Sep 4, 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 32 times - Published on Jul 23, 2010

EarthTalk: Sustainable Versions Of Sugar

EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

::::start:::Dear EarthTalk: 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? - Ryan

Dear Ryan: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

CONTACTS: eHow, www.ehow.com; Florida Crystals, floridacrystals.com; Hain, www.hainpurefoods.com; C&H, www.chsugar.com; Domino, www.dominosugar.com.

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.





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 
        121 Articles: Showing 1 to 20     <<    >>  

<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



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/earthpic1.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><i>Even before the earthquake Haiti had major environmental and economic problems. Intensive logging beginning in the 1950s has reduced Haiti's forest cover from 60 percent to less than two percent today. This lack of trees causes huge soil erosion problems, threatening both food and clean water sources for throngs of hungry and thirsty people. The earthquake has only exacerbated problems in this country of 9.7 million people that is the poorest in the Western hemisphere. (Photo by Remi Kaupp)</i><br><br>____________________________________________<br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> What are the primary environmental concerns in the aftermath of the big earthquake in Haiti? Did anything contribute to the tremendous damage done? <i>-- Frank Dover, Portland, OR</i><br><br><b>Dear Frank:</b> As would be the case after any natural disaster, water-borne illness could run rampant and chemicals and oil could leak out of damaged storage facilities as a result of the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that ripped apart Haiti on January 12. Surprisingly, no large industrial spills have been found during initial post-quake rescue efforts, but of course the focus has been on saving human lives and restoring civil order. <br><br>According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the biggest issue is the building waste; some 40 to 50 percent of the buildings fell in Port-au-Prince and nearby towns. "Thousands of buildings suddenly become debris and this overwhelms the capacity of waste management," says UNEP's Muralee Thummarukudy, who is directing efforts to collect the waste for use in reconstruction projects.<br><br>Even before the quake Haiti had major environmental problems. Intensive logging beginning in the 1950s reduced Haiti's forest cover from 60 percent to less than two percent today. This lack of trees causes huge soil erosion problems, threatening both food and clean water sources for throngs of hungry and thirsty people. "If you have forest cover, when heavy rain takes place it doesn't erode the land," UNEP's Asif Zaidi reports. "It doesn't result in flash floods." He adds that, due to its lack of forest cover, Haiti suffers much more during hurricanes than does the neighboring Dominican Republic.<br><br>Compounding these ecological insults is Haiti's fast growing population, now 9.7 million and growing by 2.5 percent per year. This has pushed millions of Haitians into marginal areas like floodplains and on land that could otherwise be used profitably. "Most fertile land areas are often used for slums, while hillsides and steep landscapes are used for agriculture," reports USAID's Beth Cypser. The resulting sanitation problems have stepped up cases of dysentery, malaria and drug-resistant tuberculosis among Haiti's poverty-stricken population. Trash-filled beaches, smelly waterways, swarms of dead fish and tons of floating debris stand testament to Haiti's water pollution problems-now exacerbated by the earthquake.<br><br>"We need to.create mechanisms that reinforce better use of natural resources," says UNEP's Zaidi. Prior to the quake, UNEP had committed to a two-year project to bolster to restore Haiti's forests, coral reefs and other natural systems compromised by the island's economic problems. Providing access to propane to encourage a shift from charcoal-burning stoves is an immediate goal. Longer term, UNEP hopes the program will help kick-start reforestation efforts and investments in renewable energy infrastructure there. <br><br>Perhaps the silver lining of the earthquake in Haiti is the fact that millions of people around the world now know about the plight of the country's people and environment, and donations have started to pour in. Anyone interested in helping relief efforts in Haiti can send a text message triggering a small donation to the American Red Cross (text "HAITI" to 90999 and $10 will be donated and added to your next phone bill). Those concerned about clean water specifically should donate to World Water Relief, a non-profit focusing on the installation of water filtration systems in Haiti and other distressed areas of the world.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: USAID, www.usaid.gov; UNEP, www.unep.org; American Red Cross, www.redcross.org; World Water Relief, www.worldwaterrelief.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> Logging Exacerbated Haiti's Woes From Earthquake
   from Jan 31, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine </b><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/earthtalk121b.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><i>"Some worry that adding nitrogen to gasoline increases nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, which contributes to smog, acid rain and other environmental problems. But proponents argue that the detergent additive may have such beneficial effects on engine operation and fuel system performance that they outweigh the adverse effect of increased NOx emissions." (Photo: Patrick Houdek, Flickr.)</i><br><br><br>___________________________________________<br><br><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Since nitrogen oxide compounds are components of smog and are common water pollutants, does nitrogen-enriched gasoline create additional pollution? <i>-- Rick Oestrike, Poughkeepsie, NY</i><br><br><b>Dear Rick:</b> It might seem like adding nitrogen to gasoline is all the rage among oil companies today, but the idea has been around for years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that automotive fuels sold in the U.S. contain detergents to help scrub away pollution before it goes out the vehicle's tailpipe. Some manufacturers have found that adding nitrogen to the detergent helps keep an engine cleaner by reducing the carbon build-up in the gas tank that can in turn "gunk" up the engine and lower performance. <br><br>The nitrogen itself also has a direct cleaning effect, breaking down carbon deposits that can harden on an engine's moving parts. "If too much collects, this gunk can negatively affect engine performance, causing your car to burn more oil, overheat and burn gasoline less efficiently," reports John Fuller on the How Stuff Works website. Valves inside an engine are designed to let in a specific amount of air and fuel, he adds; when that process is slowed by carbon build-up, a car won't perform up to its potential.<br><br>But while nitrogen-enriched gasoline may provide a slight bump in engine performance, some worry about adding to cars' already substantial pollution load, especially nitrogen oxide (NOx), which contributes to smog, acid rain and other environmental problems. Andr‚ L. Boehman, a Penn State University engineering and fuel science professor, says that the addition of more nitrogen to the fuel mix "generally will increase NOx emissions." Boehman would like to see more research done so we can know for sure if and how much additional NOx pollution is caused by the use of nitrogen-enriched gasoline.<br><br>For its part, Shell Oil, which last spring launched its own form of nitrogen-enriched gasoline now for sale at all of its U.S. filling stations (it is mixed into all three grades of gasoline the company sells), denies that the additional nitrogen has any substantive impact on pollution levels. "Most nitrogen in vehicular NOx emissions does not come from gasoline," the company told The New York Times. "The nitrogen is primarily from the incoming air that mixes with gasoline inside an engine. NOx is produced when the nitrogen from the air reacts with oxygen under high engine temperature and pressure conditions."<br><br>Professor Boehman concedes that "the detergent additive may have such beneficial effects on engine operation, fuel system performance and other related features of engine system operation that they outweigh the adverse effect" of increased NOx emissions. "For instance, if improved detergency helps to increase fuel efficiency so that you burn less fuel, you may slightly increase the NOx emissions rate per gram of fuel burned, but end up with lower NOx because you burned fewer grams of fuel."<br><br>That said, it is probably a good idea to avoid putting nitrogen in your fuel unless you're sure the gains will outweigh the detriments. And until researchers know more, drivers might focus instead on minimizing their own vehicles' overall gasoline consumption and fuel efficiency-and on substituting other cleaner forms of transportation (walking, biking, mass transit) whenever possible.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: EPA Fuels and Fuel Additives, www.epa.gov/OMS/fuels.htm; How Stuff Works, www.howstuffworks.com; Shell, www.shell.us.<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: Pros And Cons Of Nitrogen-Rich Gas
   from Jan 23, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/earthtalk121a.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><i>"The role of migratory birds in spreading bird flu is not well understood, but waterfowl are a 'natural reservoir' of mostly harmless H5 and H7 influenza A viruses. Recent research suggests that these viruses may be mutating into more pathogenic (disease producing) forms that can 'jump the species barrier' and infect people and other animals." (Photo: Tom Brakefield, Getty Images.)</i><br><br>____________________________________________<br><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> How does the ever-growing human population and the resulting landscape changes affect the flight paths of migratory birds that might carry diseases? <i>- Ronnie Washines, Toppenish, WA</i><br><br><b>Dear Ronnie:</b> As human population numbers grow, oceans of people seem to spread out into every conceivable environment-even the forests and estuaries used for eons by migratory birds as nutrient-rich stopovers on their longer annual journeys between feeding areas and birthing grounds.<br><br>Of course, more human development means fewer habitats suitable for such birds of passage (and other wildlife) as we "pave paradise." and put up parking lots. But tired and hungry birds may not have the wherewithal or instinctual coding to seek out alternative resting areas, so they make do with habitat crowded and compromised by human incursion. Close proximity to avian life hasn't presented too big of a problem for people in the past, but new concerns about the spread of bird flu (the H5N1 virus) via infected migratory birds (which presumably infect local populations of domestic birds) does have some scientists worried that persistent human expansion could indirectly lead to a disease pandemic of global proportions.<br><br>According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the role of migratory birds in spreading bird flu is not well understood, but we do know that wild waterfowl are a "natural reservoir" of mostly harmless H5 and H7 influenza A viruses. But recent research suggests that these viruses may be mutating into more "pathogenic" (disease producing) forms, such as H5N1 that can "jump the species barrier" and infect people and other animals. "Recent events make it likely that some migratory birds are now directly spreading the H5N1 virus in its highly pathogenic form," reports WHO, adding that further spread to new areas is expected. It is unlikely that the bird flu making headlines a few years ago (the H5N1 strain), could lead to a human pandemic. The vast majority who got sick had direct contact with infected birds.<br><br>It could be that the very sprawl that increases our chances of catching bird flu-by bringing us and our poultry farms into closer contact with disease-bearing migratory birds-will protect us in the end. Humans have greatly altered the landscape for agricultural and industrial purposes and in creating urban settlements, points out wildlife biologist Kevin Kenow of the U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. As such, it contains less of the kinds of habitat migrating birds prefer-wetlands, forests and prairies-and more of what adversely affects them, such as human development, urban and agricultural runoff, and other forms of habitat degradation. "Many migratory birds that once flourished are now absent in altered or degraded areas," he says.<br><br>Regardless of the risk, scientists have yet to develop a vaccine to protect against H5N1 in humans, but they are working on it. Those who remain concerned should always cook poultry to a temperature of at least 158 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes (this heat kills the virus if it is present) and wash hands with soap and warm water frequently (always a good idea regardless). And look both ways before crossing the street: At present, at least, your chances of getting hit by a car are far greater than your chances of contracting bird flu.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: World Health Organization, www.who.int; U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, www.umesc.usgs.gov.<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::::<br><br> Changing Patterns Of Migratory Birds
   from Jan 23, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/sewer114.jpg vspace=5><br><br><br><i>Most people, given a choice, prefer to be on a municipal sewer system, as the burden of keeping it running smoothly falls on the local government. Proponents of septic systems, however, say that a professionally designed, installed and maintained system should perform just fine. When homeowners don't take proper care of their septic systems, and wastewater is not properly treated, it can contaminate surface and groundwater and threaten public health. Pictured: A home septic system under construction.</i> (Photo by Trish Thornton)<br><br>____________________________________________<br><br><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk</b>: What's better for the local ecology, sewers or septic tanks?<br><i>-- T.H., Darien, CT</i><br> <br><b>Dear T.H.</b>:You probably won't have much choice as to whether that home you're thinking of buying is on sewer or septic. Most likely it's a done deal, unless the neighborhood is presently all on septic but is considering a petition to the town to switch to sewers (in which case you can usually agree to hook up or stay put). <br><br>There are pros and cons to each in regard to the environment. Both types of systems are designed to handle and treat so-called "blackwater" (wastewater from toilets) and "graywater" coming from our sinks, showers, dishwashers and laundry machines. On-site septic and community-wide sewer systems work in similar ways, utilizing micro-organisms to filter out bacteria, viruses and other disease-causing pathogens before releasing the cleansed water back into the environment.<br><br>In general, most people prefer to be on a shared sewer system if they have a choice, as the burden of keeping the system running smoothly falls on the local government, which presumably has the money and expertise to ensure that wastewater is properly treated across the region. Also, in a shared sewer system, wastewater is whisked away to a centralized treatment facility; anyone who has ever experienced a septic system backup on their property can appreciate what a benefit off-site wastewater treatment can be.<br><br>Another advantage to a shared sewer is that such systems are usually built to withstand heavy loads and can better accommodate periods of heavy precipitation or storm surges that might overwhelm smaller, poorly conceived or maintained home-based septic tanks, which are by virtue of their size and the laws of physics more prone to overflow and send contaminants into nearby surface and ground waters.<br><br>Septic systems have their proponents, though, who say that a professionally designed, installed and maintained system should hold up in even the biggest of storms. The University of Minnesota Extension (UMNE), which publishes the useful online "Septic System Owner's Guide," says vigilance is key: "The only way to guarantee effective treatment is to have a trained professional ensure adequate unsaturated and suitable soil exists below the soil treatment area to allow for complete wastewater treatment."<br><br>When homeowners don't take care of their septic systems properly, though, they can become a nuisance for the surrounding ecosystem. Wastewater that is not properly treated can contaminate surface and groundwater and threaten public health. According to UMNE, improperly treated sewage can be the culprit behind the spread of hepatitis, dysentery and other diseases resulting from pathogens in drinking water, while also compromising the purity of lakes and streams. Additionally, flies and mosquitoes that are attracted to and breed in wet areas where sewage reaches the surface can also spread disease.<br><br>Improperly treated sewage can also lead to increased nitrates in local water supplies, which is dangerous for infants, pregnant women and those with already compromised immune systems. In and around lakes and streams, this influx in nitrates can lead to plant growth out of whack with the local ecosystem's ability to handle it, resulting in oxygen-free "dead zones" devoid of marine and riparian life altogether.<br><br><i>CONTACT: Septic System Owner's Guide, www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/dd6583.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> EarthTalk: Better? - Septic Or Sewer
   from Jan 15, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/tv114.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><br><i>Contrary to popular myth, TV screens do not broadcast harmful emissions to kids who sit very close, though they can cause eye strain and fatigue easily remedied by a good night's sleep. However, kids who watch more than four hours of TV daily are more susceptible to obesity, and a 2007 Seattle Children's Research Institute study showed that for every hour per day infants spent watching DVDs and videos they learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. The key, experts say, is moderation, and parents should teach their kids that the TV is 'for occasional entertainment, not for constant escapism.' (Getty Images)</i><br><br><br>___________________________________________<br><br><br>::::start::::<b>Dear EarthTalk:</b> Years ago I read that children should be kept at least two feet from the television because of harmful electronic emissions. Is this still relevant? Is there a difference regarding this between older and new flat-screen models? <i>-- Horst E. Mehring, Oconomowoc, WI</i><br><br><b>Dear Horst:</b> Luckily for many of us and our kids, sitting "too" close to the TV isn't known to cause any human health issues. This myth prevails because back in the 1960s General Electric sold some new-fangled color TV sets that emitted excessive amounts of radiation-as much as 100,000 times more than federal health officials considered safe. GE quickly recalled and repaired the faulty TVs, but the stigma lingers to this day.<br><br>But even though electronic emissions aren't an issue with TVs made any time after 1968 (including today's LCD and plasma flat screens), what about causing harm to one's vision? Dr. Lee Duffner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology isn't concerned, maintaining that watching television screens-close-up or otherwise-"won't cause any physical damage to your eyes." He adds, however, that a lot of TV watching can surely cause eye strain and fatigue, particularly for those sitting very close and/or watching from odd angles. But there is an easy cure for eye strain and fatigue: turning off the TV and getting some rest. With a good night's sleep, tired eyes should quickly return to normal.<br><br>Debra Ronca, a contributor to the How Stuff Works website, argues that some parents might be putting the cart before the horse in blaming close-up TV watching for their child's vision issues. "Sitting close to the television may not make a child nearsighted, but a child may sit close to the television because he or she is nearsighted and undiagnosed," she reports. "If your child habitually sits too close to the television for comfort, get his or her eyes tested."<br><br>Of course, excessive TV viewing by kids can cause health problems indirectly. According to the Nemours Foundation's KidsHealth website, children who consistently watch TV more than four hours a day are more likely to be overweight, which in and of itself can bring about health problems later. Also, kids who watch a lot of TV are more likely to copy bad behavior they see on-screen and tend to "fear that the world is scary and that something bad will happen to them." Nemours also finds that TV characters often depict risky behaviors (like smoking and drinking) and also tend to reinforce gender-role and racial stereotypes.<br><br>There has also been much debate in recent years on the effects of TV viewing on infants. A 2007 Seattle Children's Research Institute study found that for every hour per day infants spent watching baby DVDs and videos they learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. But a 2009 study by the Center on Media & Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston found no negative cognitive or other impacts whatsoever on those infants exposed to more television than less.<br><br>While it may be inevitable that your kids will watch TV, the key, experts say, is moderation. Limit kids' exposure to screens of any kind, and monitor what they are allowed to watch. As KidsHealth points out, parents should teach their kids that the TV is "for occasional entertainment, not for constant escapism."<br><br><i>CONTACTS: American Academy of Ophthalmology, www.aao.org; How Stuff Works, www.howstuffworks.com; KidsHealth, www.kidshealth.org; Seattle Children's Research Institute, research.seattlechildrens.org; Center on Media & Child Health, www.cmch.tv.<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: How Close To TV Screen Is Too Close?
   from Jan 15, 2010



<b>EarthTalk - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine</b><br><br><b>Dear EarthTalk</b>: I've read that human breast milk contains toxins from pollution and other causes. How serious is this and what affect will it have on my baby? <i>-- Skylar S., New York, NY</i><br><br><br><img border=0 src=../article-photos/earthtalk1-7b.jpg hspace=8 vspace=5><br><i>"When we nurse our babies we feed them minuscule amounts of the same chemicals and volatile organic compounds we are exposed to every day ourselves -- from paint thinners and wood preservatives to gasoline byproducts and flame retardants. However, some research shows the toxic load in breast milk to be smaller than that in the air most city dwellers breathe inside their homes. Despite breast milk's vulnerability to chemical contamination, the benefits of breast feeding -- from the nutrition and important enzymes and antibodies it supplies to the mother/child bonding it provides -- far outweigh the risks." -- Getty Images.</i><br><br><br><b>Dear Skylar</b>:Researchers have found that those of us living in developed countries-men, women and children alike-carry around quite a toxic burden in our bodies from the constant exposure to various chemicals in our urban, suburban and even rural environments. If this weren't alarming enough, the fact that these chemicals end up in breast milk and are in turn passed along to newborns is even more troubling. <br><br>According to writer Florence Williams, whose groundbreaking 2005 article in the New York Times Magazine opened many women's eyes to the environmental health issues with breastfeeding, breast milk tends to attract heavy metals and other contaminants due to its high-fat and protein content. "When we nurse our babies, we feed them not only the fats, sugars and proteins that fire their immune systems, metabolisms and cerebral synapses," she reports. "We also feed them, albeit in minuscule amounts, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids, wood preservatives, toilet deodorizers, cosmetic additives, gasoline byproducts, rocket fuel, termite poisons, fungicides and flame retardants."<br><br>In the wake of such kinds of news reports, four nursing mothers came together in 2005 to form Make Our Milk Safe (MOMS), a nonprofit engaging in education, advocacy and corporate campaigns to try to eliminate toxic chemicals from the environment and in breast milk. The group educates pregnant women and others about the impacts on children of exposure to chemicals before, during and after pregnancy, and promotes safer alternatives to products such as cleaning supplies, food storage containers and personal care products that contain offending substances.<br><br>"Along with its antibodies, enzymes and general goodness, breast milk also contains dozens of compounds that have been linked to negative health effects," reports MOMS, which lists Bisphenol-A (BPA, a plastic component), PBDEs (used in flame retardants), perchlorate (used in rocket fuel), perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs, used in floor cleaners and non-stick pans), phthalates (used in plastics), polyvinyl chloride (PVC, commonly known as vinyl) and the heavy metals cadmium, lead and mercury as leading offenders.<br><br>Despite these concerns, some recent research has shown the toxic load in breast milk to be smaller than that in the air most city dwellers breathe inside their homes. Researchers from Ohio State and Johns Hopkins universities measured levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breast milk and in the air inside the homes of three lactating Baltimore mothers, finding that a nursing infant's chemical exposure from airborne pollutants to be between 25 and 135 times higher than from drinking mother's milk.<br><br>"We ought to focus our efforts on reducing the indoor air sources of these compounds," said Johns Hopkins' Sungroul Kim, the study's lead author. He concurs with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many other public health experts that, despite breast milk's vulnerability to chemical contamination, the benefits of breast feeding-from the nutrition and important enzymes and antibodies it supplies to the mother/child bonding it provides-far outweigh the risks.<br><br><i>CONTACTS: MOMS, www.safemilk.org; Study: Volatile Organic Compounds in Human Milk, www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es062362y; CDC, www.cdc.gov.<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: Toxins In Breast Milk?
   from Jan 8, 2010


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