Squint and you can’t see them. Try a standard microscope. They’re still not there.

And yet, they’re everywhere. Nanoparticles are in hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer products, from sunscreen to child car seats to sports socks.

So the EPA has decided to take a closer look at these eensy particles, to investigate their potential to harm humans and the environment.

Nanos, which are about 1/100,000 of the width of a human hair and have been aggregating in consumer goods faster than E coli at a feed lot, have raised concerns among environmentalists, public health officials and others. These guardians of the environment want to know more about how nanos act in water, air and soil, and also whether they can invade and damage human tissue.

Nanoparticles are many times smaller than even a blood cell, and therefore can cross cellular barriers in the human body. Questions remain about whether and how much nanos can damage human tissue.

The study of nanos and their effects has often been done behind closed doors in the private labs of consumer companies. A European survey of companies making products using nanoparticles (done by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) found that only 8 percent had conducted testing to examine the potential effects on workers.

In the US, the EPA wants more information about using nanos safely in consumer products, and also about the positive prospects for using nanoparticles to clean up the environment.

Rice University, for instance, has been studying using nanoparticles to clean up oil spills by capturing oil particles in water droplets.

The EPA notes that some studies show sunscreens with nanoparticles “provide superior protection against UV radiation.”

Some environmentalists dispute that claim, saying that nanos in sunscreens are dangerous and may actually have the opposite of the desired effect, aging skin instead of protecting it by introducing free radicals. (See our story Don’t get burned, use sunscreens without nanoparticles, which contains a list of  cosmetic makers who have so far kept nanos out of their sunscreen.)

The EPA wants to sort out the good and the bad, identifying any hazards presented by nanos and promoting steps to minimize risks, according to a press release this week.

Researchers are investigating “widely used nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes” that are used in vehicles, sports equipment, electronics and titanium dioxide, the key ingredient in many sunscreens as well as skin cosmetics.

• See the EPA’s nanotechnology website for more information.

• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health also maintains a nanoparticle info site, with archived articles and research about the potential occupational exposure to, and health effects of, nanos.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

For those of us who are frustrated, daily, by the vast dispersed array of government information on environmental threats to our health, a new website assembled by the Centers for Disease Control may offer some relief.

The National Environmental Health Public Tracking Network aims to help us connect to information about the environmental causes of disease, such as indoor and outdoor air pollution and chemicals that creep into our lives in the air, on food and household products or through job-related exposures.

The site allows a person to, say, track their county’s air quality, finding specifics such as the number of ozone-alert days or days that exceeded safe levels for particulate matter. This is technical stuff, but only modestly so. These are the measures for air quality used by the EPA, and anyone with asthma is probably already familiar with them.

What you can do about it is another question. The CDC site is not an advocacy or action-oriented enterprise. Its goal is to organize public information and to educate. It will tell you to watch out for nitrates in your drinking water; but it won’t advise that you stop using pesticides on the lawn because they contribute to the problem of groundwater being contaminated with nitrates.

The site does provide a glossary of terms that’s useful and it also delivers the current public health consensus on many topics. On nitrates, for instance, we learn that: “Researchers continue to explore if there are associations with long-term exposures to nitrates, including adverse reproductive effects and some cancers. The studies are not conclusive at this time, and health standards are focused on protecting infants.”

It helpfully corrals issues into their own sections: “Environments” are divided into three areas of interest Home, Outdoor and Water; and “Health Effects” into seven categories that people may want to pursue, including “Cancer,”  “Heart Attacks” and “Birth Defects.”  Each category contains primers on key topics and details the role of environmental hazards.

We find out, for instance, that aside from smoking, exposure to asbestos, chromium, polycyclic aromatic compounds, vinyl chloride and radon gas can raise one’s risk of lung cancer. This information dispels the notion that smoking is the only lung cancer trigger. The lung cancer synopsis also reminds us that eating a range of fruits and vegetables can be protective against this leading fatal disease.

But we have to go elsewhere to decipher “polycyclic aromatic compounds.” These chemicals, also known as “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds” or PAHs, are found in pesticides, dyes and on grilled meats (which get coated with chemicals from unburned charcoal). Remember the grilled meat warnings of a few years back?

Similarly, we find out in “Health Effects” that consuming “disinfection byproducts” found in tap water (translation: the chlorine used to kill germs at the water treatment plant) “over many years” increases one’s “risk of developing bladder cancer”. We  are informed that we ingest these DBPs from tap water and also absorb them through our skin when we bathe. The CDC’s advises, however, not to worry because these chemicals are being more tightly regulated these days, and if your water exceeds safe limits temporarily “it does not mean that the people who consume the system’s water will become sick”.

Yet, the more one looks around the CDC site, the more worrisome our environment becomes. Grilled meat. Hot showers. A diet short in veggies and fruits. All these things can have health ramifications.

On the positive side, the CDC rounds this all up in one easy-to-use website.

But the government agency, in its effort to serve all masters and remain faithful to the wide consensus, wades in only so deep. It is a launching pad, validating our worries and clarifying definitions about environmental hazards, but leaving us needing more information in order to prioritize our personal health plan of action.

(Photo credit: Centers for Disease Control.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Discerning diners would probably not find this much of a topic for dinner discussion, but back in the fields where their broccoli is grown, fungus can stop a good crop cold. Most farmers apply fungicides to deal with the problem, but fungicides, a subset of pesticides, can kill beneficial organisms and cause environmental damage in the course of attacking the problem invader.

Fungicides, like other pesticides, also can wind up growing better fungus as the disease adapts to fend off the poison. The fungus becomes resistant to the pesticide, and creeps back ever-more resilient. Which requires more chemical treatments; which can increase resistance; requiring more treatments…

To try to break this cycle, researchers in Canada have been developing new “green” fungicides that are less environmentally damaging because they go in for a targeted kill. This surgical approach plays off the plant’s own defense strategy by attacking the fungal infection as it ramps up to break through the plants defenses. Effectively, the new eco-fungicides, called “paldoxins,” disrupt the fungus’ response to the plant.

It works like this: The plant reacts to the encroachment of the fungus, and puts up a barrier of defenses; the fungus reacts by hitting those defenses with its own chemical reaction.

The paldoxins or anti-fungal agents intervene, rendering the fungus unable to hit back at the plant.  Instead of dropping a bomb – the old way — which can damage the plant and the beneficial organisms that assist its growth, they go in for a guerilla attack, selectively disrupting the fungus’ ability to fight through a plant’s defense mechanisms.   The researchers refer to these agents of targeted destruction as “inhibitors of fungal enzymes” (a term that we non-chemists will thankfully not be tested on).

The benefit is clear — the surrounding landscape is not harmed by paldoxins. Also, in theory, the fungus has been outwitted and should not develop defenses to thwart this type of intervention.

These developments could help save row crops, in addition to produce, according to a press announcement about the findings, released at the 237th meeting of the American Chemical Society over the weekend.

“Conventional fungicides kill constantly,” said study leader Soledade Pedras, a chemistry professor at the University of Saskatchewan. “Our products only attack the fungus when it’s misbehaving or attacking the plant. And for that reason, they’re much safer.”

Not everyone will be convinced. We’ve been down a similar path with other types of pesticides, specifically those that tunnel into a plant’s biology, working from the inside out to thwart pests. But those types of pesticide/plant interventions are different in a key way — they aim to alter the crop plant itself through genetic modifications.

This approach confuses the invading pest, without interfering with the biology of the crop plant, which appears to be a truly safer; plant-preserving, instead of plant-altering approach.

Pedras’ group has developed six synthetic versions of the paldoxins and successfully tested them in the lab on crucifer plants, including rapeseed plants and mustard greens. They plan field tests on other crops, including grasses such as wheat, rye, and oat which are more difficult to protect with fungicides.

The study was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the University of Saskatchewan.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

When the students at Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter High School in Washington, D.C., learned about the environmental impact of trash, they wanted to make a change in their own school.

Thurgood Marshall, with 365 students in grades 9 through 12, is a college preparatory school with a focus on law and legal careers. But thanks to teachers like Sam Ullery, 29, who teaches 9^th grade earth science and 12^th grade environmental science, the students also are learning many hands-on ways they can reduce their impact on the earth.

Across the country, in preparation for Earth Day and in response to growing public awareness of climate change, students and teachers are not only learning about the environment but using that knowledge to change their schools.

At Thurgood Marshall, Ullery, Sarah Johnson, who teaches 10^th grade biology, and Scott Guggenheimer, the after-school activity director, decided to coordinate science lessons with the activities of the school’s Green Club.

For one project, they helped the students weigh all the trash that their school produced, and then focused on ways they could recycle more and throw away less. (See photo of the weigh-in.)

The Green Club members and science students began a worm compost pile, and today much of the leftovers from school cafeteria trays and lunchboxes gets chewed up in the worm-eating factory.

The rich organic compost that the worms generate, in turn, nourishes the school’s garden. And the school garden returns the favor with produce that the students can take home to eat with their families.

The students also conduct water testing to learn about the local Anacostia River watershed. (See photo left.)

In addition, they are making a film about where food comes from “and how too much of our school lunches gets thrown away,” said Ullery. “For our documentary, we have cameras, lights, microphones, and the kids are working as sound editors, producers and writers.”

In his classroom, Ullery sometimes uses lesson plans from Earth Day Network, and the D.C.-based network also sponsors the school’s Green Club.

The cork is off the champagne on the presidential election – and many environmentalists who’ve felt stifled by the Bush Administration’s indifference, hostility or lukewarm interest in ecological issues, including global warming, are giddy with new possibilities.

Frances Beinecke, head of the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, sounded buoyant in an address on the NRDC website: “Barack Obama’s election is a huge win for everyone exhausted from playing defense. Count us among them. It rekindles our hope that environmental protection may be restored to its rightful place as a treasured American value.”

Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters, was no less ebullient. “America embraced change today. And the planet will be better for it,” he announced.

Karpinski noted that, along with Obama, the nation also elected some environmental-minded senators, such as cousins Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), from a family with a long conservation history.

Greenpeace cleverly marked the moment with a electronic picture postcard to Obama with a “to do” list affixed with checkmarked items like “create jobs”, “boost economy”, “save the world”.

Save the world indeed. But where to begin? As with the economy, the path forward will be complicated. Barack Obama’s election may mean a warmer reception for environmental advocates, but many clashing interests and priorities still clutter the green highway.

Should coal power be nurtured into a new era of “clean coal” production, or summarily replaced with alternative electricity generation that doesn’t consume mountains — but hasn’t been scaled up? Are more incentives needed to boost solar, wind and geothermal research? Where will the money come from? How does the U.S. lead on global warming, when it is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (now that China is passing us) on the planet? Can Americans conserve enough to break their dependence on foreign oil? Will struggling automakers deliver on their promise of more efficient cars?

So many questions, such a long agenda, and such a poor economy — no small detail as witnessed by the defeat last night of an initiative in California that would have given rebates to clean-fuel car buyers. Voters apparently didn’t think the state could afford it.

So where does the new president tee off?

We asked a few professional environmental policymakers how they’d advise President-elect Obama.

Some said the new administration should immediately signal that it is ready to lead on the urgent issue that looms over all others: climate change.

“We’ve got to take a long term outlook and restore our image globally… demonstrating that we are serious about our commitment to reducing our own carbon emissions, engaging China and taking a leadership seat at that table,” said Ginette Hemley, senior vice president for policy at the World Wildlife Fund, which recently put out a “Greenprint” for the nation’s newly elected leaders.

Specifically, the incoming administration should send an observing delegation to the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland in December, a prelude to re-crafting the Kyoto Treaty, she said.

Disturbing reports haunt the news lately, suggesting that the faltering U.S. economy could stall environmental progress or even force a digression on climate change programs.

Two U.S. wind energy companies and several corn ethanol projects have been delayed for lack of financing, The New York Times reported this week in “Alternative Energy Suddenly Faces Headwinds“.

A similarly downbeat piece “Environment will wither whoever wins US election” from The Times in London, notes that “environmental groups are already bracing themselves for delays or disappointment on action to tackle global warming”. The article postulates that post-election political leaders will face opposition to environmental programs from job-starved states in the Rust Belt reliant on coal and other heavy industry. American’s immediate need for cold green cash, it warns, could trump green growth.

If leaders aren’t careful, the thinking goes, short-term bread-and-butter issues will cloud the long view. An America struggling to put food on the table will put green ventures back on the shelf and turn its back on the clean energy hobo at the door.

But as sure as they’re tapping geothermal heat in Utah and wind power in Texas, the countervailing viewpoint is gaining steam.

Environmental Defense head Fred Krupp, among others chirping up at green organizations and on editorial pages, believes that retooling our economy to tackle global warming and oil dependence is not a luxury in hard times, but the way out of hard times.

People “will say that the economic crisis will make it harder to solve the global warming crisis. I say just the opposite is true,” Krupp writes in a recent appeal to supporters.

“If we ignore global warming now, we will squander the opportunity to build a solid foundation for long-term, sustainable economic growth… if we unleash our green energy future, we can grow the economy, create jobs, secure our energy independence and stop global warming at the same time.”

It may sound utopian, but it’s not an isolated train of thought. The green movement can, will and should help re-employ the disenfranchised in America argues Oakland activist Van Jones, whose just-released book The Green Collar Economy, How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems couldn’t be better timed.

Across the ocean, Nicholas Stern,  an economics professor at the London School of Economics, continues the dialogue.  The world should learn from the financial crisis that “high carbon growth — business as usual”  will lead us toward a climate disaster, but that re-tooling for low-carbon growth can lead to economic and environmental recovery, Stern writes today in The Guardian.

During this now-certain recession, governments and private business should lay the foundations for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and protecting biodiversity and our water supplies, Stern writes.

“The coming period of growth can be firmly based in the low-carbon infrastructure and investments that will not only be profitable, with the right policies, but also allow for a safer, cleaner and quieter economy and society. ”

Here’s hoping green visions can carry us through the current sea of red.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

By Harriet Blake

Two evangelical groups are in the spotlight for their efforts to improve the environment. The most recent to join the eco-movement is a small group of Southern Baptists whose climate initiative is receiving a lot of press these days.

The Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative (SBECI) got its start with a divinity student, Jonathan Merritt. As the story goes, one day in divinity class, Merritt had an epiphany.

“I was sitting in theology class at Southeastern Seminary [in Wake Forest, N.C.],” he says. “We were discussing how God reveals himself both through scripture and through nature. My professor made the statement that when we destroy God’s creation, which is a form of divine revelation, it is similar to tearing a page out of the Bible.

“That broke me,” says Merritt, “and began a shift in perspective for me.” The 26-year-old son of noted evangelist Dr. James Merritt, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, decided that his faith needed to get on board with global warming.

“I began praying through a mobilization project which has blossomed into the coalition of over 450 Southern Baptist leaders and laypeople known as the SBECI,” says Merritt, who plans to graduate with a masters in divinity later this year. Among the prominent Baptist leaders who have signed the initiative are his father, now host of Touching Lives broadcast ministries, and current SBC president, Dr. Johnny Hunt.

Merritt, who is also the initiative’s national spokesperson, describes the SBECI as “an independent coalition of Southern Baptists who are passionate about caring for God’s creation.”

The SBECI is not the first group of evangelicals to test the global warming waters.

In 2006, a group of 86 evangelical leaders began an initiative to fight global warming, stating “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.” Among those who signed that statement were presidents of 39 evangelical colleges and megachurch leaders such as Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life.

At the same time another group of evangelical leaders disputed this claim with a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals, saying, “Global warming is not a consensus issue.” Among those who signed the letter were James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries. They argued that the science was not clear on whether global warming was a real problem and that human beings caused it.

The 2006 initiative eventually became the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which has continued collecting signatures from the movers and shakers in the evangelical community. “The ECI is focused exclusively on climate change,” says spokesman Rusty Pritchard, “and what the church can do.” Currently, he says, the ECI’s “Call to Action” is closing in on 300 signatories, all senior evangelical leaders with a national reputation or senior pastors of evangelical churches.

(For the record, Southern Baptists are evangelists, but not all evangelists are Southern Baptists, notes Pritchard. “Evangelical,” says Merritt, “is a broad term that includes all conservative Christians.” The Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination of 16 million Americans that makes up about half of the evangelical population.)

For the SBECI, the focus is on “creation care”, which Merritt says is a synonym for environmentalism. However, the group does not issue a verdict on global warming, a topic on which Southern Baptists still disagree, with a segment deeming global warming to be a hoax.

Rather the SBECI statement suggests, somewhat delicately, that Southern Baptists can agree to disagree, but still act:

By John DeFore

Over the last few years, moviegoers may have come to expect that any documentary pairing scientists and ice caps will be a scare-fest or a sermon — a big-screen effort to hammer home the urgent need to take action countering climate change.

Not so with Encounters at the End of the World, a film that’s drawing glowing reviews as it expands into theaters across the country. Yes, the movie has things to say about the environment — in at least one instance, it even suggests that humankind’s days here are numbered — but it is far from strident, superficially issue-driven, or even political.

Coming as it does from the idiosyncratic Werner Herzog, that’s not surprising. The veteran filmmaker is far more interested in the interaction of nature and human nature, particularly as it applies to individuals: The guitar-playing microbiologist who became an expert scuba diver to study single-cell marine organisms; the over-educated misfits who “fell to the bottom of the map” at Antarctica’s McMurdo research outpost, where they study the behavior of nearly unimaginably large masses of ice and of the animals (including, yes, penguins) who live on them.

Herzog happily loses himself in the wild as much as he can, capturing haunting images both of “nature” on its own (undersea footage, say, that looks like visions of another world) and of mysterious human/Earth interactions (as when Antarctic newcomers train to survive blinding snowstorms). But slipped in among the quirky portrait-pieces are environmental insights, some of which are poetic: One researcher describes bits of breakaway glacial ice, poignantly, as messages being sent by the continent to the rest of the world.

Nothing here will send moviegoers scurrying home in fear while the credits roll. Rather, the movie encourages the kind of rumination that transcends single-issue behavior and has the potential to tweak, however slightly, viewers’ overall attitudes about their place in the world.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media