Portland voters have rejected fluoridation of the city’s water, with 60 percent of residents voting against fluoridation in a referendum on Tuesday.

Clean Water Portland led the fight against fluoridation. (Photo: Clean Water Portland)

The move will keep Portland, which has three times before rejected fluoridation, as the largest un-fluoridated city in the U.S..

In most large U.S. cities, officials have long fluoridated city water supplies, backed by decades of assurances from public health entities, like the Centers for Disease Control and dental groups, that fluoride delivered this way improves dental health and is safe to consume.

But anti-fluoride forces have been gaining ground in the scientific debate over fluoridation, which began in the U.S. in the mid-2oth Century.

Fluoride opponents say it’s the early science on fluoride that’s shaky, and that recent investigations show that fluoride consumption, may contribute to bone damage, an increased risk of thyroid disease and lower IQs in children. These concerns, among others,  have led dozens of smaller U.S. communities to drop fluoridation in the last two decades.

“We are proud of our Portland colleagues who used science and integrity to defeat fluoridation,” said Dr. Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Citizens groups fighting fluoridation included Clean Water Portland, Sierra Club, the Portland branch of the NAACP and Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality employees union.  Clean Water Portland opposed fluoridation for many reasons, listing as No. 1, concerns that the fluorosilic acid used to fluoridate water is an industrial waste product of the fertilizer industry.

Fluoride is an industrial waste product (it’s true)

“The National Academy of Sciences and even fluoridation promoters acknowledge that FSA is an industrial waste byproduct from fertilizer manufacturing,” CWP wrote on its website. “FSA is a highly acidic and corrosive liquid that is entirely different than the natural mineral calcium fluoride. The FDA has flately dismissed claims that fluoride is a “nutrient” as promoters claim. Adding it to our water would expose Portlanders and our kids to another risky chemical at a time when we are already over-exposed to a host of chemicals from plastics to pesticides.”

(Photo: Clean Water Portland)

Other reasons to reject fluoride include the fact that FSA can be contaminated with arsenic and lead; studies show its ineffective against tooth decay, and there is no reason to swallow fluoride to get the benefit of protecting tooth enamel.

“Drinking fluoridated water to protect against cavities is like swallowing sunscreen to prevent sunburn,” the group wrote on its website.

Portland joins Wichita, Kansas, which rejected fluoridation by a 20 percent margin six months ago, and comes just after an announcement by Israel that it will be ending its mandatory fluoridation program, according to FAN.

“The 21st century does not take well to anachronistic medical practices, and fluoridation is no exception.  This is why more than 120 communities have rejected fluoridation over the past 3 years alone,” says FAN’s Campaign Director, Stuart Cooper. “The trend is towards less fluoridation, not more.”

Too much fluoride hurts teeth

Fluoride concerns have risen in recent years as even government reports have shown people are being over exposed to the chemical.

Fluoride’s presence in fruit juices, tea and dental products, as well as in most urban drinking supplies in the U.S., caused a rise in adolescents with fluorosis, the teeth mottling that indicates excessive fluoride consumption. That prompted the US Health and Human Services Department to propose a lower safe threshold for fluoride in 2011  even as it continued to hail fluoridation as one of the Top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century.

City councils continue to support fluoridation, despite the new science, seemingly persuaded by decades-long public health campaign to push fluoride as the magic bullet for dental health. Fluoride has been shown to strengthen tooth enamel, but it can be accomplished with topical treatments, via toothpaste and dental treatments.

Another argument against fluoridation that has caught the attention of some city councils, but not others, is that it may be a needless expense, if one believes that fluoride is best applied topically and not ingested.

In Portland, residents quickly petitioned to stop fluoridation after a newspaper reported that the City Council had conducted secret, (i.e., illegal) meetings on the subject before mandating in September 2012 that city water supplies be fluoridated. Many were outraged by the council’s circumventing public hearings.

The petitions, signed by at least 30,000 residents, stopped the City Council mandate and prompted the vote this spring.

Portland’s NAACP and national black leaders oppose fluoridation because fluorosis has been shown to be highest in communities of color, in part because mothers use fluoridated tap water to mix formula.

While Portland stands alone, for now, among large U.S. cities, most western countries, including the vast majority of Europe, do not fluoridate their water, according to FAN.

Studies by the National Research Council (NRC) and Harvard University have raised “serious questions about the safety of current fluoride exposures,” Connett said. In 2006, the NRC has called for further research into the role of fluoride in chronic disease, warning that it could increase the incidence of thyroid disease, disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to neurological disorders and bone damage.

But the government has not funded such research.

For those of you who’ve been following the Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Houston-area refineries, you know that the Oklahoma/Texas portion of the 1,700 mile route is nearly fait accompli.

The Obama Administration approved the southern section of the controversial pipeline late last year, clearing the way for construction, even as the upper portion remains in limbo, still needing a federal permit. That segment of the pipeline, from Montana through Nebraska, was held up when Nebraskans protested the pipeline’s threat to the Ogallala Aquifer. The initial planned path of the pipeline traversed a delicate section of the Sand Hills, where the aquifer is close to the surface and would be highly vulnerable should a leak occur.

Landmovers arrived at Crawford’s farm this week.

Those opposing the pipeline have pointed out that a pipeline installed by the same operator, TransCanada, has leaked a dozen times since it opened in 2010.

The recent spill in Mayflower, AR, of a different pipeline carrying heavy oil from the same region in Canada, has raised worries.

Keystone XL opponents say the Mayflower and other spills, such as one near Kalamazoo, MI, show that thick tar sands oil, which is mixed with chemicals to dilute it for transport, is difficult to clean up. They also contend that the corrosiveness of the diluted bitumen tar sands, known as “dilbit,” makes leaks more likely.

Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because it will pump vast amounts of fossil fuels out of the Canadian tar sands region into use around the world, raising greenhouse gases and worsening climate change.

Along the pipeline route, landowners have raised another question: Does or should a foreign company have the right to claim U.S. land for its own use?

TransCanada maintains it does have that right, because the U.S. will be a recipient of the increased oil on the market. (How much of the tar sands oil will be sold in the US, versus how much will simply pass through to lucrative foreign markets, remains a contested point. Some of the oil, according to the State Department, will be delivered to the Midwest.)

Opponents, however, question how much standing the Canadian pipeline operator has in the US, and particularly the Lone Star state, which brings us to one especially tenacious opponent, Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas landowner who has challenged TransCanada’s right to claim her land.

Before construction of the pipeline began, TransCanada, like all the oil and gas companies that came before, had to apply for “common carrier” status in order to get clearance to operate in Texas. This was no problem, because the Texas Railroad Commission typically grants “common carrier” status requests.

Julia Trigg Crawford turned down a $20,000 offer for the Keystone XL easement, deciding instead to sue TransCanada.

This permit essentially says that an operator can claim the land they need through eminent domain (also known as condemnation) because they’re carrying fuel or electricity to be used by the public or the commons.  The product will benefit the public.

That didn’t stop several dozen Texans, reportedly around 90, from rejecting TransCanada’s initial payment offers. The company had to seize much of that land using eminent domain or condemnation procedures.

But over time, most of the rankled landowners took settlement offers instead of pursuing potentially expensive legal action. TransCanada was likely to plow ahead anyway, as it showed this past fall and winter when it pushed through several protests set up the the Tar Sands Blockade, a coalition of environmentalists and landowners that for a time featured an occupied tree village built in the pipeline’s path.

Crawford, though, went to court to try to keep the pipeline off her third-generation family farm in Northeast Texas.

She alleges that TransCanada cannot claim “common carrier” status because it is a foreign concern, set up to transport oil through Texas, but not necessarily to Texans.

And now for the kicker. The matter is still pending in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, even as the bulldozers arrived this week to bore a path across Crawford’s family farm.

On Wednesday (May 16), she lamented the beginning of the “destruction on our place” and vowed to see the legal battle through.

We maintain, now more than ever, that they never had the right to take our land in the first place. Their claimed Common Carrier status? A rubber stamp handed out by the embattled Texas Railroad Commission. This pipeline? An interstate project, even the Railroad Commission says it is out of their jurisdiction.

Here’s her full Facebook post:

Crews from TransCanada/Michels/Universal Field Services and others I don’t recognize started arriving yesterday in preparation for the destruction on our place. Within hours of their arrival the pasture inside “their” fenced in area was shredded, road signs designating “work area” went up, hundred of timbers used to support heavy machinery were unloaded from 18 wheelers and stacked, and most gut wrenching was the “blading” of our land by a trackhoe in preparation for even more heavy equipment. Sorry for the quality, but I’ve attached a video of what I witnessed yesterday. I intend to share as much of this process with you as I can.

But just as the workers were really getting going, yesterday afternoon a monstrous wind and thunderstorm blew in, forcing all the men off their equipment, scurrying for cover in their nearby pickups. A sign perhaps?

I was told our place is the final link, the last piece of property needed to complete TransCanada’s conveniently uncoupled and renamed Gulf Coast Segment of their Keystone Project. Furthermore, they will work 7 days a week if needed to overcome any delays, weather or otherwise. All eyes are on us folks, we really are The Last Stand.

All this while our appeal is freshly delivered and active at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texarkana. Unbelievable. TransCanada’s decision to move forward and initiate construction during our legal case just strengthens my family’s resolve to continue fighting. We maintain, now more than ever, that they never had the right to take our land in the first place. Their claimed Common Carrier status? A rubber stamp handed out by the embattled Texas Railroad Commission. This pipeline? An interstate project, even the Railroad Commission says it is out of their jurisdiction. The product to be carried? Tarsands, a product mined in Canada, and one of the most toxic and destructive products borne by Mother Earth. Just ask the residents in Kalamazoo and Mayflower what it did to their communities and waterways when it could not be contained. And sadly ask the First Nations in Alberta how is is destroying their lands and lives.

I hear the beeping of heavy equipment being moved, I guess they’re back at it already today, so I’m headed out to watch and take more photos. If you thought I was a mad and motivated landowner before, well, you’re about to see me hit a new gear. Stay tuned.

Bittman is neither vegan nor carnivore, but advocates for a “real food” diet that’s sensibly, not industrially, raised/grown. He also scoffs at some of the marketing tactics that have become conventional wisdom, such as the idea that we need a lot of meat in our diet to provide enough protein.

Take 20 minutes and become inspired to cook more, eat better, extend your life, improve your health and lower your carbon footprint.

The Siva Cycle Atom snaps onto your bike’s rear wheel hub and collects energy while you pedal, powering a rechargeable battery pack that can be used to charge electronic devices, while you ride or afterward. The device picks up its energy from the spinning wheels, energy that would otherwise be lost to the world.

This gadget made to power gadgets simple makes so much sense, you wonder why don’t have one already.

At least Aaron Latzke and David Delcourt of San Francisco have developed a prototype, after two years of tinkering. They’re cruising ahead fast on Kickstarter, making the Siva nearly a reality on this Bike Month 2013.

Here’s how they explain the Siva Cycle Atom:

The Atom is designed with top of the line magnetic rotors, powerful lithium batteries and will be assembled here in the USA. As you ride, it harnesses the kinetic energy you generate, either directly charging your device or storing the energy in the detachable battery pack, giving you on-demand power whenever and wherever you need it. The Atom is for the modern commuter cyclist, the urban biker, the weekend rider, the gadget lover, the green fanatic, and anyone that’s ever needed a charge on the go.

As if biking — the healthy, no-carbon way to get around — needed anything else to recommend it.

A new study of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) finds that this compound, which is dumped into city water systems across the country to fluoridate drinking water, contains varying but measurable levels of arsenic.

A serious case of fluoridosis, indicating over exposure to fluoride. (Photo: CDC)

“Arsenic levels in this HFSA product vary substantially but are typically about 30-35 mg/kg,” wrote two former EPA scientists Drs. William Hirzy and Robert Carton in a paper published in the Environmental Science & Policy.

The study found HFSA raised the arsenic level of finished or tap water by anywhere from 0.078 to 0.43 parts per billion (ppb).

Arsenic has been ruled a carcinogen by the EPA, which reports it has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.

The EPA lists the Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic at .010 parts per million (10 parts per billion), that’s far above what the HFSA contributed to drinking water in the study.

But arsenic also gets into drinking water from soil, rocks and groundwater sources. It all adds up, and some cities in the U.S.West, Midwest and New England have city systems that test above 10 ppb because of geographic “hot spots”, according to the EPA. Trace levels of arsenic also turned up in tests of rice products last year, many domestically grown, according to Consumer Reports.

The EPA’s goal for arsenic in water would be to have zero ppm, because it is a known carcinogen.

Fluoride opponents say the arsenic levels in HFSA called out in the study are worrisome and avoidable.

“This study provides additional scientific evidence that fluoridation should be stopped, as the purported benefits no longer outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Paul Connett , director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which has supported dozens of U.S. cities that have stopped fluoridation in recent years.

FAN maintains that water fluoridation is unnecessary, fails to protect dental health and only creates multiple health risks (details below) that were unforeseen when the practice began in the mid-20th Century.

The group opposes using HFSA, an “industrial grade” product in fluoridation because it introduces impurities into drinking water. HSFA is obtained from the phosphate processing industry. It’s a byproduct of the scrubbing process used to filter smokestack emissions and avoid releases of toxic fluoride gases into the atmosphere.  FAN calls HSFA “toxic waste” because this solute is not purified. But the government classifies it as an industrial byproduct.

One potential solution to the problem of HFSA-related arsenic contamination would be to use a pharmaceutical grade compound, sodium fluoride, to fluoridate water, if cities still want to fluoridate, Hirzy and Carton said in the article.

Compared to sodium fluoride, HFSA contains from 100 to 500 times more arsenic, they wrote.

The vast majority of cities in the U.S., however, use the industrial HFSA because it costs less upfront. Only a small fraction have used an industrial form of sodium fluoride, said Chris Neurath, FAN’s research director.

Hirzy and Carton wrote that switching to the safer pharmaceutical-grade compound (NaF) — the type of fluoride used in toothpaste — could prevent cancers associated with arsenic exposure, potentially saving society $1 to $6 billion in health care costs.

“Our analysis shows that, if local governments that currently add HFSA to their drinking water wish to continue delivering fluoride to their citizens and at the same time reduce the number of lung and bladder cancers among their citizens, they could do so with a significant net benefit to society by switching to USP NaF [pharmaceutical grade Sodium Fluoride] for fluoridation,” they wrote.

FAN sees arsenic contamination as just one of many reasons to discontinue the fluoridation of drinking water.

Ingesting fluoride is not necessary to protect dental health, the group maintains, because that can be accomplished with top fluoride treatments, if consumers choose them. Fluoride in drinking water takes away consumer choice and studies have shown that it contributes to a host of health issues, in part because fluoride is also found in food, tea and dental products, raising human exposures above safe levels.

Neurath said FAN’s research and independent studies, notably a survey by the National Research Council in 2006,  have found that excessive exposure to fluoride:

So now we’re at 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere — or 399.89, according to a revision of last week’s reading.

Either way, we’ve reached a level  higher than any previously experienced by human beings.

We hit that landmark, or near landmark, this past week at the weather observatory in Mauna Loa, which records daily CO2 concentrations in the air.

This is a threshold worthy of our attention because scientists believe our upper comfort zone may be only 450 ppm. Considering how fast we moved from 350 ppm (last seen around 1990), considered a safe level for humans, to 400 ppm, we’re clearly on a crash course toward massive change. (See graph.)

CO2 levels are rising super fast, after centuries of stability, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels.

And still, I can imagine some people responding to this news with a blank stare; a so-what attitude.

They haven’t got the time to think about it and they’re not certain they need to, because frankly, their corner of the world doesn’t look all that different. Some may have been persuaded to ignore or even ridicule the problem by the mocking pseudo scientists working 24/7 on behalf of the oil and coal industries to minimize and discredit climate science.

Others may shove climate change out of their vision, because they’ve simply got oppressive financial/family/medical problems. (And their corner of the world doesn’t look all that different.)

Even people who are directly affected by climate change — they’ve lived through extreme drought, or Hurricane Sandy or suffered worsening  asthma as ragweed proliferates in a carbon-rich atmosphere — may still fail to see the urgency. They chalk up super storms, ice melts and rising oceans to weather aberrations. They think someone at MIT will solve Planet Earth’s luge slide toward disaster.

The North Polar Ice Cap shrunk to its smallest point ever on Sept. 16, 2012. The red line shows the average area it used to cover in September from 1979 to 2000.

Others may look critically at the alarming rise in greenhouse gases (it’s methane too) and just hit brain freeze — 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide pollution. Isn’t that still highly diluted? Who knows. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

Of course that’s not what our shrinking Arctic ice cap is saying. It’s lost about half its volume since 2004.

I can understand all these s0-so reactions to the 400 ppm news. Climate change is hard to see, unless you’re living near a vanishing glacier or on a Pacific Ocean island that’s being subsumed. It’s an unparalleled, gargantuan threat. It looms over everything. That’s hard to wrap your head around.

But we have to try.

I propose that we start right now to think about climate change as a giant, lurking monster, sort of like in Alien (we’re the crew). Even better, we should visual it as the scariest possible thing. I come up with this: a phalanx of missiles with nuclear warheads aimed at our cities and towns. Picture these missiles coming from wherever you want. They could be on the moon. (The Soviet Union’s been dissolved.) But your town is in range. In fact, it’s in the bulls-eye.

Sorry to have to bring it up, but this is the atomic bomb cloud over Nagasaki, Japan. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

This should work well for Americans, because we’re generally energized by arms debates, large and small. And there’s a microcosm of this scenario called North Korea vs. the world.

Now, every time you hear that this invisible carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen, picture a new bank of missiles being added to those already in place. The missile field is large, like the size of Rhode Island or Kardashian’s collective egos.

This vision of annihilation might help you see climate change as something concrete and ominous. Sorry, we can’t personalize it with a Soviet dictator; in this case, we are all pulling the strings: Your SUV, your neighbor’s gas well, the friendly local coal-fired power plant, all those cook stoves in the developing world, Wall Street with it’s relentless drive for profits and everyone you know who eats meat three times a day. We all carry a share of the blame.

Now let’s step this vision up a notch, because climate change is really worse than the nuclear missile threat, in a key way. Missiles can be disarmed, and so can climate change, but only up to a point.

At a certain point in time, our homegrown climate change missiles cannot be disengaged. After certain tipping points (if you believe the scientists) a timer starts ticking. In a sense, it is already ticking. But we’re talking about the point of no return. When that final timer begins, we are doomed.  And as we focus in on this possibility, remember, try to remember that this is not a TV show. Castle will not figure out the password in the 11th Hour (a film we should all see by the way, though like an increasing number of DiCaprio flicks, it’s not uplifting).

Earth will be on an irretrievable course,  ready to shake of current life forms and hit restart.

But let’s not dwell on it.

There’s one other aspect we need to consider to round out our scenario. We need to envision the run-up to the end of the planet as a world of miseries. This is not the rapture we’re headed for, or even a mercifully swift guillotine. This will likely be a painful life sentence, marked by shortages of vital goods, disease and possibly mass migrations. (OK, we don’t know for sure, but do we want to take the risk?)

To say the Maldives is vulnerable to sea level rise is an understatement. (Photo: The Island President.)

We see the changes starting — unfortunately they’re too scattered to raise our radar — as sea levels climb, forest fires accelerate, flooding deluges cities and drought saps arable land.

In the US, a 1 meter sea level rise — now considered a conservative prediction for the end of this century — would swallow big swaths of populated Florida and play havoc with fresh drinking water, probably even before those invasive pythons eat up the Everglades.

In some places, like the tar sands region of Canada, there are big, ugly glimpses of how we’re failing to cherish and save our planet, which would nurture us if she weren’t under attack.

To keep it web-friendly, here’s a short list of what’s ahead:

1 -Water shortages caused by increasing contamination of freshwater by industry and loss of freshwater to the ocean as ice sheets melt.

2 – Food shortages, triggered by drought, overpopulation and the dumb reliance on fragile monocultures (corn).

3 – Carbon-rich air that creates higher pollen counts, exacerbating asthma and allergies.

4 – Acidic oceans that can no longer support fisheries.

5 – Super storms fueled by water ocean and air temperatures that wipe out coastal cities.

6 – The loss of glaciers that provide water for millions.

7 -Persistent drought in previously arable regions.

8 — Spreading tropical diseases, like malaria and dengue fever.

Now let’s ask why. Is most of this mainly happening because we cannot figure out a way to move off of fossil fuels?

Yes.

When they read this is the history books (if they’re around to read history books) they won’t believe it.

The solution is at hand. It’s even on Walmart, like this solar rooftop in California. (Photo: Walmart)

Of course, it’s not quite that simple — there are many accessories to the crime — deforestation, overfishing, overpopulation and landfills leaking methane.

But it is almost that simple. If we just could move away from fossil fuels, we could save the planet. Most experts agree that we’ve got the technology to do that today. We could do that! How the next phase of human history would shape up is the subject of much debate. Would we be as mobile? Would we need to live in smaller houses? Would we ride fast trains (they do in China). Would we eat 500 varieties of genetically modified snack foods or join food cooperatives and grow heirloom tomatoes and wheat in our backyards? The exact facets of our new Oz are yet to be crafted.

Who’s pulling the strings? We are.

But again, experts tell us that a sustainable, clean economy is completely possibly and would provide us with decent lives that would still be far more advanced than those of our ancestors who lived without fossil fuels.

First, we need to secure that future by stopping the greenhouse gas pollution and revving up a new economy based on clean energy.

We could do it. Just like we disarmed so many of those intercontinental missiles aimed at the US and the Soviet Union by each other.

In the late 1960s, the US had more than 30,000 nuclear warheads actively deployed. Today that number is a whittled down 2150. Some believe that’s still too many.

But we didn’t say facing down climate change would be easy.

Copyright © 2013 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

If mom just got the gardening bug, she’ll need an organic garden guide.

Mother’s Day is not especially green. It’s more likely to be dipped in red roses and served with bright yellow potato
salad. It could be heralded with pink carnations or homemade orange juice. If it’s forgotten, it’s draped in the blues.

It’s almost everything but green. But it could be green, and it should be. Who better than the gardener of human capital, to receive gifts that pay it forward?

Heck, your mom may even be an actual gardener, and that makes finding the right green gift even easier. Get her a plant, a set of tools, a knee pad (trust me) or the tried and true Rodale’s Ultimate Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening or Grow Great Grub, a new guide to growing edibles in small spaces.

But even if your mum’s not an actual gardener, she still deserves the best chemical-free, upcycled, life-conserving gifts we can find for her, and there’s are plenty of little treats out there that fit the day.

Here are a few ideas. You can even pick most of them up on Saturday.

1 – A reusable coffee mug. Simple, reusable. She’ll be cutting down on those Starbuck disposables and her coffee with stay warmer. Starbucks has a great selection. We like the narrow stainless steel mugs. They fit in your car holder. They don’t leak. They endure. (And that’s the point.)

2 – Homemade garden markers made from end pieces of wood (check your garage or the lumber store). This is a great project for kids who want to make a gift. Thanks to Borganic.net.

(Photo: Maid Brigade)

3 — Services. It’s more practical than fanciful, but most moms would appreciate a break from a) housecleaning (unless they already have that service, lucky them) b) mowing and c) cooking. Of course it’s traditional for small kids to give mom a promissary note for vacuuming, laundry or dishwashing. But if the kids are bigger (and therefore recalcitrant or busy partying), dad and offspring can spring for a cleaning service.  How is this green you ask? It saves mom energy. OK? (It can double as a Father’s Day gift, if perchance he cleans too.)

4 — Recycled Funky Stuff. This gets personal. You have to know what she’d like and what she’d loathe. Recycled items could range from collectible kitchenware to kitschy clothing or jewelry, if your mom likes that sort of thing. Browse the local antique or resale shops to pick up vintage dresses or housewares from the 1950s, 60s or 70s when mom grew up. We don’t want clutter, but that just-right find. You’ll know it when you see it.

5 –  While you’re second-hand shopping, keep your eyes peeled for items that can be re-purposed, like these glass vases. They can be used as, well, vases, or add olive oil for something more useful.

6 — Don’t forget the actual valuables. These signs are cute, but check out that bowl and water jug. It’s classic and perfect for repurposing or even purposing. If you find one in great shape use it as intended, or for lemonade at parties. We saw this one at the Frisco (Texas) Mercantile.

7 — There’s also this Water Buffa…. What? No. Your mom doesn’t want that.

8 — There are many ways to bring beauty and peace to mom’s life, without weighing her down with merchandise. That’s a green consideration. Take these native flowers. She’s probably got a spot for them and they help feed butterflies and birds. They’ll brighten her day for a long time, years maybe. They store carbon and they’ll grow in pots too.

9 — On the other hand, if you want to weigh her down with merchandise, she may need the requisite backyard oasis accoutrements, like bird baths, bird houses and such. This is fertile territory for the locally made artisan type stuff you can find if you look for it. We found these locally made clay bird abodes at the Sound & True at the Rosewood Collective in Austin, where shop owner Mary Kathryn Paynter gathers useful but unique artisan and recycled products. Shop locally.

10 — Mom’ll (new word) need to wash up after she’s been gardening or whatever else she’s been doing. We cannot decide if she should have Mrs. Meyer’s Clean Day Trio of Gardening Hand Soaps, which are paraben-free and made mainly of naturally derived ingredients, or Ms. Meyer’s (as we like to call her) newest, out-of-the-box scent, Radish.  Yes, Radish. Radishing. This could be better than Rhubarb.

When Healthy Stuff.org tested garden hoses for toxic chemicals, the results were discouraging. More than 65 percent of the 21 hoses tested this year were made of polyvinyl chloride or PVC, a compound that’s harmful to the environment and leaches chlorine.

All of the PVC hoses were found to contain the same phthalates that are banned for kids toys.

Hoses made of PVC and other materials were found to release lead, cadmium and bromine (used in flame retardants). Exposure to even small amounts of these chemicals has been associated with neurological damage, causing liver problems and endocrine disruption (which can affect the onset of puberty and fertility).

Granted, your garden hose alone probably won’t send you to the hospital, but it can add to the aggregate body burden of chemicals that scientists are worried are behind a variety of health issues.

So…..wouldn’t it be better to unfurl a non-toxic hose to fill the swimming pool, spray down the kids or water the tomatoes?

Luckily, Healthy Stuff.org found three hoses that rated low for toxic residues or ingredients — meaning they were the top-rated hoses in the Health Stuff.org survey.

This Craftsman 50-foot hose made of rubber tested low for toxic ingredients.

This Swan soaker hose also was found to be mostly non-toxic, and it’s made in America.

This cute Room Essentials Coil Hose was low-toxic and colorful.

Bikes can accommodate nearly everyone. This tandem by Worksman allows either rider to do the bulk of the pedaling.

May is national Bike Month. These videos review some of the cutting-edge options for serious bike commuters — and some ideas for people who just want to tool around town without burning fossil fuels.

Let’s get started!

This turbo-charged bike by the California bike maker Specialized offers performance and a rugged frame:

And there’s the working man’s homemade version:

This third video is an ad for NYCEwheels, so it’s a bit of an ad. Still, it’s instructive, showing how a foldable bike like the well-known Brompton can be converted to electric, creating the best of both worlds:

Here’s a look at the ELF, an enchanting green vehicle that’s a bike like no other. The ELF is made by Organic Transit in Raleigh, NC.

Here’s a glimpse of a three-wheeler made by Worksman Bikes of Queens, NY; because not everyone travels solo. Worksman has been making bikes for special uses for more than 100 years, but they’re still on top of the latest developments, making their signature cart bikes (that hot dog and ice cream vendors use) as well as special needs and tandem bikes.

The Moonrise Hotel in St. Louis is harnessing the sun and the moon in its quest to become the greenest hotel in the city.

It’s not just daylighting, it’s night lighting that the Moonrise sought, and the roof of the New Moon Room provides it.

Take notes hoteliers. This boutique hotel in the Delmar Loop, near Washington University, already has  installed a charging station for electric cars and energy efficient lighting. Now owner Joe Edward has added a new roof that’s composed entirely of solar panels over the hotel’s renovated rooftop bar, dining and private party facility.

The panels capture sunlight during the day and convert it to electricity, and because they’re  translucent, light can stream through day and night.

The moonlit roof is an inspired addition for the vintage Moonrise, which occupies a reclaimed mid-20th Century building on the busy Delmar strip of restaurants and clubs, near the landmark Pageant and Tivoli Theater. The re-imagined hotel is a whimsical homage to the space age, with photos of astronauts and mid-century decor.

St. Louis-based Microgrid Solar provided and installed the unique roof for the “New Moon Room.” It would have cost about $180,000 at full retail, but after incentives was only $60,000, less than what a new conventional roof would have cost, said a spokeswoman.

The eclectic Moonrise offers easy access to the famous Delmar Loop venues.

The 25.6 kilowatt solar array is up and running, ready for its public unveiling on Wednesday. It is expected to provide enough electricity to power the rooftop club and possibly the top two floors of the hotel, said Marc Lopata, president and principal engineer at Microgrid Solar.

Microgrid Grid has used the translucent solar panels for canopies and awnings, but this is the first time they’ve been employed as a watertight roof structure, said Rick Hunter, founder & CEO of Microgrid Solar.

“The most spectacular feature of the new facility is the solar canopy roof,” Hunter said. “Unlike traditional solar modules, the glass panels that form the roof are frameless, translucent modules that take the place of a traditional roof, and which allow sunlight – and moonlight – to peek through.”

Mosquito season generally runs heaviest from June to August, but tell that to the mosquito that bit you last night while you were trimming the first May-blooming roses.

In many parts of the U.S., that first bite brings a sense of dread, because residents are well aware that mosquitoes can carry West Nile Virus, an illness that is generally mild, but can, in rare cases, cause a serious, sometimes fatal encephalitic response.

West Nile was especially devastating in 2012 in Texas, where 1,739 people were reported as becoming ill with the disease and 76 died, according to the Centers for Disease Control. It was the worst outbreak in the nation, with most cases concentrated in the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area. It so spooked Dallas officials that the city authorized aerial spraying in selected areas for the first time since the 1960s, and understandably — people were dying.

Cities and individuals have been fighting West Nile Virus in the U.S. since it arrived officially in 1999. Several cities and counties have gone full-bore with insecticides, dousing affected neighborhoods by airplanes or with fogging trucks. But this practice is controversial. People have reported that the insecticides sprayed — generally synthetic pyrethroids which kill adult mosquitoes on contact — have killed bees and depressed butterfly and bird populations as well. On the other hand, the insecticide camp promises that the chemicals used are a)effective and b)biodegrade in sunlight starting the next day.

Sometimes, people report birds dying in the middle of the West Nile outbreak, which adds to the angst over spraying. But this may or may not be an outcome of spraying, say experts. The birds, which carry West Nile, may be succumbing to the virus itself itself. So the presence of sick birds simply adds a layer to the conundrum over spraying, which could harm the birds; on the other hand, sick birds indicate the virus is present in the neighborhood, and being transmitted to mosquitoes, which in turn infect humans.

To Spray or Not-to-Spray

All this debate leads to the perennial question that dogs the dawn of summer: What is the most effective method to fight West Nile Virus? Those who study the problem bring a little clarity. They agree that the very best first line of attack is to try to keep mosquitoes from breeding near your house, and to use repellents (see more below) to avoid getting bitten.

But beyond those steps, even the experts wonder about the best tactics.

“It’s not really clear what’s the best way to combat these West Nile outbreaks,” says Michel  Slotman, a professor of entymology at Texas A&M University.  ”The spraying obviously has some impact, or probably has…the data isn’t really very clear.”

The data isn’t clear? Yes, you heard Dr. Slotman right. While opponents of aerial spraying swear that it’s not effective at all, and those who endorse it, claim that it stamps out adult mosquito populations, the scientific evidence, at least as interpreted by some scientists, remains inconclusive.

Because mosquito populations are notoriously difficult to measure, Slotman, among others, say that it’s difficult to nail down the effectiveness of aerial spraying. For similar reasons, it’s also difficult to determine how damaging the spraying is to other wildlife in the spray zone.

So you end up with the two cities at ground zero in last year’s outbreak following different paths. Dallas elected to spray during the epidemic of West Nile Virus in 2012, and Fort Worth held its ground on not spraying. Dallas officials declared the spraying to have squelched 90 percent + of the mosquitoes in target areas. Fort Worth dismisses spraying as ineffective, and causing collateral environmental damage.

As for the collateral damage, Slotman admits that some birds do show ill effects, though others seem impervious to spraying. They react differently across subspecies, just as their susceptibility to West Nile seems to vary, with crows and blue jays for instance showing more vulnerability, he said. The effects on butterflies, bees and other beneficial insects remains largely a mystery.

A study by A&M researchers in 2012 that gathered feedback from 75 Dallas residents living in sprayed areas found that some people reported “dramatic changes” to their local ecosystem while others saw no discernible effect on backyard butterflies, bees, dragonflies, fish and chickens.

One respondent reported an 80 percent drop in the dragon flies observed in his/her yard, while another said: “I was pleased to see butterflies and bees the very next day. I found no dead butterflies at all and I have a garden primarily for butterflies and birds.” Respondents with fish ponds reported no ill effects.

The widely varying comments could be a result of the residents preconceived notions about spraying, or the result of an admittedly imprecise process, the researchers wrote.

Was the lack of damage to other wildlife evidence that spraying is largely safe, or that it is ineffective, failing to break through tree canopies or missing the target insect? We may not know for many years.

As the debate continues, Slotman says his view is that spraying “is probably better than doing nothing” because it can kill the Culex mosquito that carries West Nile Virus. But in the absence of strong studies on the practice and outcomes, “people shouldn’t assume that once we send a spraying plane over it, the problem’s solved,” he said.

Prevention = Protection

The most important way to reduce your odds of contracting West Nile is to take action in your own environment, he said. First, keep mosquitoes from breeding in your yard, and second (or maybe first), keep them off of you.

Standing water, especially with algae growth, becomes a breeding ground for mosquitoes. (Photo: CDC)

Mosquitoes don’t travel far, and that’s a strategic advantage that humans can leverage, Slotman says. Remove all standing water from in and around your yard. Dump out flower pot basins, fill divots, patrol for places water collects, inspect your rain gutters and refresh bird baths frequently, and even better, use mosquito “dunks” in your bird baths and ponds.

The Centers for Disease Control has more advice on a new webpage about eliminating mosquito habitats. Both the CDC and Slotman advise that neighborhood associations should band together to identify and eradicate mosquito breeding grounds.

Dunks, which a naturally occurring bacteria that occurs in nature and won’t harm birds, can be used in neighborhood ponds and water features. Mosquito larvae cannot tolerate the bacteria and will be killed before they hatch. This natural solution can thwart the mosquitoes that are near year house, thereby reducing the numbers that show up for dinner on your arm, and your chances of contracting West Nile. It also stops mosquito populations from multiplying, tamping down on their overall numbers.

Since only about 1 percent of mosquitoes carry the virus, and only 1 in 150 people who contract it will develop life-threatening symptoms, your odds are good, but these proactive measures make them even better, Slotman said.

And of course, be vigilant when mosquitoes are most active, at dawn, dusk and at night, because keeping them off of you and yours is the next line of defense.

Mosquito Repellents

Fortunately, the array of effective repellents has broadened in recent years, so you’re not necessarily stuck with the old standby, DEET. The Centers for Disease Control’s latest advise on DEET is that it is effective against mosquitoes and offers some of the most enduring protection. However, the CDC also endorses other ingredients as effective, including some botanicals. Some of these, however, may need to be reapplied more often. Here’s the full list from the EPA, with links to product information:   

Higher concentrations of DEET, like this 40 percent “Max” formula aren’t more effective than the 7 percent solution that’s marketed as family- or skin-friendly, they just last longer.

•  DEET — This chemical has been proven effective against mosquitoes, though you don’t have to use the 25 percent or 40 percent formulas. DEET products are available in 7 percent solutions, and they’re just as effective, Slotman says. The higher the percentages simply prolong the time the repellant works. The problem with DEET is that some people don’t like applying such a harsh chemical. Fortunately, CDC testing found more options that are effective.

• Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus — This natural, essential oil has become the ingredient in a host of commercial and homemade repellants (see the recipe below). Be aware, just because something occurs in nature, doesn’t mean it cannot cause a skin or allergic reaction. You’ll have to try it to see.

• Picaridin – This is a synthetic that  is part of the piperidine family of compounds, based on the extract from plants used to make black pepper. Applied to clothing, picaridin deters insects from feeding or biting. It’s considered safe for use on the skin, and is sold in repellent solutions in 20 percent strength.

•  IR3535 — This CDC-approved repellent is often overlooked (perhaps the numerical name is not so catchy). But you know it if you’re familiar with Avon’s Skin-So-Soft products. Avon’s been making a killing on this line since people discovered it really works. It was an early replacement for DEET, which had been found to produce allergic and neurological side effects in sensitive individuals (the manufacturer has said these rare reactions may have been the result of overuse or misuse). In any event, the Avon products are considered non-toxic, and safe for kids. Bullfrog and other brands are also using this ingredient in repellents.

This botanical formula combines oil of citronella, oil of lemongrass, oil of geranium and more, a tactic that’s believed to enhance performance.

• Catnip Oil – This botanical oil from the herb by the same name (more properly known as refined oil of Nepeta Cataria) offers 7 to 15 hours of protection, depending on the concentration (7 percent or 15 percent).  It can be found in a variety of botanical repellents on the market, and is sometimes combined with other essential oils, such as oils of geranium, citronella and lemon grass.

•  p-Menthane-3,8-diol — This “biologicial” pesticide is a synthetic made to mimic the naturally occurring compound found in lemon eucalyptus plants. It repels flies and gnats, as well as mosquitoes.

These are the recommended and tested ways of keeping mosquitoes at bay (the ingredients above have all be registered by the EPA, which may or may not prove comforting to you), but they’re by no means the only formulas available. Homemade repellents intended for use on the skin and other deterrents abound on the Internet. Some use the botanicals mentioned above. More to come on that in our next installment.

Copyright © 2013 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network