on passenger jet flights. Now Air New Zealand, Continental, Japan Airlines (JAL), JetBlue, and Lufthansa are also testing biofuels.<br><br>Even airplane maker Boeing is getting in on the act by developing a carbon-neutral jet fuel made from algae. Boeing's newest commercial jet, the much vaunted 787 Dreamliner (now in final testing before late 2010 delivery to several airlines), is 20 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessors thanks to more efficient engines, aerodynamic improvements and the widespread use of lighter composite materials to reduce weight. Airbus is also incorporating more lightweight composite materials into its new planes.<br><br>On the extreme end of the innovation spectrum are zero-emission airplanes that make use of little or no fuel. The French company, Lisa, is building a prototype small plane, dubbed the Hy-Bird, that uses solar power (via photovoltaic cells on the elongated wingspan) and hydrogen-powered fuel cells to fly with zero emissions-and nearly no engine noise. The company claims the Hy-Bird is the first 100 percent eco-friendly plane, and is readying a round-the-world flight punctuated by 30 event-filled stopovers.<br><br>Even more unusual is the proposed fuel-free plane dreamed up by Mississippi-based Hunt Aviation. The company is working on a prototype small plane that harnesses the natural forces of buoyancy (thanks to helium-filled pontoons) for lift-offs and gravity for landings-along with an on-board wind turbine and battery to power everything in between-to achieve flight without any fuel whatsoever.<br><br>Don't look for these futuristic planes on airport runways anytime soon. It will likely be decades before this technology filters its way up to the big leagues. Until then, take a train or bus instead. If you must fly, compensate for your flight's emissions by buying a "carbon offset" from TerraPass or CarbonFund.org, which will use the money to fund alternative energy and other greenhouse-gas reduction projects.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: Lisa Airplanes, www.lisa-airplanes.com; Hunt Aviation, www.fuellessflight.com; TerraPass, www.terrapass.com; CarbonFund.org, www.carbonfund.org.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.</i><br><br>::::second:::: EarthTalk: Can Airplanes Be Run On Cleaner Fuels?
   from Jun 13, 2010



<b>EarthTalk<br>From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>::::start::::Dear EarthTalk: What's being done to clean up hog farming operations in places like Iowa and North Carolina and others where the industry is quite large? I've heard horrific stories about man-made lagoons of animal waste spilling into and fouling rivers and groundwater and the like.<i>- John Schmid, Fremont, California</i><br><br><br><b>Dear John:</b> Hog farming has always been a messy business, but surging demand for pork in recent years has exacerbated an already foul problem: dealing with the continual production of the bodily waste of thousands of animals. Pigs are kept in tight quarters and their waste is channeled into huge open-air lagoon pits and sprayfields. The lagoons can rupture during heavy rains, unleashing a torrent of bacteria- and virus-laden feces and urine into nearby groundwater, lakes and streams. Likewise, sprayfields, where some farmers discard animal waste by spraying it over otherwise unused land, can pollute surrounding waterways and contaminate drinking water. Another side effect is air pollution: The lagoons and sprayfields emit methane (a leading greenhouse gas) and ammonia (a respiratory irritant) into the atmosphere, the foul odors sullying the air quality-and neighbors' quality of life-for miles around.<br><br>The problem has been especially bad in North Carolina, where the number of hogs raised has gone up fourfold in the last two decades-hog farmers there now raise and slaughter some 10 million hogs a year. In 1995, a hog waste lagoon overflow at Ocean View Farms in North Carolina sent 20 million gallons of hog waste into the˜New River, causing massive fish kills and contaminating drinking water in several neighboring communities. And the torrential rains and flooding that accompanied 1999's Hurricane Floyd wreaked havoc on hog farm waste lagoons and surrounding ecosystems across North Carolina.˜<br><br>But while hog farming has a deservedly bad reputation, that may all change thanks to farmers, activists, researchers and policymakers who are working hard to reduce the negative environmental impacts of the business and even capitalize on the waste itself. Pioneering research conducted at North Carolina State University has showed that technologies were already available to not only reduce hog waste pollution but to use it to grow crops like duckweed that can be converted into carbon-neutral, fuel-grade ethanol. <br><br>Meanwhile, an economic analysis by the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) found that North Carolina could gain 7,000 jobs and add $10 billion to its economy if the hog industry there were to move to more innovative systems for treating waste. In its report, EDF stresses the importance of incentives and cost-share programs to help make such new systems affordable for the farmers who need them.<br><br>Citing this and other research, along with public outcry over waste lagoon overflows, North Carolina lawmakers passed the Swine Farm Environmental Performance Standards Act in 2007. The landmark law makes North Carolina the first state to ban the construction or expansion of waste lagoons and sprayfields on hog farms and helps hog farmers with up to 90 percent of the costs incurred by upgrading to more sustainable waste management systems. The law also funds a swine farm methane capture pilot program that will have some 50 hog farms generating electricity from their animals' emissions by September 2010. Time will tell whether North Carolina's trailblazing on the issue will influence lawmakers elsewhere.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: "Tiny Super-Plant can Clean Up Hog Farms and Be Used for Ethanol Production," NC State University, blogs.lib.ncsu.edu/cnrnews/entry/tiny_super_plant_can_clean; EDF, www.edf.org.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.<br></i> Regulating Massive Hog Farming Operations
   from Jun 13, 2010



EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine<br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Are there any health hazards associated with the use of the new silicone bake ware and cooking utensils? I have found information associated with the hazards/benefits of Teflon and other cookware but nothing on the use of silicone. <i>-- Jean McCarthy, Sebastian, FL</i><br><br><b>Dear Jean:</b> With all the negative press about Teflon and about metals leaching out of pots and pans, consumers are on the lookout for cookware that's easy-to-clean and doesn't pose health concerns. Silicone, a synthetic rubber made of bonded silicon (a natural element abundant in sand and rock) and oxygen, is increasingly filling this niche. The flexible yet strong material, which has proven popular in muffin pans, cupcake liners, spatulas and other utensils, can go from freezer to oven (up to 428 degrees Fahrenheit), is non-stick and stain-resistant, and unlike conventional cookware, comes in a range of bright and cheery colors.<br><br>But some wonder if there is dark side to silicone cookware. Anecdotal reports of dyes or silicone oil oozing out of overheated silicone cookware pop up on Internet posts, as do reports of odors lingering after repeated washings. Also, silicone's image may be forever tainted by problems associated with silicone gel breast implants-some women with earlier generations of these implants experienced capsular contracture, an abnormal immune system response to foreign materials. And while theories about silicone implants' link to breast cancer have since been debunked, the damage to silicone's reputation lives on.<br><br>It's sad to say, but since the use of silicone in cookware is fairly new, there has not been much research into its safety for use with food. Back in 1979 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that silicon dioxides-the basic elements in silicone cookware-were generally recognized as safe to use even in food-grade contexts. But the first silicone cookware (silicone spatulas) didn't start to show up on store shelves until a decade later, and the FDA hasn't conducted any follow-up studies to determine whether silicone can leach out of cookware and potentially contaminate food. For its part, Canada's health agency, Health Canada, maintains that food-grade silicone does not react with food or beverages or produce any hazardous fumes, and as such is safe to use up to recommended temperatures.<br><br>Consumer advocate Debra Lynn Dadd, who steers clear of Teflon due to health concerns, is bullish on silicone cookware after investigating potential toxicity. "I tried to find some information on the health effects of silicone rubber, but it was not listed in any of the toxic chemical databases I use," she reports, adding that she also sampled material safety data on several silicone rubbers manufactured by Dow Corning (which makes some 700 variations). "All descriptions I read of silicone rubber describe it as chemically inert and stable, so it is unlikely to react with or leach into food, nor outgas vapors." She adds that silicone "is not toxic to aquatic or soil organisms, it is not hazardous waste, and while it is not biodegradable, it can be recycled after a lifetime of use."<br><br>So while most of us will probably not have a problem with silicone cookware, those with chemical sensitivities might want to stay away until more definitive research has been conducted. In the meantime, cast iron and anodized aluminum cookware remain top choices for those concerned about harmful elements leaching into their cooked foods.<br> <br><i>CONTACTS: FDA, www.fda.gov; Health Canada, www.hc-sc.gc.ca; Debra Lynn Dadd, www.dld123.com; Dow Corning, www.dowcorning.com.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i> Teflon? Silicone? Which Cookware Is Safe?
   from Apr 14, 2010



<i>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</i><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Isn't the interest in electric cars and plug-in hybrids going to spur increased reliance on coal as a power source? And is that really any better than gasoline/oil in terms of environmental impact? <i>-- Graham Rankin, via e-mail</i><br><br>It's true that the advent of electric cars is not necessarily a boon for the environment if it means simply trading our reliance on one fossil fuel-oil, from which gasoline is distilled-for an even dirtier one: coal, which is burned to create electricity.<br><br>The mining of coal is an ugly and environmentally destructive process. And, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) burning the substance in power plants sends some 48 tons of mercury-a known neurotoxin-into Americans' air and water every year (1999 figures, the latest year for which data are available). Furthermore, coal burning contributes some 40 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates that coal mining and burning cause a whopping $62 billion worth of environmental damage every year in the U.S. alone, not to mention its profound impact on our health.<br><br>Upwards of half of all the electricity in the U.S. is derived from coal, while the figure is estimated to be around 70 percent in China. As for Europe, the United Kingdom gets more than a third of its electricity from coal, while Italy plans to double its consumption of coal for electricity production within five years to account for some 33 percent of its own electricity needs. Several other countries in Europe, where green sentiment runs deep but economics still rule the roost, are also stockpiling coal and building more power plants to burn it in the face of an ever-increasing thirst for cheap and abundant electricity.<br><br>On top of this trend, dozens of electric and plug-in hybrid cars are in the works from the world's carmakers. It stands to reason that, unless we start to source significant amounts of electricity from renewables (solar, wind, etc.), coal-fired plants will not only continue but may actually increase their discharges of mercury, carbon dioxide and other toxins due to greater numbers of electric cars on the road.<br><br>Some analysts expect that existing electricity capacity in the U.S. may be enough to power America's electric cars in the near future, but don't rule out the possibility of new coal plants (or new nuclear power plants) coming on line to fill the gap if we don't make haste in developing alternate sources for generating electrical energy. And while proponents of energy efficiency believe we can go a long way by making our electric grids "smarter" through the use of monitoring technologies that can dole out power when it is most plentiful and cheap (usually the middle of the night), others doubt that existing capacity will be able to handle the load placed on even an intelligent "smart grid" distribution network.<br><br>Environmentalists-as well as many politicians and policymakers-maintain that the only viable, long-term solution is to spur on the development of renewable energy sources. Not long ago, the concept of an all-electric car charged up by solar power or some other form of clean renewable energy was nothing but a pipe dream. Today, though, such a scenario is within the realm of the possible, but only if everyone does their part to demand that our utilities bring more green power on line.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: EPA/mercury emissions; www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br><br><br> The Truth About Electric Cars - Are There Benefits?
   from Apr 14, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> What is the potential for carbon "nanotubes" in battery technology? I heard them referred to as the biggest battery breakthrough to come along in years. And what else can we expect to see in terms of new battery technology in coming years? <i>-- R.M. Koncan </i><br><br><b>Dear R.M.:</b> The rechargeable lithium-ion batteries now so common in everything from iPods to hybrid cars can store twice the energy of similarly sized nickel-metal hydride batteries and up to six times as much as their lead-acid progenitors. But these advances are only a small evolutionary step from the world's first battery designed by Alessandro Volta in 1800 using layers of metal and blotting paper soaked in salt water.<br><br>With battery technology advances long overdue, researchers are racing to develop more efficient ways to store power. One hopeful option is in the use of carbon nanotubes, which can store much more electricity by weight than lithium-ion batteries while keeping their charge and remain durable for far longer.<br><br>But what are carbon nanotubes, and how can they be used to store energy? Technicians skilled in working with matter at the molecular (nano) level can arrange pure carbon molecules in cylindrical structures that are not both strong and flexible. They have significantly higher energy density and can store more electricity than any currently available technology. These tubes, each only billionths of a meter wide, essentially become highly efficient, electrically conductive pipes for storing and providing power.<br><br>Electrical engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have formed carbon molecules into tiny springs that store as much electricity as same sized lithium-ion batteries but can maintain a charge while dormant for years and work well in temperature extremes. Stanford University researchers have created ink made from carbon nanotubes that can be drawn onto paper where it serves as a high-capacity rechargeable energy storage medium. And University of Maryland scientists have created nanostructures able to store and transport power at 10 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.<br><br>Other technologies in development include batteries using zinc-air, lithium-air and other combinations of elements to provide longer run-times between recharges. Others still are working on prototype nuclear batteries, the trick being to make them small enough to be practical, let alone safe.<br><br>Of course, the accelerating growth of nanotechnology itself, which has not yet been thoroughly tested to evaluate potential down sides, has some health advocates worried. Animal studies have shown that some nanoparticles, if inhaled or ingested, can harm the lungs and also cross the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from toxins in the bloodstream.<br><br>And then there are fuel cells, created in 1839 but only recently commercialized. Not batteries per se, fuel cells generate, store and dispense power by forcing a reaction between a fuel (hydrogen from water, methanol) and oxygen, creating usable non-polluting electricity. One major hurdle for fuel cell makers is making them small enough to be able to work in laptops and other small personal electronics.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: "Researchers fired up over new battery," MIT News, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html; "Carbon Nanotubes Turn Office Paper into Batteries," Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nanotubes-turn-off.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br> Biggest Breakthrough In Batteries Yet To Come?
   from Feb 26, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Some time ago there were issues with Native American tribes storing nuclear waste on their land, something that was both unhealthy to the communities and caused considerable controversy among tribal leaders. Where is this issue today? <i>-- M. Spenser</i><br><br><b>Dear M.:</b> Native tribes across the American West have been and continue to be subjected to significant amounts of radioactive and otherwise hazardous waste as a result of living near nuclear test sites, uranium mines, power plants and toxic waste dumps.<br><br>And in some cases tribes are actually hosting hazardous waste on their sovereign reservations-which are not subject to the same environmental and health standards as U.S. land-in order to generate revenues. Native American advocates argue that siting such waste on or near reservations is an "environmental justice" problem, given that twice as many Native families live below the poverty line than other sectors of U.S. society and often have few if any options for generating income.<br><br>"In the quest to dispose of nuclear waste, the government and private companies have disregarded and broken treaties, blurred the definition of Native American sovereignty, and directly engaged in a form of economic racism akin to bribery," says Bayley Lopez of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He cites example after example of the government and private companies taking advantage of the "overwhelming poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host nuclear waste storage sites." <br><br>The issue came to a head-and Native advocates hope a turning point-in 2007 when public pressure forced the Skull Valley band of Utah's Goshute tribe to forego plans to offer their land, which is already tucked between a military test site, a chemical weapons depot and a toxic magnesium production facility, for storing spent nuclear fuel above ground. The facility would have been a key link in the chain of getting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, the U.S. government's proposed permanent storage facility.<br><br>In February 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced intentions to scale back efforts to make Yucca Mountain the nation's sole repository of radioactive nuclear waste and to look into alternative long-term strategies for dealing with its spent nuclear fuel. The National Congress of American Indians, in representing the various tribes around the region, no doubt breathed a sigh of relief.<br><br>The issue essentially goes much deeper: As long as we continue to make use of nuclear energy-and many in Congress are looking to expand its role to get away from fossil fuels-the waste and spent nuclear fuel will keep coming and need to be stored somewhere. Groups like Honor the Earth, founded by author and activist Winona LaDuke to promote cooperation between Native Americans and environmentalists, are trying to persuade tribes that availing their land to nuclear power and other toxic industries isn't worth the potential long-term damage to the health of their citizens. Honor the Earth helped convince the Goshutes to turn down a lucrative deal to store waste on their land, and is working with dozens of other tribes to try to do the same.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: DOE, www.doe.gov; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, www.indian.utah.gov/utah_tribes_today/goshute.html; National Congress of American Indians, www.ncai.org; Honor the Earth, www.honorearth.org.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br>::::Third:::: EathTalk: Nuclear Waste Stored On Tribal Lands
   from Feb 26, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Where do I recycle old ski boots (hard plastic)? My recycling center does not take hard plastic. <i>-- Beth Fitzpatrick, Stamford, CT</i><br><br><b>Dear Beth:</b> Americans recycle more plastic than ever these days, but there are still plenty of items that are not accepted by municipalities, including many hard plastic items like ski boots.<br><br>If such items are still usable, consider donating them to a local Goodwill or Salvation Army store, which can sell them and put the money earned toward housing and feeding those less fortunate. Another option would be to sell or give them to a second-hand sporting goods store, which might even give you trade-in credit toward an upgrade. If you can't find somewhere local, you can ship them to Colorado-based Boulder Ski Deals. The company accepts ski boots (along with skis, bindings, poles and snowboards) for recycling, donating usable equipment to charitable programs and shredding the rest for re-use in making new products.<br><br>The fact that it is so difficult to recycle hard plastic items is a growing issue as we all try to minimize our impact on the environment. Everyone involved with the lifecycle of a given item-from manufacturer to retailer to consumer-can share the blame when something ends up taking up precious space in a landfill instead of being recycled in one way or another. Concerned consumers should make sure that a given item is easy to recycle when its usefulness runs its course before buying it in the first place. It also can't hurt to let a manufacturer know that you didn't purchase a given product because it didn't meet your recyclability standards. Manufacturers want to make products that people will buy and such feedback can go a long way to getting them to re-think their practices.<br><br>Likewise, municipalities need to hear from residents if there is a need to expand the types of items accepted for recycling. If enough people are willing to recycle a certain type of item, it may be worthwhile for the municipality to expand capacity and move into new markets.<br><br>The good news is that there are plenty of firms that are happy to take back otherwise difficult-to-recycle stuff. The non-profit Earth911 offers up a free searchable online database of different types of recyclers keyed to the user's zip code anywhere across the United States. If no local provider comes up, the site will refer users to a place that accepts shipped items. Another good resource is the consulting firm Eco-Officiency's concise yet comprehensive online list of companies around the country that accept different types of hard plastic and other hard-to-recycle items.<br><br>Consumers should keep in mind that they may have to pay for the privilege of recycling certain items, as well as shipping costs. If you can swing it, think of it as a tax for buying something less friendly to the environment. Maybe next time you'll look for one made out of easier-to-recycle materials.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: Boulder Ski Deals, www.boulderskideals.com; Earth911, www.earth911.org; Eco-Officiency's Recycling and Donation Resources, www.eco-officiency.com/resources_recycling.html.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br>::::second::::<br> Recycling Hard Plastics? Big Problem, Major Impact
   from Feb 20, 2010



EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine<br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> If the ice caps are melting, what is happening to the salt content of the oceans? And might this contribute to weather patterns or cause other environmental problems? It seems the two would be connected. <i>--George Boyer</i><br><br><b>Dear George:</b> It's true that the melting of the polar ice caps as a result of global warming is sending large amounts of freshwater into the world's oceans. Environmentalists and many climate scientists fear that if the climate heats up fast enough and melts off the remaining polar ice rapidly, the influx of freshwater could disturb ocean currents enough to drastically change the weather on the land as well.<br><br>The Gulf Stream, a ribbon of ocean water that delivers heat from the tropics up to the North Atlantic, keeps northeastern U.S. and northwestern Europe weather much milder than other areas at the same latitude around the globe. In theory, less salt in the ocean could stall out the Gulf Stream and rob some of the world's greatest civilization centers of their natural heating source, plunging the two continents into a cold snap that could last decades or longer-even as the rest of the globe warms around them.<br><br>The Gulf Stream keeps running because the warmer water travelling north is lighter than cold water, so it floats on top and keeps moving. As the current approaches the northern Atlantic and disgorges its heat, it grows denser and sinks, at which point it flows back to the south, crossing under the northbound Gulf Stream, until it reaches the tropics to start the cycle all over again. This cycle has allowed humans and other life forms to thrive across wide swaths of formerly frozen continents over thousands of years. But if too much dilution occurs, the water will get lighter, idling on top and stalling out the system.<br><br>Some scientists worry that this grim future is fast approaching. Researchers from Britain's National Oceanography Center have noticed a marked slowing in the Gulf Stream since the late 1950s. They suspect that the increased release of Arctic and Greenland meltwater is to blame for overwhelming the cycle, and fear that more warming could plunge temperatures significantly lower across land masses known as some of the most hospitable places for humans to live.<br><br>Of course-not surprisingly-others have noted a contradictory trend: Some parts of the world's oceans are getting saltier. Researchers from the UK's Met Office and Reading University reported in a recent issue of the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters that warmer temperatures over southerly sections of the Atlantic Ocean have significantly increased evaporation and reduced rainfall from Africa to the Caribbean in recent years, concentrating salt in the water that's left behind. In fact, the Atlantic in this region is about 0.5 percent saltier than it was four decades ago. <br><br>But given how little we really know about the future effects of our carbon loading of the atmosphere, calling these two trends contradictory might be premature-as the two regions of ocean interact with one another and are part of a larger whole. Looking instead at the big picture, it's clear that climate change is already having a relatively large effect on the world's oceans by fundamentally altering evaporation and precipitation cycles. Only time will tell how dramatic the results of these changes will be.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: National Oceanography Center, www.noc.soton.ac.uk; Met Office, www.metoffice.gov.uk; Geophysical Research Letters, www.agu.org/journals/gl/.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br> EarthTalk: Melting Ice Caps And Salty Seas
   from Feb 20, 2010



<b>Dear EarthTalk</b>: What are the environmental implications of all the food we throw away here in the United States? It has to be a phenomenal amount considering the number of households and restuarants. <i>-- Mike Schiller, Cambridge, MA</i><br><br><b>Dear Mike:</b>Food waste is a huge issue in America, especially in light of the growing divide between the profligate rich and the hungry poor. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent-some 25.9 million tons-of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent, finding that Americans squander some $43 billion annually on wasted food. Lead researcher Timothy Jones reported that on average, U.S. households waste 14 percent of their food purchases. He estimates that a family of four tosses out $590 per year in meat, fruits, vegetables and grain products alone.<br><br>Once this food gets to the landfill, it then generates methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat within our atmosphere. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, landfills account for 34 percent of all methane emissions in the U.S.-meaning that the sandwich you made and then didn't eat yesterday is increasing your personal-and our collective-carbon footprint. <br><br>Furthermore, researchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kid-ney Dis-eases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills. They add that pe-r-capita food waste has in-creased by half since 1974, and suggest that the "U.S. obesity epidemic" may be the result of a "push effect" of increased food availability and marketing to Americans unable to match their food intake with the increased supply of cheap food. <br><br>In spite of all this, environmentalists are optimistic that Americans can reduce their food waste. For one, restaurants and markets are increasingly finding outlets-including soup kitchens feeding the poor and farms looking for cheap animal feed-for food they would otherwise toss. Some communities now pick-up and centrally compost food waste from commercial and residential buildings and put the resulting nutrient-rich soil to use in municipal projects or for sale to the public. And a few enterprising cities now have waste-to-energy technologies that extract methane from landfills for use as fuel.<br><br>An extreme reaction to the food waste issue is "freeganism," a movement of people who live on the food cast off by others. These "dumpster divers" share, in the words of movement founder Warren Oakes, "an anti-consumeristic ethic about eating" and not only avoid creating waste but live off that caused by others.<br><br>Going freegan might be a bit much for most of us, but we can all take action to minimize food waste. The University of Arizona's Jones suggests more careful purchase planning, including devising complete menus and grocery lists, and knowing what foods are lurking in the fridge and pantry that should be used before they go bad. And don't forget that many foods can be frozen and enjoyed later. Jones contends that if we as a nation were able to cut our food waste in half we'd extend the lifespan of landfills by decades and reduce soil depletion and the application of untold tons of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: University of Arizona Food Waste Study, www.communitycompost.org/info/usafood.pdf; N IDDK, www.niddk.nih.gov; Freegans, www.freegan.info.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br>::::third:::: EarthTalk: USA's Tremendous Food Waste
   from Feb 6, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/earthpic2.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><i>Several prisons in the U.S. and Canada are embracing the notion of getting inmates involved in on-site food production. Proponents say inmates who participate have a much lower rate of re-offense once they return to life on the outside and tend to adopt healthier, more constructive lifestyles. Pictured: An inmate tends the garden at the McNeil Island Corrections Center near Steilacoom, Washington. (Photo: McNeil Island Corrections Center)</i><br><br><br>___________________________________________<br><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> We've all heard about the abysmal food served in prison, as well as the economical, nutritional and even therapeutic value of growing one's own food. Are there any agricultural programs or garden projects in U.S. prisons? <i>-- Jerry Mullins, Tennessee Colony, TX</i> <br><br>While there is no nationwide program administering prison agriculture programs, various individual prisons across the country are embracing the notion of getting inmates involved in on-site food production and agricultural research. According to Howard Clinebill, a Ph.D. who has written extensively about environmental psychology, prison gardens offer people looking to turn their lives around a place to reconnect with their natural rhythms, get healthy exercise in the fresh air, work cooperatively with others and care for the Earth in a healing manner.<br><br>Perhaps the best known prison garden project in the U.S. is at the San Francisco County Jail in San Bruno, California, where inmates have been working steadily since the mid-1980s to clear away weeds and rubble from some eight acres "inside the fence" and replace them with fresh-grown vegetables-some of which make their way into prison meals while others are donated to needy food banks, housing projects and senior centers. According to program coordinator Catherine Sneed, who pioneered the project, participating inmates learn not only practical skills but also report that they are better able to communicate with one another and resolve disputes amicably. <br><br>"Each person cares for particular plants and learns, by watching them grow, the true nature of this life: growth, renewal and perseverance," Sneed reports. "Somewhere during the time spent quietly working the Earth, something happens and something changes. Witnessing the cycle of growth and renewal allows the prisoners to see their own potential for growth and change." She adds that program "graduates" have a much lower rate of re-offense once they have served their sentences and return to life on the outside.<br><br>Further north, at Washington State's McNeil Island Corrections Center, a team of students from nearby Evergreen State College has been working with inmates there for the last couple of years to turn a one acre patch of grass into a field of organic tomatoes, peppers, pumpkins and other veggies used by the prison kitchen for meals. A small on-site composting unit keeps the soil healthy. Inmates manage McNeil Island's garden as part of their work detail on the prison's horticultural crew, and plan to expand into additional grassy acreage during the coming year.<br><br>Meanwhile, in Canada's British Columbia province, a pilot project at Matsqui, a federal women's prison near Vancouver, has been successful in teaching an ethic of stewardship, respect for natural processes, and a sense of accomplishment. Inmates worked with landscape architects to develop of master plan and then implemented their designs with native ornamental and food plants. "The garden is a learning environment that allows people to slow down, listen, look, and learn on many levels," reports University of British Columbia landscape architect Tracy Penner, who helped launch and continues to work with the Matsqui program. "When released, these gardeners are more successful at integrating into society.with an ability to grow and adopt healthier, more constructive lifestyles."<br><br><i>CONTACTS: San Francisco County Jail, www.sfsheriff.com/jails.htm; McNeil Island Corrections Center, www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/prison/micc/.<br><br>SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalkr, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalkr is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.</i><br><br><br><br> Prisoners Raising Food Lowers Re-Offense Rate
   from Jan 31, 2010


©2009 All rights reserved.  www.hopestarjournal.com  |   No portion of this site may be copied or reproduced without consent  |  UNSUBSCRIBE