The Environmental Protection Agency is getting some criticism from environmental groups for their partnership with the American Chemistry Council. (Photo courtesy of epa.gov)
The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental
groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on
children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams has more:
The EPA has accepted a two million dollar contribution from the American
Chemistry Council to help fund the exposure study.
Some environmental groups are saying the partnership is a conflict of
interest for the agency. Tim Kropp is a senior scientist with the
Environmental Working Group.
“It doesn’t make sense for them to say that there’s no influence, and that it’s
all right for the regulated industries to be involved in a study that’s
going to affect policy, or may affect policy.”
EPA officials counter that the study design has been independently reviewed.
And that the American Chemistry Council won’t be able to affect the outcome
of the study. Linda Sheldon is with the EPA’s human exposure and
atmospheric sciences division.
“The American Chemistry Council is independent of the individual companies
that produced these particular chemicals. We feel that we have complete
control over the study and control over the research findings.”
Sheldon says the information from the study will be used for future EPA risk
assessments of chemicals.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
To go from these chickens... (photo by Romula Zanini)
...to chicken filets requires quite a bit of processing and a lot of waste. The EPA tightened its regulations on how much pollution is allowed to get into waterways... but some critics note the regulations are not as strict as when first proposed. (Photo by Rene Cerney)
The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country must follow new rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:
Transcript
The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country now must follow new
rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:
The new rules apply to about 170 plants in the country that turn cows and chickens into
hamburgers or filets. Wastes will have to contain fewer nutrients like ammonia and nitrogen
before it’s released into water. Mary Smith heads a division within the Water Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency. She says the rules are not as strict as when first proposed.
That’s in part because of concerns from the industries that it would cost too much. Smith
says the limits are tougher than what the law was before. But she adds these aren’t the only
industries that release waste into the water.
“So we can’t really kind of single out the meat industry, necessarily. Everyone, in a sense,
needs to do their part. But it’s another piece of the puzzle in terms of getting cleaner water.”
The new rules mark the first time poultry plants will have these kinds of limits. The EPA
estimates meat and poultry plants use 150 billion gallons of water each year. That water needs
to be cleaned of wastes like manure, blood, and feathers before it’s discharged.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.
Although a well-manicured lawn offers certain benefits... not everyone thinks it's worth the effort. (Photo by Ed Herrmann)
Some people still prefer a more natural look. (Photo by Ed
Herrmann)
One of the great rituals in suburban America is mowing the lawn. A manicured lawn seems to say that the house is well cared for, that it belongs to the neighborhood. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Ed Herrmann wonders whether this obsession for the perfect lawn is worth the effort:
Transcript
One of the great rituals in suburban America is mowing the lawn. A
manicured lawn seems to say that the house is well cared for, that it belongs
to the neighborhood. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Ed
Herrmann wonders whether this obsession with the perfect lawn is worth the
effort:
(sound of evening insects)
It’s a late summer evening and at last I can go outside and enjoy the
sounds of the neighborhood. There’s a little breeze, the air is cooler. The
chorus of insects is soothing, gentle but insistent, an ancient throbbing
resonance. Much better than during the day…
(roar of lawn machines)
Summer days in the suburbs are the time of assault, when people attack their
lawns with powerful weapons from the chemical and manufacturing
industries. Anyone who uses the words “quiet” and “suburbs” in the same
sentence has never been to a suburb, at least not in summer.
It takes a lot of noise to maintain a lawn. Besides the mower, you’ve got edgers, trimmers,
leaf blowers, weed whackers, core aerators, little tractors, big tractors, slitting
machines. I don’t know whatever happened to rakes and hand clippers. One
thing’s for sure. This quest for lawn perfection wouldn’t be possible without
the industrial revolution.
(machines stop)
So where did we get the idea that a house should be surrounded by a field of
uniform grass kept at the same height?
Well, with apologies to the Queen, I’m afraid we must blame the British. It
seems that, along with our language, our imperial ambitions and our
ambivalent morals, America also gets its notion of what a lawn should look
like from the English. Of course, the estates of the English aristocracy were
tended by a staff of gardeners. England also has a milder climate, and the
grass that looks so nice there doesn’t do as well in North America. In the
1930’s the USDA came up with a blend of imported grasses that would
tolerate our climate. Since these grasses are not native, they need help, and
that calls for fertilizers, pesticides and lots of extra water. Since normal
people can’t afford gardeners who trim by hand, that means lawn machines.
American industry to the rescue.
(mower starts up, fades under next sentence)
A quick Google tells me that today we have 40 million lawn mowers in use.
Each emits 11 times the pollution of a new car, and lawn mowers contribute
five percent of the nation’s air pollution. Plus more than 70 million pounds of
pesticides are used each year and over half of our residential water is used
for landscaping. Don’t you love those automatic sprinklers that come on in the
rain? Add to that all the time that people spend mowing and edging. Of
course the two billion dollar lawn care industry is thrilled about all this
enthusiasm, but I gotta ask, “Is it worth it?”
Call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer the looks of a meadow with mixed
wildflowers and grasses to the lawn that looks like a pool table. My own lawn
is somewhere between. It’s mowed, but it’s what you might call multicultural.
There are at least five different kinds of grass with different colors and
thicknesses, plus clover, dandelions, mushrooms, a few pinecones, and a
rabbit hole or two. There’s also some kind of nasty weed with thorns, but even
that has nice purple flowers if it gets big enough.
Clover, by the way, used to be added to grass seed because it adds nitrogen to
the soil. Now we just buy a bag of nitrogen fertilizer, so who needs clover?
And what’s wrong with
dandelions? You can eat them, some people even make wine out of them,
they have happy yellow flowers; yet to most people they indicate your yard is
out of control. So I’m down on my hands and knees pulling dandelions. I’m
not sure why, but I hope it keeps the neighbors happy.
One thing I won’t give in to, though, is the chemical spraying trucks, painted
green of course, that roll through the neighborhood.
I can only hold my breath. (sound of trucks and mowers) Try not to listen. And
wait for the evening. (evening insects)
(air conditioner starts up)
Although, with all these air conditioners, even the night’s not too quiet.
But that’s another story.
Host tag: “Ed Herrmann is an outdoor enthusiast living in the
suburbs of Detroit.”
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to be controversial:
Transcript
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this
fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great
Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to
be controversial:
The Great Lakes governors and Canadian provincial leaders have drafted
a plan setting standards for new water withdrawal requests. Thirsty
companies and communities outside the basin are expected to look at the
five lakes with increasing frequency. Environmental groups largely
like the proposal… though some want it made stronger.
But George Kuper of the Council of Great Lakes Industries says the plan
is too restrictive. At a regional hearing in Chicago, Kuper said
states and provinces that are competing to attract businesses could
block a diversion request.
“Regional review as now proposed would erode the ability of individual
governors and premiers to attract new jobs to their respective
jurisdictions. That’s a problem.”
In addition to the state meetings taking place, another regional
hearing is scheduled for September 20th in Toronto.
Many governments need to approve the Annex 2001 plan and the process is
expected to take a few years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
A recent study shows a possible link between breast cancer and a toxic chemical we’re exposed to every day. And people living in some Great Lakes states might face higher exposure to this chemical. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erika Johnson has more:
Transcript
A recent study shows a possible link between breast cancer and a toxic chemical
we’re exposed to everyday. And
people living in some Great Lakes states might face higher exposure to this
chemical. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Erika Johnson has more:
Cadmium is a toxic metal present in trace amounts in the air, water, soil, and in
most foods. It is also found in
batteries and cigarettes, and is released by some industries.
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are at the top of the list for overall cadmium exposures.
Recent findings published in Nature Medicine suggest that even low levels of cadmium
in lab rats caused changes
in their sexual development. Cadmium mimics estrogen, the female hormone that
regulates the reproductive
systems of men and women.
Steve Safe is a Toxicologist at Texas A & M University.
“Women have high doses of estrogen. They have much higher rates of breast cancer
than men. And estrogen has
been clearly linked to breast cancer. What we don’t know is, ‘Can cadmium
contribute to that? Does low dose
cadmium have any effect on humans at all?'”
Safe says more research is needed before any clear links can be made to human health.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erika Johnson.
A two-year study from the World Wildlife Fund has found Canada is facing a myriad of serious environmental problems. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:
Transcript
A two year study from the World Wildlife Fund has found Canada is
facing a myriad of serious environmental problems. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:
The report says much of Canada’s vast forestland has yet to be
protected.
Animals are threatened by the loss of tallgrass prairies.
And invasive species are wreaking havoc in the Great Lakes.
Kevin Cavanaugh is the director of biodiversity conservation for
World Wildlife Fund Canada.
He says the wide diversity of problems presents a significant
obstacle.
“One of the big challenges is that what is needed in one part
of the country is often quite different than another so this was
our attempt to try and help prioritize the kind of activities that
would need to take place in order to conserve nature.”
The provinces are the primary protectors of the environment in
Canada.
The reports says they must cooperate with the federal government
and industries to address Canada’s environmental problems.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Smokestack industries, such as coal-fired power plants and foundries, are using huge loopholes to continue to pollute at higher levels 25 years after Congress passed laws to reduce emissions. A government task force is recommending Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency make some major changes in the law to stop the polluters. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Smokestack industries, such as coal-fired power plants and foundries, are using huge loopholes to
continue to pollute at higher levels twenty-five years after Congress passed laws to reduce
emissions. A government task force is recommending Congress and the Environmental
Protection Agency make some major changes in the law to stop the polluters. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Congress and the EPA asked for the independent study by the National Academy of Public
Administration. The panel looked at loopholes in the Clean Air Act that exempted older
industrial plants from compliance until they were altered or updated, allowing only routine
maintenance. Much of the industry has taken full advantage of that loophole, defining “routine
maintenance” very broadly. The EPA says 80% of those older plants are under
investigation. Donald Kettl chaired the task force.
“When you’ve got a problem that’s been out there for 25 years and has really remained largely
unaddressed, it’s time for a fundamental, back-to-basics kind of look at the problem and the
creation of a new strategy to try to do what needs to be done much more efficiently, much more
effectively, and to do it in a way that produces much cleaner air.”
The task force recommends Congress close the loopholes completely and that the EPA get
tougher with the enforcement of the law.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A recent study on pollution in North America shows a drop in environmental pollution between 1995 and 2000. The study was conducted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which was set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, one trend being noted is that smaller industries across the continent are becoming the big polluters:
Transcript
A recent study on pollution in North America shows a drop in environmental pollution between
1995 and 2000. The study was conducted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
which was set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement. But as the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, one trend being noted is that smaller industries
across the continent are becoming the big polluters:
Officials for the Commission say it’s a good news-bad news picture of what’s going on across the
continent. The environmental watchdog says the biggest polluters such as electrical generating
plants and steel factories are releasing fewer hazardous chemicals. But smaller industries, who
have tended to pollute less are showing a significant increase in their emissions.
Victor Shantora is with the Commission.
“The smaller polluters, probably about 15,000 such facilities across North America, are actually
tracking upwards. And we think that that’s problematic.”
The study shows a seven-percent decline in the amount of toxins released by big industries from
1998 to 2000, while the smaller polluters showed a 32-percent increase over the same period.
Environmental groups like the Sierra Club say negative publicity has shamed the big polluters
into cutting down on emissions. They say that hasn’t worked against the small polluters. So it’s
up to governments to force them to make the reductions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.
Two Great Lakes states and one Canadian province are near the top of the list when it comes to the production of toxic chemicals. That’s the finding of the latest study from an international agency set up under NAFTA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:
Transcript
Two Great Lakes States and one Canadian province are near the top of the list when it comes to
the production of toxic chemicals. That’s the finding of the latest study from an international
agency set up under NAFTA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:
If you want to find the largest producers of dangerous chemicals in all of North America, look no
further than the Great Lakes Region. Officials from the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation say coal-fired power plants, steel mills, and waste treatment facilities put the region
high on the list.
Victor Shantora is director of the agency:
“The ranking is Texas number 1, Ohio number 2, the province of Ontario is number 3, and
Pennsylvania is number 4. They represent over about 25% of total releases in North America.”
Among the toxic chemicals cited are hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and mercury. But the report
isn’t all bad news. It indicates while some of the toxic chemicals wind up as pollution in the air,
water, and soil, a growing amount of it is simply being transported for proper disposal in
landfills or for recycling.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen in Columbus.
This farm in Manistee County, Michigan is using a water efficient irrigation system. Large-scale farm irrigation is drying up wells in some parts of the region. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan Land Use Institute)
In the Great Lakes region, the idea of not having enough water is ridiculous to most people. But that’s beginning to change. Environmentalists are sounding the alarm that water tables are being threatened in some areas. And they’re calling on policymakers to rein in the farms and industries that are putting the biggest drain on those resources. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has this report:
Transcript
In the Great Lakes/Midwest region, the idea of not having enough water is ridiculous to most
people. But that’s beginning to change. Environmentalists are sounding the alarm that water tables
are being threatened in some areas. And they’re calling on policy makers to rein in the farms and
industries that are putting the biggest drain on those resources. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has this report:
In a region that holds the world’s largest freshwater supply, worries about water scarcity are
beginning to creep into dinnertable discussions. Here in rural central Michigan, about 200
households have complained that their wells have dropped or gone dry during the summer months.
“Most kids are looking forward to summer vacation, getting out of school. My kids dread
summer.”
Susan Rodriguez is the mother of six children. She says her well first went dry about three years
ago. That was shortly after two large-scale farms began watering their crops with high-capacity
irrigation wells. Those farms together can use as much water as 11,000 households. Since then,
the summers have been dry, and difficult – because there’s no water in the house. Rodriguez says
they do what they can to get by. They don’t have the money to put in a new well. So during the
irrigation season, she and the kids go to a cemetery. It’s about a half-mile from their house, and it
has a hand pump. The family fills five-gallon buckets to bring home so they can flush the toilet…
“We buy bottled water for drinking, we buy paper plates and paper cups so I don’t have to wash
dishes. We go to neighbors for showering, for bathing. We eat out a lot because you can’t really
cook without water. It gets real expensive.”
Rodriguez and several other families began lobbying their state lawmakers for relief. And this could
be the year that they get some. Legislation introduced by Michigan lawmakers takes two
approaches. One would set up a means for people to take their grievances to state officials. The
other would require industries and farms with high-capacity wells to apply for a state permit if they
want to operate in areas where there are groundwater disputes.
Business groups are reacting with skepticism to any plan that would impose limits on water use.
Mike Johnston is with the Michigan Manufacturers Association.
“Our first position would be there’s no regulation needed at all. Having said that, we recognize the
political will is going in a different direction.”
And that different direction is being led by environmentalists. Noah Hall is the water resource
program manager for the National Wildlife Federation.
“Right now, the state of Michigan has basically no protections in place for our groundwater and
aquifers. Nothing that protects well owners, or protects the rivers and streams that depends on
underground aquifers. Other states in the Great Lakes region do have some protections in place.
And so Michigan is pretty far behind the curve right now on this.”
None of the regulations being considered in the Michigan Legislature would be as strong as what’s
already on the books in Wisconsin and Minnesota. But the Manufacturers Association’s Mike
Johnston says Michigan’s deep glacial cavities hold an ample supply of water. He says any
regulation should be very narrowly crafted.
“Michigan has vast groundwater supplies. There are a few areas of the state, very specific and
limited areas where they have certain geologies that cause challenges for groundwater. That’s just
not true across the state.”
Susan Rodriguez doesn’t care how it gets resolved. She just wants to make sure she and her family
have water once the irrigation pumps start back up in the summer.
“My oldest son, he hears a lot and he watches the television, and he was having nightmares that
people were coming in and taking him and his sister away. Taking them out of their home, because
we didn’t have water. That was really hard.”
(sound of water running)
In the few months left until the growing season, when irrigation starts up again, Susan Rodriguez is
storing water. Her friends at work bring her milk jugs and orange juice containers that she fills from
her well while she still has water.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
The Environmental Protection Agency is getting some criticism from environmental groups for their partnership with the American Chemistry Council. (Photo courtesy of epa.gov)
