From Green Right Now Reports

Plastic markers (Photo: Thomas Hawke)

Elementary school kids in San Rafael, Calif., are asking Crayola to initiate a recycling program for the millions of markers the company produces every year.

The children, who participate in a green group called Kids That Care, decided to petition Crayola through Change.org after realizing that many plastic products, including spent markers, wind up in landfills, said the group’s advisor Land Wilson.

Their petition asks Crayola executives launch a recycling program so that customers can conveniently recycle plastic Crayola products.

More than 43,000 people have signed the week-old petition, which aims for a total of 50,000 signatures.

Wilson says the students hope that Crayola can simply expand its internal recycling program, which reprocesses malformed markers, to the consumer market.

“Plastics are a resource that must be kept within industrial cycles,” he said. “We want Crayola to help lead the way with a convenient take-back program for their plastic markers that kids can easily partake in. If Crayola can do it, we know other companies will follow. Crayola can be a leader for the environment.”

Or as Olivia, an 8-year-old member of Kids That Care, put it:  “If we all came from the Earth… Then why are we hurting it so much? Earth is all we have left.”

(Check back for comment from Crayola….)

Share/Bookmark

Photograph from space showing a view of the sun shining on Earth. (Photo: NASA)

GENEVA – The World Wildlife Fund warns the world is consuming more of the Earth’s resources than the planet can bear. WWF is launching its Living Planet Report just five weeks before nations gather at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to press political leaders into action to protect the earth for future generations.

The World Wildlife Fund calls the planet sick and says it has the statistics to prove that. WWF says its Living Planet index finds biodiversity has decreased globally by nearly 30 percent since 1970 and, in the hardest hit tropics, by 60 percent.

The report also measures the ecological footprint of nations; that is the accumulative pressure they put on the planet. It gauges the total amount of land and resources used, including the amount of carbon emissions and compares this with how much land and sea is available.

WWF Director-General Jim Leape says there has been a huge increase and unsustainable demand for natural resources since 1961. “So, at this point, we are using 50 percent more resources each year than the Earth can replenish. … We are living as if we had one-and-one-half planets to support us. … So, while we are now 50 percent over the earth’s capacity to support us, by 2030 we would need two planets to support the way we are living – [and] by 2050, almost three planets. So, we are on a track that is clearly by any measure unsustainable,” he said.

The report considers the impact of human population growth and over-consumption as critical driving forces behind environmental pressure.

WWF finds wealthy countries on average consume five times more natural resources than do poor countries. This is borne out by the top 10 countries with the biggest ecological footprint per person. They include three oil-producing countries in the Middle East, four European countries, the United States, Canada and Australia.

The Living Planet Index notes declines in biodiversity since 1970 have been fastest in lower-income countries. It says this demonstrates how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidizing the lifestyles of wealthier countries.

Jim Leape says time is running out for the planet, but it has not yet run out, and there are many actions nations and individuals can take to reverse biodiversity decline. He says some ecosystems must be protected, whether in the water or on land. He says some land must be put aside to maintain the health of the larger system.

“It is also important that we are restoring native ecosystems and managing them in a way that sustains the basic integrity of those systems. So you will see this in the report: If countries step up and end net deforestation by 2020 – and many countries have already pledged to do this – then you could save 180 million hectares of forest by 2050, compared to business as usual,” he said.

The environmentalists also are urging nations to become more energy-efficient. They say nations should develop renewable energy, in particular wind and solar. They say this can make nations fuel independent, save them money and slow down climate change by lowering carbon dioxide emissions. They are calling for better water management and a stop to over-fishing.

WWF says individuals can do a lot to preserve the world’s dwindling resources by becoming smarter consumers. It says they can choose to walk rather than drive, they can buy food produced closer to home than that which is transported long distances. It says people can use the power of the ballot box to vote in politicians who are environmentally friendly and oust those who are not.

Share/Bookmark

Chapter 1: Can One Person Make a Difference?

The Union of Concerned Scientists

You may feel that your hands are simply too full with work or raising your kids to get into the “saving the planet” business. If you are curious enough to look through Cooler Smarter, though, you will still find valuable information. Many of the choices offered in the book won’t just lower your emissions of carbon dioxide; they can also improve the quality of your life, save you money and time, and even improve your health.

That’s what the people of Salina, Kansas, found when they entered a yearlong competition with neighboring cities in their state to see who could save the most on their energy bills. Many residents of Salina have doubts about the findings of climate science. Nonetheless, these Kansans say they don’t like their nation’s dependence on foreign oil; plus, like most Americans, they are thrifty and very much like saving money. During this contest, the entire city of Salina (population 46,000) was able to reduce its overall carbon dioxide emissions by 5 percent. Jerry Clasen, a local grain farmer, captured the prevailing sentiment, commenting, “Whether or not the earth is getting warmer, it feels good to be part of something that works for Kansas and for the nation.”

As the folks in Salina discovered, the inefficient use of energy in the United States makes it easy for anyone seeking to reduce emissions to reap quick rewards. Did you know, for instance, that fossil fuel power plants typically release roughly two-thirds of their energy as waste heat? Or that less than 20 percent of the gasoline a car burns goes toward propelling it down the road? Even without changing to renewable power sources that can generate electricity with zero carbon emissions, we can dramatically increase the efficiency of our use of fossil fuels with cost-effective, off-the-shelf technology. By one estimate, technologies to recover energy from waste heat and other waste resources in the United States potentially could harness almost 100,000 megawatts of electricity—enough to provide about 18 percent of the nation’s electricity.

But we don’t have to wait for more efficiency to be built into the system. As end users of this energy, we have at our disposal a wide variety of simple techniques to squeeze much more out of our current energy use, saving money and reducing our emissions.

What this means for you is that you can probably make some simple changes that will yield real improvements in your energy efficiency. Not long ago, a Canadian utility company drove home this point in a much-lauded television commercial that urged its customers to conserve energy. The ad depicts individuals engaging in laughably wasteful behavior. One guy is wrapping his sandwich in aluminum foil, but instead of using one sheet, he keeps wrapping and wrapping until he has used the entire roll. A woman takes just one bite of an apple, then drops it on the ground and picks up a new one, repeating this mindless act until the camera zooms out to reveal the ground below her strewn with bitten apples. The spot ends with a family going out of their house without turning out any of its brightly burning lights. It leaves the viewer to ponder why this behavior isn’t every bit as preposterous as the others.

In many ways, the issue really is that simple. If you live in the United States, on average your activities emit a whopping 21 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. That’s one of the highest per-person emission rates in the world and some four times higher than the global average.

Compared with our counterparts around the world, we are responsible for outsized emissions and outsized costs. The emission levels of the average American are roughly four times the global average, as noted above, and they are also roughly 15 times those of the average citizen of India. To be sure, poverty in many parts of India, as in many countries, keeps personal consumption—and associated emissions—far below the level currently found in the United States. But on a per capita basis, even most industrialized European countries—with standards of living similar to those in the United States—emit less than half the carbon dioxide the United States does.

When you do the math, it reveals that, on average as an American, your activities emit just over 115 pounds of carbon dioxide daily. Think about that for a moment: your actions are responsible for sending a fair portion of your total body weight up smokestacks and out tailpipes every day. And the heat-trapping carbon dioxide each of us is contributing is accumulating in the atmosphere to cause global warming.

Can we reduce our global warming emissions? Of course we can.

Bear in mind, for instance, that just two decades ago the chemicals in many common products, from refrigerators to hair spray, were eating away at the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere. The resulting ozone hole seemed to present an insurmountable global problem. But with effective planning and innovation, we tackled the problem. Citizens, scientists, and government officials came together to phase out the harmful substances responsible for the problem. Today the stratospheric ozone layer is on a path to recovery.

An equally dramatic example is the story of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio. Today the Cuyahoga supports a wide variety of recreational opportunities, from kayaking to fishing, and boasts some 44 species of fish. Just a few decades ago, however, the Cuyahoga was one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. But finally, when debris and chemicals in the Cuyahoga infamously caught fire in 1969, people were galvanized into action. Some have even called the public reaction to the Cuyahoga River fire the start of environmentalism, for that catastrophe helped spur a legislative response that included the Clean Water Act, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The point is that difficult problems aren’t always as intractable as they seem. That doesn’t mean they are easy to solve, of course, as any of the concerned citizens, activists, and government officials who fought to clean up the Cuyahoga River could attest.  In fact, the Cuyahoga actually caught fire more than a dozen times, the first time in 1868. It took until 1969—more than 100 years—to spur the necessary actions.

Let’s be clear: global warming is much greater in scope than a burning river and more complex than a hole in the ozone layer. But people caused the problem, and people can solve it. We already have many of the tools and technologies we need to address global warming. The key is for each of us to begin to work toward solutions.

Share/Bookmark

United Nations climate change talks may be on a slow train to nowhere, but that doesn’t mean countries can’t try tackling global warming at the international level. Friday, the Federated States of Micronesia, a Pacific island nation, submitted a plan to amend the 1989 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer to phase down the production and use of so-called “super-greenhouse gases.”

The Antarctic ozone hole as depicted by NASA satellite sensors in 2004. Credit: NASA.

The Micronesian proposal, which has garnered the support of more than 100 parties to the ozone treaty, including the U.S. and the European Union, seeks to cut emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are compounds that contain carbon, hydrogen, and fluorine. These substances are used as solvents, refrigerants, firefighting agents, and propellants. They were introduced as a substitute for the chloroflourocarbons, or CFCs, that scientists discovered were destroying the Earth’s protective ozone layer — thereby allowing greater amounts of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the Earth’s surface.

Unlike CFCs, HFCs don’t destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere, but they do have a downside: they are extremely powerful global warming gases. In fact, HFC-134a, which is the most popular HFC substitute and is used in air conditioning systems in vehicles, has a global warming potential that is more than 1,400 times that of carbon dioxide, the main manmade global warming gas.

HFCs don’t remain in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide does, though, which means that the benefits of reducing their use could be seen rather quickly. This makes reducing HFCs an attractive option for low-lying island nations like Micronesia, which are worried about sea level rise during the next several decades.

“In Durban the world agreed to develop a new climate plan by 2015 to go into effect in 2020, but we need action now, and an agreement to phase down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is the best strategy this year,” said Micronesian ambassador Asterio Takesy in a press release.

In the U.S., HFC emissions have skyrocketed in recent years, growing by 216 percent between 1990 and 2009, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. The Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), an environmental think tank in Washington, claims that phasing down HFC production and use under the Micronesian plan would be the equivalent of preventing 100 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

Micronesia's islands will feel the effects of sea level rise sooner than other nations.

“Phasing down HFCs is the biggest, fastest, cheapest piece of climate mitigation available to the world in the next few years,” IGSD president Durwood Zaelke said.

With U.N. climate talks deadlocked, environmental advocates have increasingly turned to the Montreal Protocol to address greenhouse gases that fall under that treaty’s purview. The Protocol is widely considered to be one of international environmental law’s greatest success stories, responsible for slashing emissions of ozone-depleting substances and helping address climate change at the same time.

Zaelke said the proposal may draw opposition from India and Brazil, among others, due to concerns that an HFC phaseout would harm industry, and because of their opposition to mandatory emissions reductions.

This isn’t the first time that Micronesia has spearheaded an effort to address global warming within the framework of the Montreal Protocol, either. In 2007, parties to the treaty agreed to a Micronesian plant to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs, another CFC substitute that is also a potent global warming agent. The U.S., along with Canada and Mexico, have  submitted a similar proposal for an HFC phase-down.

A final decision on the latest amendment won’t be reached until November, when treaty talks take place in Geneva, Switzerland.

Share/Bookmark

U.S. officials say a record number of fish stocks recovered to healthy population numbers in 2011 while a declining number of species were subject to overfishing.

In a report to Congress, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared that six species have been “rebuilt,” including the Bering Sea snow crab, the summer flounder found on the mid-Atlantic coast, the haddock in the Gulf of Maine, the Chinook salmon on the northern California coast, the Coho salmon on the Washington coast, and the Widow rockfish on the Pacific coast.

Meanwhile, the number of stocks subject to overfishing decreased by four, and overfished stocks declined by three compared with the 2010 report.

The findings underscore the fact that fisheries management — including sometimes unpopular catch limits — has been effective, said Samuel D. Rauch III, deputy assistant administrator for regulatory programs for NOAA’s fisheries service.

The results “clearly demonstrate we are actively turning the corner on ending overfishing and rebuilding our nation’s fisheries,” Rauch wrote in an introduction to the report. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA must prepare annual reports on the health of fish stocks within 200 miles of the coast and depleted stocks must be rebuilt.

Share/Bookmark

The sleek new "Reflect"

Klean Kanteen, the popular maker of stainless steel water bottles, has long plopped a plastic top on its containers.

There’s nothing terribly unhealthy about that for the person using the water bottle. But the impact of plastic waste on the world, notably in giant garbage patches in the ocean, is becoming increasingly noticeable and problematic. It seemed time for Klean Kanteen to come clean and offer a completely defensible water bottle.

And here it is: The “Reflect” stainless steel bottle with a stainless steel lid, craftily finished off with a bamboo cap topper.

The company proudly crows that the Reflect  has no paint and no plastic, just three materials — stainless steel, bamboo and silicone — that “create the ultimate expression of our ongoing crusade to change the way people think and drink.”

The price for all this artistry and environmentalism is  a little artisan for our tastes, $32.95 retail. Youzer!

But it does appear that this bottle will last, and so will its sustainability credentials.

If you’ve already got a Klean Kanteen, with a standard opening, here’s a more affordable idea: Replace the plastic lid with a stainless one. That’ll be $9.95. Makes environmental sense, if your old lid has disappeared.

Share/Bookmark

Gamesa, a major producer of wind farms globally, has shelved its plan for an offshore wind farm in Virginia because a difficult financing climate and weaker “regulatory” support in the US.

A US wind farm by Gamesa.

The company will instead focus on building an offshore prototype off the coast of Spain.

American wind advocates predict that the loss of the Virginia project will be just one of many stalled projects and factory closings as the wind industry scales back largely in response to Congress’ reluctance to renew tax incentives for renewable energy.

Gamesa, which had built an offshore test turbine at a Research and Development Center in Cape Charles, Virginia, reported that  “prospects for the U.S. offshore market and its regulatory conditions in this segment so far do not justify the next step, the installation of a prototype in the U.S..”

Madrid-based Gamesa predicts that the US will lag behind several other countries in developing offshore wind, which is more expensive, but also more powerful than projects on land.

“The offshore wind power market is developing at a firm pace. However, demand is being tempered by economic and financial factors and the difficulties being encountered by developers in accessing credit. The authorities are firmly committed to the development of offshore wind power in major markets such as the UK, Germany, France and China. Based upon the current situation, the U.S. market appears to be set to develop later than others,” said Jorge Calvet, Chairman and CEO of Gamesa in a statement.

The Offshore Wind Technology Centre, an R&D facility opened jointly with Newport News Shipbuilding, will wind down at the end of the year.

The U.S. onshore market, however, “remains a strategic cornerstone” for Gamesa, the third largest wind company in the US market as measured by installed capacity, the company said.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has predicted a major drop in wind development, and the loss of up to 37,000 jobs in the industry, as the result of Congress’ failure to renew the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy, set to expire at the end of 2012.

The PTC provides a tax incentive based on the electricity production of a facility for wind, solar, geothermal and biomass projects. wind energy.

AWEA CEO Denise Bode has said that the industry needs to know now whether the PTC will be renewed so that projects for 2013 and beyond can be planned.

“Timing is everything,” she said. “Our situation is urgent because we’re already seeing the loss of over $15 billion a year in private investment in America, and 37,000 U.S. jobs that depend on early extension of the Production Tax Credit.”

Share/Bookmark

There are many ways to celebrate Mother’s Day. Cut flowers, breakfast in bed, brunch at her favorite restaurant, a chick flick night. All these fit the day — and you can even take your mom along!

A magnolia looks and smells great. (Your tree won't be this big.) (Photo: Green Right Now.)

But let’s say you’re looking for something fresh to make this year’s celebration meaningful and fun. Here are a few ideas that will make mom smile and help sustain her world.

1 – Plant or Buy a Tree

A tree, the symbol of life, could be the perfect gift for mom. Maybe she’s been wanting a crepe myrtle or a sturdy oak tree anyway. Or if her yard doesn’t have room, perhaps a Bonzai tree would be more her style, and good for Zen moments after a harried day.

Either way, big tree or mini, you’ll be offering a living testament of your love for her — and helping mitigate carbon pollution!

If you’re buying a real tree, try to make it native or adapted, improving its chances of survival and assuring it will have lasting impact. A shade tree could help reduce your home’s energy consumption.  A flowering tree or one that produces berries supports birds and enhances your backyard ecology. We don’t think it is stereotyping moms to say that many of them would want their tree to nurture the ecosystem.

Another option: Buy a tree for a national forest or urban canopy effort.

• Arbor Day Foundation lets you print a certificate at home for event-related donation to its “Trees in Celebration” or “Trees in Memory” Each dollar donated plants one tree in US forests. Read why you might want to help.  Arbor Day also offers affordable packages of seedlings for your own yard.

• Many local preserves or parks have planting programs. San Francisco, for instance, has a “Tree Tribute” project that would work as a Mom’s Day gift.  In Texas, you can give to the Texas Trees Foundation, which is planting 3 million trees to help replace just a portion the many millions lost to the 2011 drought.

2 – Go with a Shrub or Perennial Potted Flower.

Get mum a native plant to attract and feed butterflies or bees. Pollinators need the help, and the season is now — a happy convergence. Get a vine or potted perennial with tubular flowers and it may just lure hummingbirds. Bright blooms attract butterflies. Daisies and many other varieties support local bees, important for the ecological health of the yard and beyond.

Find online advice about the native flowering plants best suited for different areas at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center website, one of the most extensive archives on native plants. Based in Austin, the LBJ Center’s archives have information on more than 7,000 species from across the US. Use their finder tool to locate native plants for specific regions.

3 –Help other Moms while Honoring Yours.

Another uplifting Mom’s Day gift can be found at the International Rescue Committee, where there are many opportunities to support moms in need around the world.  Donate to the IRC  to assure a safe delivery for an expecting mom in a war-torn or disaster-impacted region ($24) or to send a girl in Afghanistan to school for a year ($52). These life-affirming, tax-deductible donations come with an e-card acknowledgement.

4 – Spare a Farm Animal – Donate to Mercy for Animals.

Universal, maternal love. (Photo: Mercy for Animals)

Maybe mom’s a vegetarian, maybe not, but perhaps she loves animals. Many moms do. If she supports more humane treatment of farm animals, she may respond favorably to a gift in her name supporting better lives for farm animals, including better mother-child bonds for farm animals.

Don’t know what the heck we’re talking about? See this Mercy for Animals Mother’s Day blog. It’s just so…apropos. See that adorable baby pig, getting nuzzled by his mamma?

5 – Make her an ethical brunch.

OK, this is awkward. Now we’re going to talk about food. But not meat. We’re thinking mom may appreciate an eco-friendly brunch.

Tofu scramble (Photo: PETA)

You can start with an omelet made with cage-free, local eggs, or go the vegan route and serve a Soyrizo, tofu scramble. (Sauteed onions, then brown Soyrizo and add an equal amount of firm tofu crumbled up like scrambled eggs. Scramble in a frying pan until it’s all hot, while being careful not to pulverize the tofu. Add a dash of brown mustard if you want.) Serve with hash browns and toast and fresh organic orange juice. Ymmm.

Even better, use an actual recipe for that vegan scramble. See the Breakfast Scramble detailed in Mercy for Animal’s vegetarian starter kit magazine, which also got instructions for dairy-free waffles and pancakes. Or try this PETA recipe.

We’re not advocating that you harangue mom into becoming a vegetarian, we’re just proposing one solid veggie meal, which lightens the load on a planet stressed by livestock production. If she’s already an Earth Mama or even trying to improve her health profile, she’ll appreciate. ‘Course if tofu’s out of the question, go with waffles.

6 – Get mom a naturally fragrant soap or body lotion.

Hey, we know mom needs pampering beyond just one measly meal. Especially if you burned those hash browns, you will need another offering.

Just shop wisely for whatever sweet-smelling foo-foo you’re getting, so you don’t load her down with chemicals.

Perhaps your farmer’s market has an artisan soap maker or you have a friend of a friend who makes natural bath salts. If you haven’t found a solid local lotion or soap maker, now’s a great time. Buying locally helps keep the money in the community (duh), and you’re likely to find products that aren’t loaded with a mash-up of preservatives and phthalates.

Look for natural botanical fragrances, but nothing too heavy, even lavender or rose oils can set off allergies. Just avoid the hard stuff, the synthetic fragrances, Mom’s already got enough endocrine disruptors in her environment. You want to reduce her body burden. (Remember this story’s about life-enhancing gifts.)

7 – And yes, there can be chocolate.

It’s true, a smidge of dark chocolate is good for you, uh, your mom. And you can buy ethically raised and produced chocolate from many places. We even know a Methodist church that has opened a Fair Trade shop to support small farmers and artists around the globe. They’re selling chocolate, cocoa mix, coffee and teas. It makes a lot of sense.

When you purchase ethically sourced and crafted chocolate, (or cocoa or coffee) you’re supporting living wages and decent work conditions for families.

Arbor Day has just added a line of chocolate from Equador that comes from shade-grown cocoa beans raised by Amazon-area farmers who are helping preserve their ancestral rainforests. It’s all part of the Rain Forest Rescue project. You can choose from milk, hazelnut and dark chocolate.

Wherever you shop, look for Fair Trade chocolate by brands such as Equal Exchange and Divine and AlterEco.

It’s not always easy to find these brands, but you’ll probably luck out at a natural or organic food market.

Copyright © 2012 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Share/Bookmark

By Mike O’Sullivan
VOA

Two California scientists have been honored for their research into air pollution, outdoor and indoor. This year’s winners of the $200,000 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, John Seinfeld and Kirk Smith, have shown the far-reaching nature of the problem.

Nearly half of the world’s people use biomass fuels such as wood or dried dung to cook their food, and many cook indoors.

Professor Kirk Smith of the University of California, Berkeley, studies environmental impacts on human health, and wondered about the impact of smoke on the families.  In the early 1980s he was studying energy use in rural Asia.

“And during that time, I noted the very smoky conditions in village households,” said Smith. “I came back and I thought, well somebody must have looked at the health effects of this, and I could find nothing in the literature.  My students and I looked.  So we did some back-of-the-envelop calculations to figure roughly what kind of air pollution levels might exist, and we could not believe the results of our simple models.”

Later measurements confirmed the estimates: household cooking produces as much smoke as 1,000 cigarettes burning per hour.  His studies show that this leads to nearly two-million premature deaths a year, especially among women and children, and the emissions contribute to climate change.

Air pollution in one part of the world affects the air in another, says the other recipient of this year’s Tyler Prize, John Seinfeld of the California Institute of Technology.

“Emissions from Asia will make it across the Pacific, will be in the air over the United States, and even in some cases be tracked out over the Atlantic heading to Europe,” said Seinfeld. “And so you can think of the northern hemisphere as a big backyard.”

He says the southern hemisphere has the same mixing, and there is long-term interaction between the hemispheres.

Seinfeld says natural and man-made substances interact.

“Every particle in the air anywhere on earth is a little kitchen sink of compounds that come from everywhere,” he said. “So I got interested in understanding what this was, and it was very clear the atmosphere is just a big reactor.”

He says the interactions are complicated.  Human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are warming the atmosphere.  Other man-made and natural substances can accelerate the process, or sometimes slow it. “  The compounds they produce can be harmful to human health.

The scientists say environmental research requires careful measurement.  In Guatemala, India, China, and other countries, Kirk Smith has overseen studies to measure household emissions and assess the long-term effects on those exposed to smoke from cooking.

Research teams are also assessing the effectiveness of low-pollution stoves, and Smith foresees widespread use of that technology when the results are in.  He notes that many devices being distributed by non-profit organizations have not been fully tested.

“The motto of my research group is, you do not get what you expect, you get what you inspect,” he said. “So it looks good, but we have to inspect before we can know what to expect.”

He sees the financial burden being shared, as it is now in parts of China, where one third of the cost of a stove is paid by the family that uses it, one third by provincial authorities and one third with credits from the international carbon market.

He says stoves that are proven to be effective at reducing emissions will benefit families and communities and help to clear the air around the world.

Share/Bookmark

A camera trap video in Cameroon has captured nearly two minutes of film of the Cross River gorilla, the rarest of the four sub-species of gorillas and one that is seldom seen in the wild.

The footage shows a group of eight gorillas walking through the forest in Cameroon’s Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary, their feet loudly crunching over the leaves on the forest floor.

Suddenly, a silverback gorilla, perhaps sensing the camera trap, bluff-charges past the camera, pounding its chest as it runs. The New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which helped set up the traps, says it is the best footage ever captured of Cross River gorillas, a sub-species with fewer than 250 individuals remaining.

In the footage, one of the gorillas is clearly missing a hand, perhaps the result of it getting caught in a snare. Hunting and habitat destruction in the creatures’ last refuge — the mountainous border region of Cameroon and Nigeria — have whittled away populations of the Cross River gorilla. But the Cameroon government, WCS, and local wardens have launched an improved system of protection that seems to have halted the animals’ decline.

Cross River Gorilla (Photo: Julie Langford, Limbewildlife.org.)

Share/Bookmark

New York City Council member Peter F. Vallone Jr. has called a “Speak Out Against Fluoridation” Rally to be held at 11 a.m. on May 15, on the steps of City Hall.

Fluoride chemicals are added to NYC’s water in a failed effort to treat tap-water drinkers against tooth decay, according to Vallone and the two groups that oppose fluoridation and are supporting the rally, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc and Fluoride Action Network.

Current science, they say, “tells us fluoridation is outdated, ineffective, harmful and a waste of money.”

The practice continues, because of politics and not because it benefits the health of residents, says Vallone, who’s drafted legislation co-sponsored by six other council members to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to New York City’s water supplies.

“This legislation will have an immediate and critical impact – the city will save between 5 and 7 million dollars per year, and our citizens will no longer ingest a toxic chemical every time they take a sip of water, take a shower or wash a piece of fruit,” Vallone said in a statement announcing the rally.  “We will hear from medical professionals and even a few gifted and talented elementary school students researching fluoridation.”

If New York City rejects the decades-old practice of fluoridating city water, it would send a strong message across the US, said Fluoride Action Network Executive Director Paul Connett and FAN spokesperson, pediatrician Yolanda Whyte.

“The decision to discontinue water fluoridation would send a strong message that NYC is prioritizing the health of its residents especially vulnerable groups including children, seniors, those with kidney and bone disease, and low socioeconomic groups, who are unable to protect themselves from unwanted exposure to this known toxin,” said Whyte.

But getting the largest US city to make this change won’t be easy, say FAN leaders, who’re hoping for a big show of support at the rally. “We urge New Yorkers especially to support Council Member Vallone’s valiant effort to protect their health,” Dr. Connett added.

FAN and the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., oppose fluoridation on the grounds that the science of the mid-20th Century that led to fluoridating water in cities across the US was flawed.

Back then, public health officials promoted fluoridation of community water systems because fluoride hardens tooth enamel in children, making their teeth more decay resistant. The public health initiatives that swept the nation operated in the belief that fluoridated water created access to fluoride for everyone.

But subsequent studies have shown that people can get too much fluoride, and also that it works best when applied topically, via dental or toothpaste applications, which are now widely available.

Furthermore, the decades-old assumption that ingesting fluoride would cause no harm to children and adults, but confer only a benefit to tooth enamel, has been derailed by international studies showing that excess exposure to fluoride can affect cognition, bone health and in high amounts, erode tooth enamel.

All sides agree that excess fluoride exposure causes fluoridosis of tooth enamel — a mottling or spotting of teeth. Fluoridosis now affects 60% of US adolescents, FAN notes, citing Centers for Disease Control statistics. The reason for the recent rise in fluoridosis can be attributed to widening points of exposure to fluoride, which is present in toothpaste, mouth rinse, fruit juices (made with fluoridated water) and food (grown with fluoridated water).

Meanwhile, despite widespread fluoridation of water supplies, dental decay remains a major public health issue. Critics of fluoridation like Connett have argued this suggests that fluoridating water is at best unsuccessful, and at worst, a health hazard.

The American Dental Association does still strongly support the fluoridation of water as a way to prevent tooth decay, and reported in April that fluoridation is on the rise in the US.

“Between 2000 and 2010, the percent of the U.S. population on public water supplies receiving fluoridated water increased from 65 percent to 73.9 percent, just a percentage point under the Healthy People 2010 national health initiative objective…,” the ADA reported.

“These new figures show that since 2008, nearly 9 million additional Americans are now receiving the cavity prevention benefits of fluoridated water,” said. Dr. William Bailey, acting director, CDC Division of Oral Health. “Water fluoridation continues to be one of the most important community measures to prevent tooth decay. All people can benefit from fluoridation, regardless of age, personal financial resources and access to dental services.”

The ADA cites support from the US Department of Health and Human Services. But in 2011, HHS proposed a lower threshold for “optimally fluoridated water” to help reduce the outbreak of fluorosis among adolescents. The new level of 0.7 mg/L (down from 1.2 mg/L) was considered adequate to prevent dental caries but not cause dental fluorosis.

HHS acknowledged the problem of increasing levels of fluorosis since the 1980s, but noted that most of the fluorosis was mild or “very mild” and defended community water fluoridation as effective in reducing dental caries via community water supplies.

“Fluoride works primarily to prevent dental caries through topical remineralization of tooth surfaces when small amounts of fluoride, specifically in saliva and accumulated plaque, are present frequently in the mouth (Featherstone JDB, 1999). Consuming fluoridated water and beverages and foods prepared or processed with fluoridated water routinely introduces a low concentration of fluoride into the mouth. Although other fluoride-containing products are available and contribute to the prevention and control of dental caries, community water fluoridation has been identified as the most cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of the community regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level (CDC, 1999, Burt BA, 1989).”

If New York City bans fluoridation it will join a list of cities that have stopped fluoridation, believing it to be either ineffective or dangerous. See that list  here.

Share/Bookmark

Autism now affects one in 88 kids, soaring in the last few decades, seemingly out of nowhere, to become a major health issue.

Early exposure to crop pesticides can degrade cognitive ability, some studies show.

Research shows that genetics plays a role in autism, but many scientists believe that environmental factors are as important in triggering the disorder. They continue to search for the cause or causes behind the explosion of autism.

A recent workshop at Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center focused on the 10 chemicals and heavy metals that many scientists strongly suspect could be among autism’s environmental triggers. (Autism Speaks.org was a co-sponsor of the workshop.)

Three researchers studying autism causes at Mount Sinai surveyed the scientific literature and singled out these compounds or classes of chemicals as potential culprits because leading researchers have found that they interfere with the prenatal and early development of children’s brains.

These pollutants, with links to the original research, include:

• Lead (Jusko et al. 2008) Once found in house paint and gasoline, lead still turns up  in consumer products and even kids’ toys and jewelry. It’s been found to impair cognitive ability in children who’ve been exposed.

• Methylmercury (Oken et al. 2008) Methylmercury is what mercury emitted into the air from coal plants is converted into in aquatic environments. Once in seafood, it is “biomagnified” as it moves up the food chain, becoming more potent. That’s why pregnant women and children should only eat limited amounts of tuna in a given week. It’s also been associated with cognition and behavioral issues.

• Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs (Winneke 2011) These were once used in circuit boards, and a variety of products like coolants. They persist in the environment, leading to human exposure from food, soil and air. Neonatal or early exposure can contribute to lower IQs and Attention Deficit Disorder, according to a wide number of studies.

• Organophosphate pesticides (Eskenazi et al. 2007; London et al. 2012) Both organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides are used in agriculture, meaning they arrive at your doorstep as food residues and also end up in rivers, lakes and soil. These pesticides have been found to child development, including neurological development.

• Organochlorine pesticides (Eskenazi et al. 2008)

• Endocrine disruptors (Braun et al. 2011; Miodovnik et al. 2011) BPA, used to make polycarbonate plastic and canned food resin liners, is just one example of a known endocrine disruptor that turns up in every day products. Many other chemicals are believed to act as endocrine disruptors even in small amounts. The Braun study cited here found more anxiety and poorer emotional control among young children with the highest BPA exposure. Endocrine disruptors also have been found to negatively impact reproductive development.

• Automotive exhaust (Volk et al. 2011) Tailpipe air pollution has been linked to increased risk of lung ailments and neurologic conditions, like autism.

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs (Perera et al. 2009) These carcinogenic compounds are found in grilled meat, petroleum products and emissions from fossil fuels.

• Brominated flame retardants (Herbstman et al. 2010) These were once nearly ubiquitous in cushions in upholstered furniture, hence, the new methods of making furniture, mattresses from cotton, wool and soy products. California still has a strict flame retardant requirement causing many manufacturers to continue their use. Even firefighters now say that the toxic fumes released by flame retardants during a house fire present an obvious danger.

• Perfluorinated compounds (Stein and Savitz 2011) Think non-stick pans and stain release chemicals.

These studies and others show that chemicals in the environment can injure the developing human brain by altering DNA structure and gene expression. The chemicals interfere at critical growth junctures, suppressing or exposing certain genetic coding.

The discovery that BPA was leaching from plastic baby bottles led to a flurry of BPA-free alternatives.

The three Mt. Sinai scientists who assembled this “short list” of chemicals implicated in autism, Philip J. Landrigan, Luca Lambertini and Linda Birnbaum, acknowledge that the “significance of early chemical exposures for children’s health is not yet fully understood.”

But they see that not as a reason to doubt the potential environmental causes of autism, but as a warning, as human activities continue to churn out more synthetic chemicals.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified 3,000 “high production volume” (HPV) chemicals that are in widest use and thus pose greatest potential for human exposure (Goldman 1998). These HPV chemicals are used today in millions of consumer products. Children and pregnant women are exposed extensively to them, and CDC surveys detect quantifiable levels of nearly 200 HPV chemicals in the bodies of virtually all Americans, including pregnant women (Woodruff et al. 2011),” the authors write in the article about their survey, A Research Strategy to Discover the Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities, published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Landrigan, the Ethel H. Wise Professor of Preventive Medicine, is a pediatrician and epidemiologist, who has published more than 500 scientific papers and five books. His studies on low-level lead exposure in children contributed to the government’s decision to remove gasoline from lead and paint in the 1970s.

Coal emissions create methyl mercury pollution in the food chain, contributing to depressed cognitive abilities in children.

Luca Lambertini, a molecular biologist and assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, received his PhD from the University of Bologna in 1995. His research focuses on genomic imprinting, long non-protein-coding RNAs, and mitochondrial DNA methylation,  including studying placental tissue to investigate genomic imprinting.

Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institutes of Environmental Health and Science (NIEHS), and the NTP, oversees a budget that funds multidisciplinary biomedical research programs and prevention and intervention efforts that encompass training, education, technology transfer, and community outreach. She has a PhD from the University of Illinois in microbiology and is a board certified toxicologist, formerly with the EPA.

Share/Bookmark