Tag: contaminated

Part 3: Living With Dioxin Delays

  • Mitch Larson lives in Saginaw's Riverside neighborhood, which saw a large dioxin removal project last year. His home is on the banks of Tittabawassee River. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Transcript

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Dow Chemical is not just some company in Midland, Michigan. It’s part of life there.
Dow employs thousands of people. It pays for libraries and civic gardens. A high school football team is even named “The Chemix.”

I talked with plenty of people who’ve sided with Dow over the dioxin pollution issue. One works right across the street from the chemical plant.

“We’re in my law office and my house is two blocks south of us here.”

Bob McKellar says Dow’s been good for Midland, and, as far as he’s concerned, the federal government’s been trashing the town.

McKellar: “Dow, rightfully so, takes the position that, you know, ‘why are you always picking on us? We agree we’ve done some of this and we agree we’ll help clean it up.’ But then the EPA comes back and says, ‘well, you’re not doing enough.'”

Allee: “But the EPA says they’ve been dealing with the issue for 30 years.”

McKellar: “It’s because the EPA’s had the fist out – they haven’t come with a little bouquet of flowers and say, ‘okay folks, let’s sit down and talk about this and let’s get this thing done right.’”

McKellar says, getting things done right means the government should pay for a big hunk of any dioxin cleanup. It’s only fair – because he thinks pollution in the river and soil is overblown, and the EPA’s the one overblowing it.

Downstream, fewer people work at the Dow plant. They see less benefit, but they live with more dioxin pollution.

“Well, This is the Tittabawassee River. This is my homestead.”

I’m with Mitch Larson. He lives 20 miles downstream from Midland. His home’s in a woodsy part of Saginaw.

“When I bought this place, I was thinking that this would be a great place for kids to grow up. As they grew up, it was a right of passage to swim across the river. You know, I’d swim alongside them, you’d swim across to the other bank, and you’d have them sign their name in the sand, you know, you did it.”

The Tittabawassee River floods, and it left silt and traces of dioxin on Larson’s yard, but he didn’t know that until the state government tested his soil and found the dioxin.

They even tested his pet chickens and the eggs he fed his kids.

Larson: “They tested those also.”

Allee: “What did they tell you?”

Larson: “Don’t eat them. Chickens eat the dirt. The dirt was where the dioxin was, and eggs were full of dioxin. So, for the past couple years, every egg we ate was like a little shot of dioxin.”

He got rid of the chickens, of course, but he had to have a talk with his teenage girls. A report said the dioxin put them at risk for having kids with birth defects.

“You know, when they were all tested for the dioxin, I told them they were all high in dioxin and I had information about, you know, about the child-bearing thing. It put them at risk for having kids. You know, it’s not a good feeling.”

Larson and one hundred seventy two other plaintiffs sued Dow to pay for follow-up medical monitoring.

The courts said no.

Six years after dioxin was first found on the property, Dow chemical paid to clean and re-sod Larson’s lawn. He says it looks great, but he worries another flood’s gonna leave behind dioxin.

Right now, Dow and the EPA are negotiating an agreement that might make Dow clean up river sediment.

“If it takes them thirty years to clean this river up so it’s clean for the next 200 years, it’d be worth it. People are fishing, kids are swimming across the river to show, you know, they’re a bad-ass.”

Larson says he’d welcome that future – even if it cost Dow a lot of money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 2: Foot Dragging Produces Dioxin Delays

  • The southeast corner of the Dow Chemical plant, from the vantage of Midland's Whiting Overlook Park, which features an homage to and history of the company and its founder. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

Transcript

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

If you want to see an environmentalist kinda lose his cool – talk to James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council.

And bring up dioxin pollution.

Clift: “Um, it’s … people are think, frustrated. It is my entire career of working environmental protection in Michigan, this has been an issue. I’ve been doing this for over twenty years, and from day one I’ve been sitting on meetings about this site.”

Allee: “You’d rather work on something else? Birds or something?”

Clift: “I’d rather work on something else.”

Clift is frustrated with people who could have wrapped this up.

“I believe that each administration at both the state and federal level is culpable in failing to move this forward.”

When I talked to federal and state officials about this, they did some serious finger-pointing.

Let’s start with Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Chester says when people first learned about the dioxin problem at Dow’s chemical plant, the federal government was the lead regulator.

That changed.

“The federal government wanted to transition and hand the project off to the state of Michigan and we were in fact given this corrective action authority in the mid-nineties, and so there was a period of time quite frankly, the agencies didn’t take advantage of moving a little bit quicker.”

Actually, it took Michigan almost ten years to re-license the Dow chemical plant. That meant the state was slow to find out exactly where old dioxin pollution was in the river system, so some people didn’t know there was dioxin in their yards until the past few years. That’s decades after dioxins got into local rivers.

But what about the US Environmental Protection Agency?

Several former officials said the polluter, Dow, slowed things down.

One of these who would go on the record is Mary Gade. She led the EPA office that regulated Dow. Now, in the past we’ve reported Gade said she was fired by the Bush Administration because she got tough with Dow.

The EPA wouldn’t comment on that.

But even today, Gade says Dow slowed down the clean-up.


“I think this corporation is hugely adept at playing the system and understanding how to build in delays and use the bureaucracy to their advantage and to use the political system to their advantage.”

A confidential memo leaked from the EPA says when Dow didn’t like what Michigan’s technical staff had to say, they’d go higher up and try to get rules changed.

For a month, I requested comment from Dow. A spokeswoman said the company is interested in talking about the future, not the past.

People who’ve watched this say, there’s been plenty of foot-dragging.

But why should this dioxin cleanup even matter to people who don’t live there? It’s Michigan’s problem, right?

Well, James Clift, that environmentalist, says, no, there’s a long list of toxic waste sites across the country. And Clift worries the government gets bogged down with big, slow cleanups.

“If they’re not even getting to the big ones which are known to everyone as known as causing widespread problems, that means they’re not getting to the medium sized ones and they’re not getting to the small ones.”

But there seems to be some progress. Recently, the EPA, the State of Michigan, and Dow came to a tentative agreement about cleaning up the dioxin pollution.

That means there’s at least one more delay, that would be public comment until mid-December.

That’s one delay many people don’t mind.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 1: A Long History of Dioxin Delays

  • In 1981, Valdus Adamkus was appointed to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. One of his jobs jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled a report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution. (Photo source: Dantadd at Wikimedia Commons)

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

Transcript

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Valdus Adamkus to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. From the get-go, one of Adamkus’ jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled this report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution.

Adamkus says his bosses in Washington called this report “trash.”

Adamkus: “We simply refused to retreat from our findings.”

Allee: “Did they ask you to retreat from your findings?”

Adamkus: “Yes, unfortunately we almost got instructions, let’s use a very mild word, to change our report. And that brought us Congressional hearings, which probably the entire country was watching on TV networks.”

Koeppel (ABC Archive ): “An official at the EPA today said the Dow chemical company was allowed to participate in the redrafting of a report on dioxin contamination that had been critical of Dow. And that official charged that Dow’s involvement was at the direction of the EPA’s acting chief.”

That was March 18, 1983, and ABC’s Ted Koeppel wasn’t the only one covering the Congressional hearings.

All the TV outlets caught this line from Adamkus –

Adamkus ( ABC Archive ): “It’s unethical, unusual, unprofessional to get the internal document approved by outside company.”

So, higher-ups in the EPA allowed Dow to edit the report critical of the company. But, in some ways, Adamkus won. His boss got ousted and Ronald Reagan gave Adamkus a civil service award for integrity.

As for Dow Chemical’s involvement?

For a month, I asked for comment.

A Dow spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future, not the past.

Adamkus eventually left the EPA and he became President of Lithuania. But back in the US, there was a surprising follow-up to his fight over dioxin.

Mary Gade was a young staff attorney back when Adamkus was on TV. Twenty-three years later, President George W. Bush appointed her to Adamkus’ old job. When Gade arrived – dioxin was still a problem in Michigan.

“My staff in the region characterized this as probably the worst dioxin contamination in the country.”

And, she saw it as a national issue.

“You’d like to expect that your government will function appropriately, that corporations will act responsibly and that you can be assured of a safe and healthy environment for you and your family.”

So, Gade ordered Dow Chemical to clean up some hot spots.

“They would either do the work themselves or the federal government would go forward and do it on their own, and then go back and sue Dow to cover our costs.”

Michigan politicians complained about Gade, and some state officials felt some of her actions were counterproductive. In May 2008, she was forced to resign.

Gade told the Chicago Tribune, it was for being tough on Dow.

The EPA hasn’t commented on that, and Dow denies any involvement.

Recently, Mary Gade’s old boss, Valdus Adamkus, returned to his old EPA office to say hello. He asked about the dioxin problem in Michigan, and he learned it’s still around – after all these years, and after all the trouble he and Mary Gade got from it.

“When I hear from them what enforcement actions are being still considered, and that they are not big progress in that respect, that’s what really bothers me and to me this is inexcusable.”

Dow and the EPA are negotiating a final resolution on cleanup right now.

But Valdus Adamkus knows details need to be worked out, and he says all of this has been promised before.

“God help them. I hope this is really coming to the end.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Milk and Manure in the Dairy State

  • Regulators in Wisconsin say, for the most part, their big dairy farms are doing a good job with manure management. They say most of their water quality problems come from smaller farms in the state - farms that are not monitored as closely. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

The dairy industry often uses images
of cows grazing in a green pasture.
But that’s not how most dairy farms
look these days. Instead of green
pastures, thousands of cows are penned
up in huge metal pole barns. The
mechanization of dairies makes for
cheaper milk at the grocery store.
But, in many places around the country,
it’s also meant a lot of pollution.
Mark Brush visited a place where they
say big dairies are doing it right:

Transcript

The dairy industry often uses images
of cows grazing in a green pasture.
But that’s not how most dairy farms
look these days. Instead of green
pastures, thousands of cows are penned
up in huge metal pole barns. The
mechanization of dairies makes for
cheaper milk at the grocery store.
But, in many places around the country,
it’s also meant a lot of pollution.
Mark Brush visited a place where they
say big dairies are doing it right:

(sound of a farm)

Tom Crave and his brothers run this dairy in central Wisconsin. Crave says, when they first started out, he and his brothers were single, they had 80 cows and a used car.

Now, they have around a 1,000 cows and families to look after. He says they had to get big to survive.

“It takes a lot of money to live. That’s what’s… that’s what’s driven this here. It’s just basic economics.”

It’s a theme farmers all over the country have been hearing for decades. Get big or get out. You can’t make money unless you grow.

The Crave Brothers milk their 1,000 cows three times a day. They use automated milking machines. And they turn that milk into cheese that they make across the street in their cheese factory.

But milk is not the only thing cows produce. These farms deal with millions of gallons of liquid manure.

Most farms store the manure in lagoons – basically huge pits of waste contained by earthen berms. Then, when these lagoons fill up, they spray or inject the liquid manure onto the ground as fertilizer for crops. It’s also the main way they have to get rid of all that waste.

Sometimes these big dairy farms have problems. Liquid manure runs off the crop land, contaminating rivers and lakes. And, in some cases, the earthen berms holding back the manure has leaked or given way, releasing a wave of manure, causing huge fish kills or polluting well water.

But regulators here say the Crave Brothers have been doing a good job taking care of their manure. As have most of the other big dairy farms in Wisconsin. That’s in part because these farms actively regulated in the state.

Gordon Stevenson is the Chief Runoff Manager for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

“It is not coming from these largest farms for the most part. The manure management on our 30,000 other smaller farms can be a good bit worse, and those people are not regulated.”

Dairy farms that have fewer than 700 milking cows usually are not regulated under the Clean Water Act until there’s a major problem. And some farms stay under 700 cows to avoid regulations.

“When we encounter environmental problems associated with one of these smaller farms, they can be offered cost share assistance. They’re largely voluntary programs.”

If Stevenson finds a smaller farm that’s polluting, he can offer them some state money to fix the problem. But, beyond that, he says there’s not much his office can do. As a result, some smaller farms pollute.

Jamie Saul is with Midwest Environmental Advocates. His group has represented people who were sickened from well water contaminated by manure. Saul says, there have been some problems with bigger farms in the state, but he admits the bigger challenge is how to control pollution coming from smaller, unregulated farms.

He says just offering them money to clean up is not good enough.

“We are the habit now of paying, and I think it’s pretty unique to the agricultural industry, that we pay them to reduce their pollution. Most other industries we don’t do that. We expect whatever industry it is to come into compliance with whatever standards are needed to protect the environment and public health.”

Saul says all states needs better policies to keep small farms from polluting. He says the regulations have to have that magic mix of stopping water pollution without putting too much burden on small farmers.


While Wisconsin regulators seem to be keeping an eye on their bigger farms, environmental activists say that’s not the case in other states. They say Clean Water Act rules are often not enforced against livestock farms – big or small – and that puts the environment and people’s health at risk.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Atrazine in Our Water

  • Downstream view of Roberts Creek, IA, where USGS scientists conducted a study of the degradation of atrazine, a herbicide, in streams. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)

People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:

Transcript

People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:

Bob Denges is worried. His water is discolored. So he’s
called a water purification company to test it.

(sound of running water)

They’re running water in the basement utility sink. It’s kind
of orange-y looking. So, it’s an easy diagnosis: too much
iron.

“You can probably see in the toilet, upstairs just on the first
floor, that there’s some brownish, reddish discoloration
around the toilets.”

That’s not great. But at least you can tell when there’s iron
in the water. You cannot see or taste other water
contaminants such as weed killers like atrazine.

Tom Bruusema is the water filter expert at the National
Sanitation Foundation. They test and certify water filtration
devices. He says the first place you can check is your local
municipality – the folks that monitor water in your area.

“That would be the place to start. They are required, by
federal law, to measure a number of contaminants, produce
an annual report for their consumers.”

But recently an investigative report by the New York Times
revealed water contamination can spike in some places –
and local water officials might not even know about it.

That weed killer – atrazine – is applied on farm fields and, in a
lot of places, you also find a lot of atrazine in the water
during that time.

If you’re looking for it at the right time.

Sometimes it spikes for longer than a month. But some local
water officials only test for atrazine once a month, or only
once a year, and often it’s not during that peak application
season.

So people can’t really find out about atrazine levels for their
drinking water in those places.

Some water systems are spending lots of money to treat
drinking water to get atrazine levels down to what the federal
government considers safe levels.

But that might not be enough, according to some of the new
scientific evidence about atrazine.

Five studies published in peer-reviewed journals recently
have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of
atrazine in drinking water causes health problems. Even at
levels considered safe by federal standards, atrazine might
be associated with birth defects. Things like low birth
weights in newborns. Skull and facial malformations and
misshapen limbs.

Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued
atrazine’s manufacturers. They want to force the company
Syngenta and its partner Growmark to pay for removing the
chemical from drinking water.

Steve Tillery is an attorney in the lawsuit.

“Some of them have gone to the expense to cleaning it
completely out of their water supplies, so that it doesn’t exist
at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to
reimbursement of expenses for cleaning it completely out of
their water supplies.”

But, some water systems are not cleaning out atrazine
completely. And, as we mentioned, there are times when
some don’t know they exceed the federal safe drinking water
levels.

There is something pretty easy you can do if you’re worried
about your water.

Tom Bruusema of the National Sanitation Foundation says a
simple carbon filter can remove atrazine. Those are the
filters you can attach to the faucet or the pitchers you refill.

“So it’s a good investment. Certainly can help them if they
have those kinds of concerns, and particularly those living in
an area that’s known to have potential contaminants in the
water supply.”

But first people have to be aware of a possible problem.
And, too often, they are not.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

A Hidden Danger in the Garden

  • Reporter Karen Kelly and her daughter, Hannah, gather soil from their garden to be tested for toxins. (Photo by Karen Kelly)

All over the country, first-time
gardeners are harvesting their ripe
tomatoes and leafy greens. Gardening –
especially in cities – is thriving.
But Karen Kelly reports on a hidden
danger that isn’t always easy to detect:

Transcript

All over the country, first-time
gardeners are harvesting their ripe
tomatoes and leafy greens. Gardening –
especially in cities – is thriving.
But Karen Kelly reports on a hidden
danger that isn’t always easy to detect:

(sound of little girl in garden)

It’s our first vegetable garden and my daughter and I are looking for some ripe veggies to have for dinner.

It was the highlight of our summer – planting the cucumbers and the eggplant and watching the tomato vines grow higher and higher until we couldn’t even reach the top.

Then I read a story that they had discovered lead in the White House vegetable garden. Exposure to too much lead can cause brain damage, especially in children. And as I read the description of the type of yard that would likely contain lead, I realized that our garden met all of the criteria.

We live in a house more than 50 years old. It’s in an older neighborhood that would have been exposed to residue from leaded gasoline. And we live in a fairly large city -Ottawa, Canada – near a busy road.

So I decided to get our soil tested for lead.

(sound of phone call)

I started by calling the city and other government agencies– no luck. I tried looking for labs in the yellow pages. Those didn’t work out. I moved on to garden centers, a local university, and a local research farm. No one could talk to me.

Finally, I got in touch with a lead expert in Indianapolis, Indiana. He asked me to send him some samples in plastic lunch bags.

“Okay, I just scraped off a place with no wood chips. Okay, so we tested the eggplant, the tomatoes, the lettuce and the cucumbers. Well, we need to do the peppers too, because the peppers are way over here.”

I sent the bags to Gabriel Fillipelli at Indiana University-Purdue University – and waited impatiently. Ripe tomatoes and cucumbers were piling up.

Finally, he got back to us.

“What I found with the samples you took from your soil was relatively high lead values. I was a little bit surprised. Some of them were actually above the EPA levels for playground soils, which is 400 parts per million.”

Great. I figure there’s no chance we could eat these vegetables. But Fillipelli says that’s not the case.

“The other vegetables, like the cucumbers, the eggplants, and peppers – they have very resistant outer skin so as long as you wash them well, very little lead can absorb inside those. The biggest risk you find with vegetables is not lead being sucked up by the roots and poisoning you, it’s actually the soil particles that cling on to the some of these vegetables, meaning beets or carrots or potatoes or, strangely enough, lettuce.”

In terms of children, Fillipelli says the real problem is letting them play in the bare dirt. He actually says covering it with grass or mulch would be safer.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t grow vegetables in a city. You can use containers, or build raised beds with clean soil, and use mulch in between.

It’s still a cheap source of healthy food, and a great way to teach kids about nature, biology and, unfortunately, pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Coal Ash Could Cause Cancer

  • Coal ash is sometimes used as an ingredient in concrete blocks (Photo source: Skepticsteve at Wikimedia Commons)

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

Transcript

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice uses data from the US Environmental Protection Agency – including a study that had been kept quiet since 2002.

Among the findings, people who live near coal ash storage ponds that are unlined, and who get their drinking water from a well, have a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from arsenic contamination.

Lisa Evans is an attorney with Earthjustice.

“It by far presents the largest risk to human health and the environment and there’s no reason to manage the waste in this way.”

The groups are calling for these storage ponds to be phased out and cleaned up in the next 5 years.

The EPA says new regulations are coming soon.

Power companies are willing to stop using storage ponds – but don’t want the coal ash classified as toxic. That would make disposal more expensive.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Drugs in the Water

  • There is some confusion about what to do with unused medications (Photo source: Shorelander at Wikimedia Commons)

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

Transcript

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

In the U.S., there are about 12,000 brand name and generic drugs on the market. And who knows how many over the counter drugs.

Scientists are finding many of these drugs in our water. Everything from caffeine, to allergy and anti-cancer drugs, to antidepressants.

Now, they’re finding these drugs at very low levels. But they’re pretty much everywhere.

An Associated Press investigation found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of more than 40 million Americans.

“You know, we don’t think it’s enough to cause public harm but honestly nobody’s sure.”

That’s Sahar Swidan. She’s a pharmacist.

Right now, Swidan’s going through a five foot tall box of prescription drugs that people have brought to her store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They might be expired, or just not needed anymore.

(sound of pill bottle shaking)


“Asthma medications, growth hormones for patients – so really the gamut could be anything and everything.”

A disposal company picks up the drugs about once a month and incinerates them.

Swidan’s drug take-back program is pretty rare. Many pharmacies are not set up to collect unused drugs.

One reason is, it takes a lot of work. Swidan has to sort through the drugs and make sure there aren’t any controlled substances – things like narcotics. It’s illegal for pharmacies to take these back in most cases.

The Drug Enforcement Agency is talking about revising their disposal rules for controlled substances. But for now you usually have to get rid of them yourself. So, how do you do that?

You can dissolve pills or caplets in water, and mix in kitty litter or coffee grounds. That’s to make the stuff look gross and undesirable. Then dump it all into ziptop bags, wrap it up in duct tape, and throw it away.

But to make things more complicated, there’s still a short list of drugs that you’re supposed to flush down the drain. The Food and Drug Administration says the drugs on this list are too dangerous to toss in the trash.

Connie Jung is with the FDA’s pharmacy affairs department. She says the drug label will tell you if you’re supposed to flush them.

“For the small number of prescription drugs that have flushing recommendations they have these because the drugs are strong narcotic pain relievers or other controlled substances. These drugs can be dangerous to those who aren’t supposed to be taking them, particularly children or pets.”

Jung says the FDA is currently reviewing disposal methods for these kinds of drugs… because flushing them down the toilet is starting to raise some questions.

An even bigger problem is that most of the drug residues getting into our water are coming from drugs we take and excrete.

Bryan Brooks is a researcher at Baylor University. He recently found low levels of seven drugs in fish caught near wastewater treatment plants. He says these sewer plants just can’t filter out drugs.

“These wastewater treatment facilities were largely not designed to treat to really ultra low levels. Compounds like birth control medications can be active at low part per trillion levels.”

Right now Brooks is trying to sort out what effects drugs are having on fish.

Hormones like estrogen appear to be feminizing male fish. Antidepressants might change how fish behave. And no one’s sure how drugs might be affecting our drinking water.

Brooks says one thing that can be done at the treatment plant is adding reverse osmosis filters. But they’re expensive.

Brooks says there’s not much we can do about excreting drugs, but at the very least we shouldn’t be flushing drugs down the drain.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Rocket Fuel Chemical in Baby Formula

  • The CDC has found perchlorate, a chemical from rocket fuel, in baby formula. (Photo courtesy of TSA.gov)

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control have found perchlorate in baby formula. It’s a chemical used in rocket fuel. It’s been linked to thyroid problems and it can interfere with a baby’s development. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

The Centers for Disease Control has found perchlorate in baby formula. It’s a chemical used in rocket fuel. It’s been linked to thyroid problems and it can interfere with a baby’s development. Rebecca Williams has more:

The CDC researchers tested 45 samples of baby formula and perchlorate turned up in all of them. They found it in really small amounts. But they did find formula made from cow’s milk had the highest levels and soy-based formula and synthetic formula had much lower levels.

Perchlorate has also been found in breast milk.

Dr. Josh Schier is one of the study’s authors.

“CDC still recommends that mothers’ breast milk is the best nutrition for a developing infant. Now the Food and Drug Administration, you have to remember, requires infant formulas to contain iodine and iodine can potentially help to offset effects of perchlorate on the thyroid.”

The American Thyroid Association says women who are pregnant or nursing should check with their doctor about taking an iodine supplement.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

‘Beefalo’ vs. Buffalo

  • Some American bison are contaminated with cow genes. The genes are left over from the early days of cross-breeding. (Photo by Paul Frederickson, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In iconic images of the Great Plains, you always see the land dotted with bison. Those bison helped make the prairies what they were. But the bison that you see on prairie preserves today are not exactly the same as the ones that once roamed the plains. The Environment Report’s Charity Nebbe has more:

Transcript

We have a handful of ranchers to thank for the fact that we have any bison today. At one point there were only about a thousand and now there are half a million. Bob Hamilton is the Director of the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma. He says the ranchers who saved the bison also put them at risk.

“Part of their motivation was also to see if they could cross breed bison with domestic livestock to see if they could produce a hardier winter resistant ‘beefalo’.”

The beefalo were not hardy and the ranchers abandoned their project, but the cattle genes remain. Bob Hamilton’s herd consists of 2,700 bison. Thanks to genetic testing, Hamilton has been able to weed out all of the bison carrying the most damaging kind of cattle DNA. But, there is some genetic material he just can’t get rid of. Chances are, there will always be a little bit of beef in the buffalo.

For the Environment Report I’m Charity Nebbe.

Related Links