The EPA and other agencies want to spend $475 million on the Great Lakes
(Photo by Karen Holland, courtesy of the EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s budget has a lot of
money for green energy projects,
dealing with climate change and
creating green jobs. But Lester
Graham reports the EPA will also
deal with old fashioned environmental
issues such as pollution:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s budget has a lot of
money for green energy projects,
dealing with climate change and
creating green jobs. But Lester
Graham reports the EPA will also
deal with old fashioned environmental
issues such as pollution:
Cleaning up air and water pollution almost seem passe’ after hearing about all of President Obama’s shiny green plans.
But cleaning up past messes is still a priority.
The EPA’s budget is 10.5 billion dollars. In a release, the agency highlighted a plan for the Great Lakes.
The EPA and other agencies want to spend 475-million dollars to clean up polluted bays, stop raw sewage from spilling into the lakes and deal with other ongoing problems.
Andy Buchsbaum heads up the Great Lakes office for the National Wildlife Federation. He says early signs indicate this item in the President’s budget will stick in Congress.
“They haven’t given final approval, but both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that include this 475-million dollars for the Great Lakes.”
And there’s also money to work on the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other big bodies of water around the nation.
One lawyer wants a class action suit against the manufacturer of Atrazine, an herbicide used on crops (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Transcript
Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:
Lester Graham: Mr. Tillery, what’s this lawsuit about, if the level is less than the 3-parts-per-billion the government says is safe?
Steve Tillery: Well, actually, at different times of the year, Atrazine does in fact exceed the federal standard. The federal government refers to MCL – maximum contaminant level – and that’s the maximum, they say, a chemical should exist in the water supply to be consumed by people in the community. The maximum contaminant level for Atrazine is 3-parts-per-billion. Many times, throughout the Spring, throughout Illinois and other Mid-Western cities, the levels grossly exceed 3-parts-per-billion. So what happens is that the cities, the water districts, are required to pay large amounts of money to filter the water so it is below that level. In addition, some have gone to the expense of completely cleaning it out of their water supplies. So that it doesn’t exist at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred for completely cleaning it out of their water supplies.
Graham: Scientists that worked, then, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association told me that during the application season, during the Spring, that they measured levels of Atrazine exceeding the safe drinking water levels in the rain on the East Coast from all of the application in the Midwest. Rather than just cleaning it up, is this not a problem of too much Atrazine – maybe we limit the amount?
Tillery: Well, the issue is whether or not it should be banned completely. The European Union has done exactly that. For all of the reasons that people look at – scientists look at – this chemical and point to the adverse health affects, changes to the environment, all of those reasons, the Europeans banned it some years ago.
Graham: The defense in most cases like this is: this is a regulated product, the label is the law, if it isn’t applied correctly, it’s the applicator – the farmer’s – fault; and if it is applied according to the label, the government says it’s safe.
Tillery: Yeah, we’re not safe. For two reasons. First of all, it’s not a problem with farmers. Farmers are doing exactly what is on the label. They are applying it precisely the way the manufacturer says it should be applied. So they’re not the issue. The problem is the manufacturer. To the extent that we rely on federal regulators to do the right thing, we are misdirected in this instance. For many years, the relationship between Syngenta – the principle manufacturer of this chemical – and the EPA has been under close scrutiny. And I’m hopeful that it’s reevaluated and examined under this new administration. Big corporations, in this case from Switzerland, who come here and sell this and make enormous profits in this country selling this chemical – 77 million pounds a year, average. When they make that money, and they cause taxpayers to incur $400 million a year in expense throughout the US to clean up their mess, they should be the ones that come back and reimburse them. We aren’t asking for anything else besides that. We are asking for compensation to these cities who’ve incurred this expense. The people who create the mess should pay for its cleanup. People should not be drinking water with Atrazine in it, at any level.
Graham: Steve Tillery is an attorney seeking class-action status trying to make the manufacturers of Atrazine pay to clean up the water their product contaminates. Thanks for your time.
Tillery: Thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.
Argonne researchers and technicians are
tracking how well poplar trees are containing and removing
toxic solvents (such as Trichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane,
and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene) from underground
water. Pictured here are Cristina Negri, Lawrence Moss, John Quinn,
Rob Piorkowski.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
rgonne National Laboratory planted
800 poplar trees to remediate land that had been
contaminated with toxic solvents. To ensure the tree
roots suck up polluted groundwater, Argonne researchers
manipulate the trees into sending roots far deeper
than they normally do.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:
Transcript
When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:
Argonne National Laboratory is a Big Science kinda place.
It’s a federal lab southwest of Chicago where they study particle physics, nuclear energy, and
advanced environmental clean-up.
The irony is, the place has been around so long, it’s now cleaning up its own environmental
messes.
In fact, it’s Larry Moss’s job. He takes me to a toxic waste site where trees help clean the soil.
More on those trees in a sec – first, here’s why Larry Moss needs them.
“This site was a very busy site back in the 50s and 60s. We had a large manufacturing process
for reactor components – did a lot of testing of reactor assemblies and different fuel mixtures. And to
do that you had to clean all that equipment and a lot of that solvent came down here.
There was a unit that was called a French drain, which basically was a trench filled with gravel. They would come down here and dump chemicals into this trench, and their theory was it would dissolve into the ground. They
thought it would just go away.”
Those solvents did not go away. They leeched into underground water.
The solvents potentially cause cancer and other problems, so the government said Argonne
needed to do something about the mess.
Researcher Christina Negri lays out what the options were.
“Put a parking lot on top of the pollution area
and basically leave it there forever. The other extreme, it would have been: dig out the soil, take it
somewhere – where you haven’t changed much. You’ve moved it from here to a landfill. That’s not the solution as
well.”
Those options – covering it up or carting it off – are also expensive.
So, Argonne researchers figured they’d try something new.
Negri says they hope to eliminate pollution on site – with the help of poplar trees.
Negri: “We’re taking advantage of a trait that these trees have to
go about finding water.”
Allee: “Let me get a closer look at a tree, here.”
Negri: “What you have to picture in your mind – See the height of the tree?”
Allee: “I’m looking at one that’s as tall as a three story walk-up building I live in.”
Negri: “You have to flip it 180 degrees and imagine the roots are going down that deep.”
Negri says they coaxed the roots into going straight down instead of spreading out. It seems to
work; the poplar trees are sucking water out of the ground and taking up solvent.
“Part of it is degraded within the plant. Part of it goes out into the air, which sounds like an
ominous thing to say, right? But if you do your calculations right, there’s much less risk when
these compounds are in the air than there is when they’re down 30 feet below.”
Negri’s team hopes the poplar trees will be more sustainable and cheaper than alternatives, but
they’re likely to be slower.
After all, it took years for the trees to grow. That’s fine for Argonne, because no one’s at risk – but that’s
not the case everywhere.
“Arguably, this is not the remedy you would adopt if you had, like, a tank spill or something that
you really need to go in right away, clean up and be done very quickly. It’s not a remedy if there’s
anybody’s at risk.”
This isn’t the only attempt to use plants to clean up toxic waste. The science behind it is called
‘phytoremediation.’
In other examples, scientists tried alpine pennycress to clean up zinc, and pigweed to suck up
radioactive cesium.
Negri says the trick is to use the right plant for the right toxin and know whether the plants stays
toxic, too.
Still, she says, toxic waste is such a big problem, it’s good to have lots of tools in your clean-up
toolbox.
Phosphorus has been banned from laundry detergents, but has not been banned from dishwasher detergents (Source: Piotrus at Wikimedia Commons)
Add another state banning the
use of a pollutant in dishwashing
detergent. Rick Pluta reports it will
help clear up environmental problems
in rivers and lakes:
Transcript
Add another state banning the
use of a pollutant in dishwashing
detergent. Rick Pluta reports it will
help clear up environmental problems
in rivers and lakes:
Well, there are dead zones in other places, including the Great Lakes.
One of the big culprits is phosphorus. It seeps into the water, and promotes the growth of
algae that chokes out other species.
Phosphorus was removed from laundry detergent back in the 1970s. But that was back
before there were a lot of automatic dishwashers, so dishwasher soap wasn’t part of the
ban.
Now, regulators are starting to catch up.
Michigan just joined at least 8 other states that have ordered phosphorus to be phased out
of dishwasher detergent.
The manufacturers aren’t arguing – some have already started eliminating phosphorus in
their products.
But there are still plenty of other ways that phosphorus is leeching into lakes, rivers, and
streams. The most common cause is agricultural fertilizers.
Dredgers, a group that gets together to canoe on the Gowanus, hope that if people see the state of the canal, they'll be inspired to help clean it up (Photo by Samara Freemark)
A group of New Yorkers is trying
to convince people to get out on one of
the most polluted bodies of water in the
country – literally out there, in canoes.
Samara Freemark reports that they hope once
people see the water up close, they’ll
realize just how dirty it is. And maybe
then they’ll help clean it up:
Transcript
A group of New Yorkers is trying to convince people to get out on one of the most
polluted bodies of water in the country- literally out there, in canoes. Samara
Freemark reports that they hope once people see the water up close, they’ll realize
just how dirty it is. And maybe then they’ll help clean it up:
(sound of water, paddling)
You wouldn’t believe the stuff people have pulled out of the Gowanus Canal.
Refrigerators. Bathtubs, rusted cars. A 5000 pound dead whale. A suitcase full of
human body parts. Sewage floods into the canal all the time. So you see everything
people flush down their toilets. The water itself is a sickly, opaque green.
And that’s just the stuff you can see. The canal used to be a dumping ground for the
factories that line it. And the sediment at the bottom is still full of a laundry list of
toxic chemicals: cyanide, mercury, lead, asbestos. Scientists found strains of
gonorrhea in a water sample just last year.
And I’m sitting in a canoe in the middle of it.
(water noise, “Ewww, oh, God, gross. It’s like a subway down here.”)
The Gowanus is a 2 mile long trough of murky water that flows into the New York
Harbor – though the word ‘flowing ‘ is a bit optimistic, since the water mostly just sits
there.
You wouldn’t think anyone would want to canoe in this kind of water – much less
see it as a good way to spend a lazy summer afternoon.
(Laughs.) “ My first day was like, hell no. I knew it was going to be nasty.” (Laughs.)
That’s Alex Kovaleski. She’s a Dredger, a member of a group that gets together to
canoe the Gowanus.
“But I’m always looking for an adventure or a way to see things from a new
perspective, so I went out. And then I started having dreams about it, and it was all
over.”
Kovaleski knew she had to do something.
So almost every summer weekend she and the Dredgers gather at a makeshift pier
and paddle up and down the canal.
They invite others along. Anyone who shows up can jump in a borrowed canoe and
take it for a paddle. They get a lot of first-timers, New Yorkers who have heard about
the trips and come for the novelty or to get a taste of nature in this most urban of
cities.
That’s why Stephen Kline and Beatrice Aranow came. This is their first time at a
Dredgers event. I speak with them on the pier, before they step into a canoe. They
say they came because they love nature, they love being out on the water, and they
want to see their city from a whole new perspective.
Stephen and Beatrice are in for a big surprise. Twenty minutes later, they had their
new perspective.
(talking over each other) “ There were like dead rats, turds. It was a lot worse than I
could have ever imagined. It wasn’t that mysterious. I actually thought I was going
to have a pleasant time going out but it was pretty intense. It was repulsive.”
This doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of the Dredgers.
But Alex says Stephen and Beatrice’s reaction isn’t that bad – it’s actually kind of the
point.
“Part of it is just being out there with the poop and the trash, like, hah, here it is,
there’s no getting away from it. When you’re in it, you’re naturally longing to see it
restored.”
A week later I came back to the Gowanus canal for another Dredgers event. This
one’s a cleanup day, and volunteers are out with rubber gloves and bags, picking up
trash. It’s kind of a festive scene- there’s music and free pizza. And there’s a group of
high schoolers who came to spend the day canoeing and helping out.
(students talking about canoeing, cleaning)
Alex says those students are who the Dredgers really want to reach. The Gowanus
isn’t going to be clean anytime soon. But those kids are going to grow up, and they’re
going to be tax payers and voters. Soon they’re going to make the decisions that
decide the future of the canal.
Reporter Karen Kelly's daughter making safer cleaning products at home (Photo by Karen Kelly)
Most people probably don’t enjoy
cleaning. But we’ve all got to do it.
And if you’ve ever looked at the household
cleaner aisle in the grocery store, you
know there can be some pretty strong
chemicals involved. Karen Kelly reports
on a cheaper, chemical-free alternative:
Transcript
Most people probably don’t enjoy
cleaning. But we’ve all got to do it.
And if you’ve ever looked at the household
cleaner aisle in the grocery store, you
know there can be some pretty strong
chemicals involved. Karen Kelly reports
on a cheaper, chemical-free alternative:
(sound of store)
I’ve just arrived at my neighborhood grocery store with a plan: to find what I
need to make my own household cleaners.
I head over to the cleaning aisle and pull out a list of ingredients I got off the
internet.
I see borax and
washing soda on the shelf.
They`re both made from naturally-occuring minerals and cost about five bucks
each for a 4 to 5 pound box.
I look around for soap flakes – to make my own dish soap – and find a big bar I
can grate myself.
The only thing missing is castile soap. It’s a biodegradable soap used in a lot of
these recipes.
I’ll grab that next at the natural foods store.
To be honest, I never paid that much attention to the ingredients in household
cleaner – until I used something with dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride on
my bathtub. It comes with warnings.
I rinsed it and took a bath. My 4-year-old also took a bath.
And we both ended up with a very itchy skin rash.
That convinced me. I had to find a safer way to clean the tub that, number one,
worked. And number two, wasn’t too expensive.
Which pretty much meant I’d have to make it myself.
We decided to start with the all-purpose cleaner.
Karen Kelly: “Okay. We need borax, which we have, castile soap, hot water.”
Child: “We have that! We can just turn on the sink and make hot water!”
Kelly: “And vinegar.”
Child: “We have, do we have vinegar?”
Kelly: “Yes.”
Child: “And Mom, we have hot water.”
We mix up a recipe I found on the David Suzuki Foundation’s website.
(sound of stirring and banging)
They’ve got a whole bunch of do-it-yourself recipes for bathtub scrubbers,
laundry soap, furniture polish, you name it.
Lindsay Coulter is the person who devised these concoctions.
She says a lot of people forget that you don’t need fancy products to get your
house clean.
“You know, if you talk to your grandmothers or your great-aunts, you’ll find that
they too used things like washing soda, baking soda, white vinegar, and a basic
castile soap. Things like vinegar – it’s acidic and helps lift grease and
deodorizes. A lot of the things you’re cooking with anyways, so you probably
already have it in your kitchen. And the benefit? Just peace of mind that you
know what goes into it.”
But does it work? It’s time to find out.
(sound of spraying)
We spray. We wipe. The bathroom sink shines.
Next, we try the bath tub scrubber. It’s a mix of castile soap, vinegar – which is
a natural disinfectant – baking soda, and water.
(sound of cleaning the tub)
The tub looks great, actually. And you know what? This is a lot cheaper.
Brand name all-purpose cleaning sprays are about 4 bucks a bottle where I live.
It cost me just a dollar – and about 5 minutes – to fill that same bottle with my
own mix.
So it’s cheap, it’s easy to make, and, best of all, I don’t have to worry about chemical reaction after a soak
in the tub.
Jim Gilligan, president of Snedicor’s Cleaners, made the big switch to liquid silicone (Photo by Kyle Norris)
There’s a push in the dry cleaning
industry to become more environmentally
friendly. But this change can be a big risk
for business owners. Kyle Norris talks to
one dry cleaner who has made the change.
And he says he’s not looked back yet:
Transcript
There’s a push in the dry cleaning
industry to become more environmentally
friendly. But this change can be a big risk
for business owners. Kyle Norris talks to
one dry cleaner who has made the change.
And he says he’s not looked back yet:
Jim Gilligan is president of Snedicor’s Cleaners.
And for years, his business has used a chemical called perchloroethylene to
clean clothes. Actually, let’s just call it ‘perc’ which is what everyone calls
it. But Gilligan says he did not like perc, for lots of reasons. For one thing,
he had to store the chemical in these big tanks.
“It was hard to deal with, it was heavily regulated, there was potential for
spills and other types of disasters.”
Perc is a toxic air contaminant. There’s evidence it can cause cancer, as well
as liver and kidney damage. Contact with perc can cause lots of problems
like nausea, dizziness, skin irritation, loss of consciousness, and even death.
If perc leaks into the soil or ground water it can be a disaster. Partly because
perc is hard to extract from water.
Perc was the industry standard for years. And today about 70% of American
dry cleaners still use it. But there’s a growing movement to stop using it and
embrace greener techniques.
Gilligan had heard about some of these newer, eco-crunchier techniques. But
he’d also heard that they did not work as well as perc.
Then he visited another dry cleaning plant. Its owner had switched from
using perc to using liquid silicone. Which is basically liquefied sand.
“That gave me a confidence, right. That was, because we’d been hearing
from the industry as whole that it didn’t clean as well. And of course it’s
great moving into a green technology but if your customers wind up
dissatisfied and you go out of business, that would sort of defeat the
purpose.”
Gilligan says he was impressed with how well liquid silicone cleaned
garments. So he made the big switch. He got rid of his perc machines. And
he bought a new machine that used liquid silicone. To the tune of $80,000
bucks.
And as he gathered his employees to show them the new machine, he did
something kind of kooky.
“I actually took a little cup and I drank it.”
The liquid silicone. The stuff that cleans the clothes. Dude drank it! Says it
tasted like salty vegetable oil.
“Everyone was shocked to see that, but I just wanted to show them that how
confident I was that this was a safe technology.”
And since that shot of liquid silicone, Gilligan hasn’t had any issues. His
customers tell him they’re happy with the results. And financially he’s done
really well this year.
But not all dry cleaners are ready or willing to take this kind of risk. Dry
cleaning is a tough business to make a profit in. So plenty of cleaners want
to stick with what they know works—which for a lot of them, is using perc.
In fact, there’s a tension in the industry these days. Between the old
schoolers—cleaners who use perc. And the new schoolers—people trying
out newer, greener methods.
Chris Allsbrooks is with the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute.
“And right now our mix is changing because there’s
more people coming into the industry as some of the people with the older
views are leaving the industry.”
And the laws are changing, too. California has said that perc can no longer
be used by that state’s dry cleaners by the year 2023. And New Jersey is
considering following in California’s footsteps.
For Jim Gilligan, the switch was the just right thing to do: as a business
owner and as someone who cares about the environment. He says now, he
breathes easier. And so do his employees. And his customers say a green dry
cleaner works for them.
MIT's oil-absorbing mesh towel (Photo courtesy of MIT)
The towel being used to remove a layer of gasoline from water (Photo courtesy of MIT)
The nanowires that make up the towel (Photo courtesy of MIT)
Researchers say they’ve created a special
material that could be used to clean up oil spills
someday. Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Researchers say they’ve created a special
material that could be used to clean up oil spills
someday. Rebecca Williams has more:
The researchers say it’s sort of a magic paper towel. It looks and feels like
paper. But it’s actually a membrane made out of really tiny wires woven
together.
It repels water completely but soaks up oil.
Francesco Stellacci is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He says the thin membrane can soak up to 20 times its weight in oil.
“We put it on top of a solution that contains both oil and water and the oil gets
absorbed quite readily.”
Stellacci says the material has the potential to help clean up oil spills. But he
says real world conditions are more complicated, so they’ll still need to run
tests outside the lab.
Photograph of illuminated incandescent-replacement fluorescent bulb. (Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are one of
those classic environmental dilemmas. They’re very
efficient – they use as little as one fourth of the
energy a traditional lightbulb uses. But there’s
a twist: they have a small amount of the toxic chemical
mercury in them. Rebecca Williams takes a look at
what to do if a lightbulb breaks in your home:
Transcript
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are one of
those classic environmental dilemmas. They’re very
efficient – they use as little as one fourth of the
energy a traditional lightbulb uses. But there’s
a twist: they have a small amount of the toxic chemical
mercury in them. Rebecca Williams takes a look at
what to do if a lightbulb breaks in your home:
You can’t get around it – right now there has to be mercury in compact
fluorescent lamps, or what the experts call CFLs. The bulbs can’t produce
light without it. But mercury is toxic. It can cause brain damage and
developmental problems in fetuses and young children. And that worries
people.
The good news is: the amount of mercury in compact fluorescents is very
small. On average there are about 5 milligrams of mercury in a CFL.
That’s about what would fit on the tip of a ballpoint pen.
Jeff Krcmarik is an expert on household hazardous waste.
“There’s 100 times more mercury in a thermometer than in one CFL.”
Krcmarik says there’s absolutely no reason to panic if a bulb breaks in your
house. You just need to be careful cleaning it up.
So, let’s have the experts walk us through it. First, we’re going to have to
smash a light bulb.
“Well we have a compact fluorescent light bulb here and what we’re going to
do is break it and then bring over our methylmercury gas vapor detector to
show what exactly the exposure issue is with a broken CFL.”
Okay, here we go. And kids – don’t try this at home.
(sound of lightbulb breaking)
(high pitched whining sound of vapor detector)
“This is what we use to identify hot spots in mercury spills. Dan’s going
to wand over it.”
Dan is Dan Moody. He’s the guy with the vapor detector.
“Right now we’re showing about 936 nanograms. We like to see below
300 to 400 nanograms for mercury in the environment, particularly in a residential setting or anywhere children
would be spending time.”
Very quickly, the reading’s dropped to 304 nanograms. That’s because we’ve
got the door open and the room is vented. Moody says that level’s not
something to worry about for your average adult.
The problem is the mercury can linger in your house if you don’t clean it up
the right way.
Most importantly the experts say never, ever use a vacuum. Vacuums can
spread mercury vapor through your house.
Deb Stahler is a researcher with the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection. She recently tested the best ways to clean up broken
fluorescent bulbs.
So, when you break a bulb:
“Make sure that your pets and children and other extraneous people are out of the
room. Open a window and leave the room yourself for a little while.”
Wait about 15 minutes to let the room air out before you clean up the broken
bulb.
“So when you go back in the room then I’d recommend having stiff paper, like
index cards or even just a deck of cards, to pick up the bigger pieces.”
Here’s where good ol’ duct tape comes in. You can use it to get the last
little shards of glass off the floor. Then, put all your materials into a
glass jar with a lid, seal it up, and take it out of the house.
Although some states don’t allow it, in most states, it is legal to throw
the broken lightbulbs in the trash.
And when you go to the store to replace those lightbulbs, you do have some
choices.
Alicia Culver is with the National Green Lighting Campaign. She says
manufacturers are trying to find alternatives to mercury in fluorescent
bulbs. But for now, the best you can do is try to buy ones with lower
mercury levels.
“We’re encouraging consumers to not just buy the cheapest CFL but to look
for ones that are Energy Star rated. And Energy Star is starting to put a
mercury limit on lightbulbs that they’ll qualify and rate.”
So, the bottom line? Culver says compact fluorescents are still the best
lightbulbs to buy.
Because they’re so much more efficient, compact fluorescents cut back on
electricity use. And that reduces demand on coal-burning power plants: by
far the biggest source of mercury we’re adding to our world.
Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:
Transcript
Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:
Three years ago, a government report showed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could not assess the health risks of 85% of the chemicals in the products you probably have in your bathroom or out in the garage.
The Government Accountability Office found part of the reason then, and now, was because laws protect corporations’ secrets—over public knowledge about health risks.
On top of that other reports found the EPA was years behind in testing chemicals at all.
Now the EPA and the National Institutes of Health are going to be working together to test chemicals faster and without using lab animals.
The agencies will be testing the safety of chemicals ranging from pesticides to household cleaners to see if they harm human health.
The one problem… it will take, quote, “many years” to validate the new testing methods before the testing program can be fully implemented.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The EPA and other agencies want to spend $475 million on the Great Lakes (Photo by Karen Holland, courtesy of the EPA)
