Month: June 2007

Nanotech Nervousness

  • Researchers are studying whether nano-sized material could purge bacteria from the digestive tracts of poultry. The bacteria doesn't harm chickens and turkeys, but it can make people sick. The hope is that using nanoparticles could reduce the use of antibiotics in poultry. (Photo courtesy of USDA)

Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:

Transcript

Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:


Life on the nano scale is so tiny it’s hard to imagine. It’s as small
as 1/100,000 of a human hair. It’s as tiny as the width of a strand of
DNA. A nanoparticle can be so small it can actually enter cells.


Nanoparticles are loved by scientists and entrepreneurs for the novel
things they can do at those tiny sizes. They act differently. They
can go where larger particles can’t.


Many companies already sell new products with nano properties. The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies says there are almost 500 products
on the market that use nanotechnology.


Some of those products are starting to show up in the grocery store.


Jennifer Kuzma is with the Center for Science, Technology and Public
Policy at the University of Minnesota. She tracks nanotech
developments in food and agriculture. She says there are some edible
nano products on store shelves right now:


“One is a chocolate shake that is a nano emulsion of cocoa molecules so
you can deliver more flavor for less of the cocoa product.”


Kuzma says that’s just the beginning. She says hundreds more nano
products, including a lot of food products, are on their way to market.
In many cases, scientists are looking for solutions to food safety
problems.


For example, bacteria in the intestines of chickens and turkeys can
make people sick when poultry is undercooked. Right now farmers treat
their birds with antibiotics. But as bacteria are becoming resistant
to antibiotics, scientists are looking for other methods to fight the
bacteria.


Jeremy Tzeng is a research scientist at Clemson University. He’s part
of a team developing what he calls intelligent chicken feed.
Basically, chickens would be fed a nanomaterial that attaches to
molecules on the surface of the harmful bacteria. Then the bacteria
could be purged from the chicken along with fecal matter:


“If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using
antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it
is really small.”


Tzeng says his research is still in its early stages. He says there
are a lot of safety tests he needs to run. They need to find out if
the nanomaterial is safe for chickens, and people who eat the chickens.
And they need to find out what happens if the nanomaterial is released
into wastewater.


“As a scientist I love to see my technology being used broadly and very
quickly being adopted. But I’m also concerned we must be cautious. I
don’t want to create a miracle drug and then later it becomes a problem
for the long term.”


There are big, open questions about just how safe nanoparticles are.


Researcher Jennifer Kuzma says there have been only a handful of known
toxicology studies done so far. She says nanoparticles might be more
reactive in the human body than larger particles:


“There’s several groups looking at the ability of nanoparticles to
damage, let’s say your lung tissue. Some of the manufactured or manmade nanoparticles are thought to have greater abilities to get into the
lungs, penetrate deeper and perhaps damage the cells in the lungs, in
the lung tissue.”


In some cases, it’s hard for the government to get information about new
nano products. Kuzma says companies tend to keep their own safety data
under lock and key:


“Some companies might send you the safety studies if you ask for them. Others may not
because they of course have interests in patenting the technology and
confidential business information.”


So the government doesn’t always know all that much about what’s
heading to market. Agencies are trying to figure out how – and even
whether – to regulate products of nanotechnology. Right now, there are
no special labeling requirements for nano products.


In the meantime, nanotechnology is turning into big business. Several
analysts predict that just three years from now, the nanotech food
market will be a 20 billion dollar industry.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

States Slow to Pass Great Lakes Compact

In 1998, people became outraged when a company tried to ship Great
Lakes water to Asia. Politicians said they wanted the Lakes protected.
Now – almost a decade after the event that sparked the controversy –
officials say the effort to protect to the Great Lakes is picking up
steam. Noah Ovshinsky has more:

Transcript

In 1998, people became outraged when a company tried to ship Great
Lakes water to Asia. Politicians said they wanted the Lakes protected.
Now – almost a decade after the event that sparked the controversy –
officials say the effort to protect to the Great Lakes is picking up
steam. Noah Ovshinsky has more:


Two years ago officials from the eight Great Lakes states and two
Canadian provinces agreed on a plan that largely bans the diversion of
water outside the basin. The plan, known as the Great Lakes Compact,
went to each state’s legislature for debate.


Pete Johnson is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors. He says
even though it’s been two years the effort is starting to gain
momentum:


“We’re no longer at the beginning. There are still a number of states
that still need to pass the legislation but we feel that we’re well on
the way of actually turning this thing into law.”


Minnesota has officially signed onto the Compact. Illinois is expected to sign on soon. The legislation remains under consideration in the six other Great Lakes states.


For the Environment Report, this is Noah Ovshinsky.

Related Links

Dredging Gets Grudging Approval

A new study raises concerns about efforts to dredge polluted sediment
out of waterways. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A new study raises concerns about efforts to dredge polluted sediment
out of waterways. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A study by the National Research Council looked at the dredging of
contaminants from about 25 projects around the US. Study Chairman
Charles O’Melia of Johns Hopkins University says the report has two
main conclusions:


One is that dredging has some failings when it comes to achieving short
term pollution reductions. For example, particles can be left behind or
re-suspended in the water.


O’Melia also says the report points to the need for more monitoring of
dredging projects:


“Each site is different and it is not going to be possible, to be able
to come up a plan that you would know with certainty what would
work… that you have to go out and test it.”


The EPA is evaluating the study, but says for the most part, it’s happy
with existing dredging plans for rivers.


For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Wetlands Ruling Confusing

Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:

Transcript

Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:


The controversy began when government officials stopped developers from building on
wetlands. The Supreme Court ruled the government should clear up exactly which
wetlands are protected under federal law.


Federal agencies now have new guidelines, but the Assistant Secretary of the Corps of
Engineers says it’s not clear whether more wetlands are at risk:


“It’s, I would say, very difficult if not impossible to determine the precise impact of this
vis a vis the prior existing regulation.”


Some environmentalists believe that more wetlands will be at risk because of the new
guidelines. Jim Murphy is an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation:


“It increases confusion. It puts a lot of important resources at risk. It’s really a disaster
all around.”


Now, Congress might step in with new laws to protect more wetlands.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Killing Eagles Approved

The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The bald eagle population in the US has recovered, but critics worry
that without Endangered Species Act protection some landowners and
developers could carelessly harm a lot of the large birds. So, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a permit that would authorize
very limited killing or harming of eagles during otherwise lawful
activity.


Service Director Dale Hall says the permit would also let eagle nests
be moved if they pose a threat to human safety, such as near airport
runways:


“We expect to issue very few of these permits, since they would only be
available for safety emergencies.”


Conservation groups pushed the government for clearer plans to protect
the bald eagle, and generally welcome the new language. But a public
comment period could bring additional changes.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Outlawing the Incandescent Bulb

  • Bill Dawson delivering light bulbs to his neighbors in Ottawa. (Photo by Karen Kelly)

The warmer weather brings gardens, barbeques, and often, solicitors to
your door. Many people dread opening the door for someone who’s asking
for money. But in a number of Canadian cities, volunteers are actually
giving something away: a compact fluorescent light bulb and a bit of
education, too. Karen Kelly has the story:

Transcript

The warmer weather brings gardens, barbeques, and often, solicitors to
your door. Many people dread opening the door for someone who’s asking
for money. But in a number of Canadian cities, volunteers are actually
giving something away: a compact fluorescent light bulb and a bit of
education, too. Karen Kelly has the story:


Bill Dawson is standing in this woman’s doorway holding up a
fluorescent light bulb. She looks a little unsure about it, but then he explains that even changing one light bulb can have an
impact:


“What can I do as an individual. Well, I could, just by my little bit,
can make a big difference. Because hopefully, once you start to use
this, it’s going to make you start to think, how can I save energy in
other ways.”


Dawson is a volunteer for Project Porchlight. They have a simple plan:
give one free compact fluorescent bulb to every household in Canada.
The bulb will last up to 8 times as long as a conventional bulb and use
a quarter of the electricity. And if every household changes one bulb,
it’s the equivalent of removing 66 thousand cars off the road.


It’s kind of hard to believe, but that potential is what motivated
Stuart Hickox to start Project Porchlight two years ago:


“I remember sitting there thinking, wow, that’s incredible. Somebody
should do a campaign about this. So I talked to a few friends. But the
big breakthrough for us was that we decided not to just do an awareness
campaign. We decided we’d bridge the gap between awareness and action
by raising money to give people their first bulb.”


So, with more than 250 volunteers and funding from HydroOttawa, the
local utility, the group delivered almost a quarter million light bulbs
in Ottawa last fall. They wore matching fluorescent green jackets and
hats. They drove rechargeable electric bikes with lime green saddlebags
packed with bulbs. And they answered lots of questions like, is the
mercury in these bulbs dangerous for people? The answer? No. But you
should throw them with out with other household hazardous waste.


Hickox’s theory was, if you can get someone to change a light bulb, you
might change their thinking as well:


“When you give them that bulb and that person makes that change, they
realize they can take action on climate change and they do. And it’s
the gateway. It leads to a sense of the individual that you can do
something, and that therefore they may participate and do other
things.”


It worked with Bill Dawson. Before he started volunteering with the
group, he says he felt helpless when he thought about global warming:


“I didn’t even think about what I could do as an individual. It was
just…I’d look at those smokestacks and I’d say, ehh, what’s the
point.”


Then Bill went to a Project Porchlight training session.
He came home with 120 lightbulbs and a radical plan for his own life.
He got rid of his luxury car, which he loved, and bought a Prius, an
energy efficient hybrid car.


Bill says his friends thought he was crazy. He’s 83, a successful
businessman and his car, an Audi A6, was part of his image.
But that’s changed:


“I’d think I’d much rather be an image of a green, someone concerned
about the environment, having 13 grandchildren and two great
grandchildren, it’s a pretty bleak future for those kids and…I don’t
know whether it’s too late or not, but we certainly have got to do
something.”


But now, Bill and people in every household in four Canadian cities are
doing something, thanks to Project Porchlight. And soon, everyone in
Canada will be changing their bulbs, because the Canadian government
has announced it is phasing out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs
altogether over the next five years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Co2 Crops Not Tops

  • Theories that crops, such as the corn in Illinois, will benefit from increases in CO2 might not be as good as predicted. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)

Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:


Lin Warfel’s a fourth generation farmer in east-central Illinois. His
fields are flat and endless, the soil chunky and black and just about
the best in the world. An Interstate highway groans on one side of his
cornfield:


“In my career, early on, there was no Interstate past my farm.”


As traffic increased over the years, Warfel noticed a strange
phenomenon. The crops closer to the Interstate grew bigger than those
further away:


“They respond to the carbon dioxide. They can stay greener longer than
plants out into the field.”


OK… so, here’s a high school biology reminder: carbon dioxide, along
with water and sun, is an ingredient in photosynthesis, which makes
plants grow.


Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also the biggest cause
of global warming. So scientists thought, huh, more carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, bigger crops. They even coined a term: the “carbon
dioxide fertilization effect:”


“The effects of CO2 on crop yields are fairly well-understood.”


The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor has studied this stuff since the
1980s:


“We would expect that by the year 2050, that the increase in CO2 alone
would probably increase yields by about 10 to 15% in soybean, wheat and
rice relative to today’s yield, with nothing else changing.”


Other things are changing, like hotter temperatures and more drought.
But the predominant thinking has been that the increased carbon dioxide
will moderate those negative factors, maybe even outweigh them. A
recent study by the American Economic Review concluded U.S. agriculture
profits will grow by more than a billion dollars over the next century,
due to global warming. Most of this is based on experiments done in
controlled, greenhouse conditions, but new research done in real fields
is challenging the assumptions:


“Where you’re standing is what we refer to as our global change
research facility on the south farms of the University of Illinois.”


That’s biologist Steve Long. He runs what’s called the SoyFACE project
at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Here, Long can
actually pipe carbon dioxide gas out to the fields, and grow real crops
in an atmosphere of the future.


Long strolls out to one of 16 test plots and stop at a white pipe
sticking out of the ground:


“This is one of the pipes where the carbon dioxide actually comes up
and then it will go out into the field here.”


The carbon dioxide pipes circle a plot about the size of a tennis
court. They release the gas over the crops. Computers monitor the air
to keep the concentrations steady:


“And the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is about
380 parts per million. We’re raising that to the level which is
expected for the year 2050, which is about 550 parts per million.”


Long has grown the crops of 2050 for 5 years now. His results
shocked him. The plants did grow bigger. They survived longer
into the fall, but the yields were 50% lower than expected. And
pests thrived. The Western corn rootworm, for example, laid
twice as many eggs:


“Japanese beetle, which eats quite a lot of the leaves of soybeans, do
twice as well under these elevated CO2 conditions. They live longer. They
produce many more young. The yield increases we’ve seen could start to be
counteracted by those increased pest problems.”


Long’s results found supporters and critics when published in
Science magazine last summer. Some researchers say extra CO2
could hurt agriculture more than it helps because weeds become more
aggressive.


The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor co-wrote a paper challenging the
interpretation of Long’s data. But he agrees more work needs to be
done in real-life conditions:


“The bigger questions that are now before us are the interactions of CO2 with
warming and change in precip, changes in weed communities, changes in
insect communities, changes in disease outbreak. There are a lot more
questions there than there are answers.”


Amthor says what’s at stake is our future food supply.


For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Insect Death Match

  • Researchers want to bring in parasitic wasps from China to kill the emerald ash borer (pictured) to slow the beetle's spread. (Photo courtesy of the USFS)

The federal government wants to import insect parasites from China into
the US. Rebecca Williams reports officials are hoping parasitic wasps
will control a pest that’s been killing millions of trees:

Transcript

The federal government wants to import insect parasites from China into
the US. Rebecca Williams reports officials are hoping parasitic wasps
will control a pest that’s been killing millions of trees:


The emerald ash borer has already killed 20 million ash trees.
Scientists think the ash borer got into North America in cargo from
China. It came over without any of the parasites that normally keep it
in check.


Researchers want to bring in some of those parasitic wasps from China
to try to kill the ash borer beetles.


Juli Gould is with the US Department of Agriculture. She’s been
studying the parasitic wasps. She says the ash borer can’t be
eradicated, but the parasites might slow the beetle’s spread:


“The population is very widespread right now and we need another tool
in the toolbox to help control it.”


Gould says they’ve been running tests to make sure the parasitic wasps
won’t kill insects other than the ash borer. She says in her lab
tests, the parasites appear to much prefer ash borers over the other
insects they tested.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Super Weeds on the Rise

Farmers across the country are increasingly using genetically
modified crops that are resistant to an herbicide commonly known as
“Roundup.” But as Tracy Samilton reports, weeds are starting to
develop resistance to the chemical, too:

Transcript

Farmers across the country are increasingly using genetically
modified crops that are resistant to an herbicide commonly known as
“Roundup.” But as Tracy Samilton reports, weeds are starting to
develop resistance to the chemical, too:


Glyphosate, known by the brand name Roundup, kills all kinds of plants –
except for crops engineered to resist it. Unfortunately, weeds are
beginning to develop Roundup resistance, too.


Steve Duke is a researcher with the US Department of Agriculture. Duke
says there are ways to slow the evolution of Roundup-resistant weeds,
such as rotating crops, rotating herbicides and using more than one
herbicide.


But many farmers aren’t using the techniques, because they’re more
trouble and more expensive:


Farmers tend to think, oh there will be another silver bullet coming
down the pike in the near future, so they want to maximize their
profits this year.


Duke says farmers could use glyphosate for a lot longer if they follow
the recommended practices. Duke says that’s good, because Roundup is considered
less harmful to the environment than other herbicides.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Usps Earth-Friendly Packaging

  • The Postal Service is launching a program to use more recycled and environmentally-friendly materials in its packaging. (photo by Lester Graham)

The US Postal Service says it has made its packaging materials more
environmentally friendly. Rebecca Williams reports the Post Office
says the packaging uses fewer resources and is more easily recyclable:

Transcript

The US Postal Service says it has made its packaging materials more
environmentally friendly. Rebecca Williams reports the Post Office
says the packaging uses fewer resources and is more easily recyclable:


The Postal Service delivers hundreds of millions of boxes and envelopes
a year. The Service worked with a consulting firm to redesign the
packages, down to the inks and adhesives.


Anita Bizzotto is the chief marketing officer for the Postal Service:


“It was actually quite a big undertaking – we worked with 10 vendors,
200 suppliers and we evaluated 1400 individual ingredients and all
component materials of packaging products.”


But some critics of the Postal Service say the agency still has a way
to go. They want the Postal Service to stop promoting advertising
mail… you might call it junk mail. All those flyers and catalogs are
the Service’s second largest source of revenue.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links