Tag: government regulations

The Big Business of Nanotechnology

Technology using things very small is becoming very big business these days.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many consumer products, such as paints,
cosmetics, and vitamins. But some critics are concerned that the use of
nanotechnology is not being regulated. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Technology using things very small is becoming very big business these days.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many consumer products, such as paints,
cosmetics, and vitamins. But some critics are concerned that the use of
nanotechnology is not being regulated. Julie Grant reports:


It’s trendy these days to take your vitamins in liquid form. The idea is that the body
absorbs more vitamins from liquids than pills or tablets. And one company has taken
the liquid vitamin a step farther. Michael Gerike is president of NanoSynergy
Worldwide.


“Excuse me, I gotta spray my vitamins.”


(Sound of spray)


He sprays this nano B12 into his mouth a few times a day. Grerike says the particles
in it have been shaved down to the nano-size… much smaller than the average liquid
vitamin:


“An average particle could be 50-100-1000 micron. And ours are in the nano-meter
range. As an example, if you could imagine a micron being the diameter of the
earth, a nanometer would be the diameter of a nickel.”


Gerike says most vitamins are absorbed through the gastro-intestinal tract, but
nano-size particles are so tiny they can move right through cell walls and can be
absorbed directly into the bloodstream.


Grant: “Is there anything to be concerned about, I mean, because they’re such small
particles and because we don’t know how they might be incorporating into our cells?”


“Well, we’ve been taking them for the last three years, and I’m doing pretty good.
Scientifically, that question probably will be answered in the future. However, these
are natural products, so we’re really not altering the molecular structure of the
compounds. Therefore, theoretically, we shouldn’t be doing anything differently,
we’re just making the particle smaller.”


But we’re not just talking smaller. Nano-particles are really, really small.
Nanotechnology uses particles so small that the normal barriers that would prevent
absorption into the cells of organs, or directly into brain cells, might not matter. That
could mean big advances in some medical procedures. But it could also mean products
accidentally released into the air or water could get places where they shouldn’t, and
that has some people very concerned.


Ian Illuminato is with the environmental group Friends of the Earth:


“If you talk to anyone who is scientifically knowledgeable on nanotechnology, they’ll
tell you that when anything is brought down to the nano level, it has different
reactivity, and it has different components, and different ways that it acts in the
environment. If not, why would they use it?”


It’s not clear if those tiny particles can be dangerous. Those changes can do all kinds of beneficial things: make paints tougher to chip, make batteries
last longer. Nanotechnology is already being used in hundreds of products, but they’re all unregulated.
Government regulators are hesitant to regulate a compound depending on how small it is. But at
the nano-level, some compounds could behave a lot differently.

The Food and Drug Administration website says there’s just not enough information available yet to
know if the technology needs to be specifically regulated. The Environmental Protection Agency
has spent 30 million dollars on research into nanotechnology. Half of it’s been spent to find ways to
use nanotechnology to clean up the environment. Half of it was spent to see if nanotechnology
might damage the environment.


Clayton Teague is director of the federal government’s National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office:


“I think everyone in the field, whether you’re a pro who says shouldn’t make anymore until understand
perfectly, or one who thinks we really need to move forward as fast as can, I think between those two extremes…
everyone agrees need lot more data to fully understand how the new nano materials are going to interact with environment, how they’re going to interact with biosystems,
and indeed with human beings.”


Teague says researchers and investors in the nano-industry want to understand better how
particles at such a small scales could become more beneficial – or more toxic than larger particles.


They don’t want to scare the public, they want to sell to the public, but because so little is known
about nano-particles, some Fortune 500 companies and investors are reluctant spend a lot on
nanotechnology research. Researchers and policy makers say they need to do
more homework, so nanotechnology doesn’t get stuck with a bad public reputation.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Automakers Divided Over Lead Wheel Weights

  • When tires are balanced, lead weights are attached to the wheel rim. The weights make sure the tires wear evenly, and ensure a smooth ride. But the Ecology Center says the weights fall off, and the lead degrades easily, posing a risk to human health. (Photo by Mark Brush)

For years, the government and environmentalists have been working to reduce lead exposure in the environment. Lead can cause developmental damage to children and cause other health problems. The government banned lead in gasoline. It banned lead shot in shotgun shells. There are efforts to get rid of lead sinkers in fishing tackle. And now, environmentalists are trying to ban lead weights used to balance wheels. And some companies and fleet operators seem willing to comply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has the story about the move to a less hazardous alternative:

Transcript

For years, the government and environmentalists have been working to reduce lead exposure in the
environment. Lead can cause developmental damage to children and cause other health problems. The
government banned lead in gasoline. It banned lead shot in shotgun shells. There are efforts to get rid of lead
sinkers in fishing tackle. And now, environmentalists are trying to ban lead weights used to balance wheels.
And some companies and fleet operators seem willing to comply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie
Halpert has the story about the move to a less hazardous alternative:


When you buy a new car or get your tires replaced, manufacturers use lead weights, which clip onto the wheel
rim to make sure it’s evenly balanced. They use lead, because it’s heavy, dense. So a small amount by
volume is used.


Still, a few ounces of lead can be used on each wheel. And nearly every car and truck on the road has lead
weights. They’re the second largest use of lead in cars, next to lead acid batteries.


As long as the weights stay on the tires, they’re not a huge problem. But environmentalists are worried that
they come off too often. Many fall off when a car hits a pothole or collides with a curb. Then they’re run
over, ground down and get into the environment.


Each year, roughly 30-million pounds of lead are used to make wheel weights. A recent study estimates that
more than 300 tons of lead fall off vehicles each year in the Midwest alone. Jeff Gearhart is with the Ecology
Center which conducted that study.


“Many people don’t realize there’s a lot of lead in vehicles for this particular use and this is actually a fairly
small percentage of that lead actually falls off. But when you look at it as quantity, it’s pretty significant.”


The weights don’t just pose a problem on the road. Gearhart says there’s also danger when they’re not
properly recycled when new tires are put on and the weights are replaced. Another problem is when a car is
scrapped and then later when the parts are melted down, the lead can be released into the environment.

“Lead wheel weights are not managed very well as vehicles are scrapped and the difficulty in correcting the
management of these at the end of a life in a salvage yard or in a vehicle crusher or a shredder is very
challenging.”


He says the solution is to make sure lead is not used in the first place. Concerned about lead’s potential
health effects, Europe has already decided to ban lead wheel weights starting next year. And Gearhart is
pushing manufacturers who design for the U.S. market to do the same. He says substitute materials, such as
zinc, iron and tin, are readily available and work just as well as lead.


And with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Ecology Center is making lead-free weights
available to those who service vehicle fleets.


(sound of weights being hammered onto wheel rims)


At the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan’s garage, a technician is banging zinc weights onto wheels. Tom
Gibbons helps manage this fleet of 400 city vehicles. Ann Arbor is the first city to switch to lead-free
weights.


“We realize lead is a problem in the environment and in the city, we’re really concerned about the
environment. We’re committed to doing as much as we can to protect it, so if we can take lead out of the
system, why not do it.”


Gibbons says the substitutes work just as well as lead weights. He says once the Ecology Center’s free
supply of weights runs out, the city will began buying non-lead weights, even though they’ll cost slightly
more.


But not everyone agrees with the idea of using other materials for wheel weights. Daimler/Chrysler doesn’t
plan to switch to lead-free weights for its U.S. models. The company is concerned the substitutes are costlier
and more difficult to install on wheels.


Other automakers are looking at eliminating the use of lead weights. Terry Cullum is with General Motors.
He agrees they’re currently an issue, but says the Ecology Center’s estimate of the number of weights that fall
off cars seems high to him. And, he says there’s no imminent danger to the public.

“I think if you look at this from a risk-based situation, we don’t view lead being used in wheel weights
applications as a risk, well, as a large risk, let’s put it that way.”


Even so, General Motors is considering moving to lead free weights. Cullum says that everywhere the
automaker uses lead is a concern. And since the company will have to stop using lead weights on the cars and
trucks it sell in Europe, he says it might be easier just to take them out of all GM vehicles. Still, Cullum says
the substitutes present a big engineering challenge: because they’re not as dense. It takes bigger pieces of
metal to make the same weight. So, they take up more space on the wheel than lead weights.


“It becomes an issue, in terms of where do you put it on the wheel, how do you do it in such a way that it
doesn’t actually interfere with the actual operation of the wheel or the brake systems. That is an issue that is
going through research and engineering right now.”


But Cullum’s optimistic that the issue can be addressed. And other auto makers, such as Honda, are forging
ahead with lead-free weights on at least one of their model.


Still there’s resistance from U.S. tire retailers. The Tire Industry Association says the weights don’t fall off
wheels. And the tire retailers say the lead weights are properly recycled. The group has no plans to stop
using lead weights if they’re not legally required to.


Jeff Gearhart with the Ecology Center says that denial of the problem is a big mistake. He says if
manufacturers and tire retailers cooperated, they could get a substantial amount of lead out of the
environment within a few years.


“There is the potential to make a really significant impact here. We’re talking hundreds of tons of lead
released into the U.S. to the environment that can be eliminated. So we think this is a high priority project,
not just for us, but we think it will be for states and for EPA to look at how to facilitate this transition to
cleaner wheel balancing.”

The Environmental Protection Agency is starting to look at the issue. It plans to conduct a study within the
next year to get a better understanding of the problem and see how lead weights are handled. Then, they’ll
issue guidelines for consumers and tire recyclers late next year. That means the public will be more aware of
the use of lead wheel weights and the potential for toxic exposure. Usually, that means public pressure for
change, whether some automakers and tire retailers like it or not.


For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Related Links

Ban Proposed on Live Carp Imports

Another major piece is about to fall into place in the battle to contain the Asian Carp from spreading into the Great Lakes. Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources is set to slap a ban on importing the invasive carp. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

Another major piece is about to fall into place in the battle to contain the Asian Carp from
spreading into the Great Lakes. Ontario’s ministry of natural resources is set to slap a ban on
importing the invasive carp. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:


Toronto has a large appetite for the Asian carp. They’re imported to fish markets here live, so
they can be cooked fresh. But David Ramsay, Ontario’s minister of natural resources, says that’s
going to stop. He says he doesn’t know when the ban will go into effect. But it could be only
weeks that people will be able to enjoy their fresh carp.


The carp can grow up to eight feet in length, weigh more than one hundred pounds and consume
huge amounts of food….and they have no natural predators. Experts have warned that the Asian
carp could eat its way through the Great Lakes ecosystem.


Ramsay says the previous Ontario government did nothing about this invasive species, but he
says this government won’t wait.


“I’m very concerned about the invasive carp. We found one at the mouth of the Don River in
December. There’s a danger here, or a potential danger if these species of fish that are imported
into this country ever got loose in the Great Lakes, it could really put our Great Lakes ecosystem
in grave danger.”


This isn’t the first Asian carp to surface here. In the past two years one was found in Lake Erie,
and another in a fountain in downtown Toronto.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Raw Milk Advocates Petition Small Farmers

For decades, a small number of people have believed milk is more nutritious if it’s not pasteurized. Modern science doesn’t support that claim. And the idea of milk going right from the cow to the breakfast bowl is unthinkable for most doctors and food safety experts. But advocates are finding a new audience for their message: Small farmers trying to compete against large dairy companies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:

Transcript

For decades a small number of people have believed milk is more nutritious if it’s
not pasteurized. Modern science doesn’t support that claim. And the idea of milk
going right from the cow to the breakfast bowl is unthinkable for most doctors and
food safety experts. But advocates are finding a new audience for their message:
Small farmers trying to compete against large dairy companies. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:


A thick white blanket of fresh snow covers Chris Halpin’s small farm in northern
Michigan. All his goats are in the barn this morning munching on hay.


“These girls in here are all in here with a billy goat and they’re all milking
right now and they’re waiting to get bred. That’s the billy there.”


Halpin hasn’t sold much milk, even though he’s been raising goats for a number of
years. He says small farmers must cut out the middleman to make a living and
he’s exploring options to sell milk products without going through a big dairy
company.


Pasteurization equipment is too expensive for his small farm. So, for the last two
years he’s sold un-pasteurized milk to a small number of people.


“The demand for raw milk is huge. Pasteurized milk is a dead product. It’s
dead. It’s heated up to temperatures that kills not only any the bacteria that
could be in the milk but it kills all the enzymes in the milk and so there’s nothing
in there that could promote the body to digest the milk.”


It’s not legal to sell the raw milk in Michigan. A few other Midwest states and
Canada also ban such sales. Health officials say that raw milk can carry food-
borne illnesses. But Halpin says his animals are clean and healthy and he has no
concerns about the safety of the milk.


“That’s not my concern at all. We have five children and my wife makes yogurt
and cheese and we drink raw milk and I have no concerns at all and I don’t have
no concerns for my own family. If I guy has concerns it seems like it’d be for his
own family.”


Food regulators say the dangers of raw milk are well documented. In 2001, for
example, an outbreak of a bacterial infection in Wisconsin sickened 19 people.
The state says 17 of them reported drinking raw milk.


And raw milk advocates have not been able to convince regulators that raw milk
has any nutritional benefit over pasteurized milk, as is often claimed.


The legislative liaison for the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Brad Deacon,
says opponents of the pasteurization requirement weren’t persuasive when his state
updated its dairy laws in 2001.


“There haven’t been any credible studies that we’ve been able to find. Our minds
are not closed on the matter. But we’ve been yet to be given any credible studies
that pasteurized milk has fewer nutrients than unpasteurized milk.”


Raw milk advocates point to older studies, mostly done in the first half of the
twentieth century. Those studies did suggest health benefits from drinking raw
milk.


And they have anecdotal stories of people overcoming health problems by
switching to a diet that includes raw dairy.


They say the scientific community’s view is entrenched and influenced by the
interests of big agribusiness and big dairies.


But with modern science against them, raw milk activists are taking their message
directly to farmers.


And they’re finding receptive and occasionally large audiences.


The President of the Weston A. Price Foundation — the national group leading the
campaign for raw milk — was recently the keynote speaker at a small farm
conference in the Midwest that attracted 600 people.


Sally Fallon told the farmers they’re up against corporations that want squeeze the
little guy out.


“For this to happen, she says the big companies must make sure all food goes
through the corporations on its way from the farm to the table.”


“The farmer who adds value by farming organically by making cheese or butter
or by simply selling directly to the consumer, he is the enemy to this system and a
whole battery of laws, health laws, licensing laws, even environmental laws, is
used against us. We need to get rid of some of these laws.”


Fallon says raw dairy products are good for the consumer and the bottom line of
the farm.


For instance, she says raw butter made from cows free roaming on fertile pasture
is “the number one health food in America.”


The farmer making this butter should get at least five dollars a pound for this
product. In Washington D.C., we’re getting ten dollars a pound for the beautiful
Amish butter. Now that kind of income will pay for lots of improvements on the
farm.”


But the plight of small farmers doesn’t change the facts, says Dr. Stephen Barrett,
a retired psychiatrist and journalist who operates the website quackwatch.org.
Barrett says small businesses are having trouble everywhere.


“One have to ask rather cynically, if a company isn’t viable in the marketplace,
they either better do something or they’re going to perish, and if doing something
means putting the public at risk, that’s not good.”


Good or not, activists will continue to push for what they see as a fundamental
right to drink and sell milk without interference from the government.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Enviros Call on Fcc to Enforce Tower Regs

Communication towers throughout the country, such as cell phone and radio towers, are to blame for millions of migratory bird deaths each year. Now, an environmental group has filed a complaint against the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to cut down on bird deaths. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ashley McGovern reports:

Transcript

Communication towers throughout the country, such as cell phone and radio
towers, are to blame for millions of migratory bird deaths each year. Now,
an environmental group has filed a complaint against the Federal
Communications Commission in an attempt to cut down on bird deaths. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ashley McGovern reports:


The Federal Communications Commission requires lights on communication
towers two-hundred feet and taller.


Environmental groups say these towers pose a threat to migratory birds.


They say in bad weather birds mistake lights on towers for stars they use to
navigate when flying.


The FCC requires an environmental impact study to be conducted whenever
towers like these are built.


But environmental groups say the FCC rarely follows this regulation.


The National Wildlife Federation filed a complaint against the FCC after the
Michigan State Police built a one-hundred-eighty-one-tower communication
system.


Michelle Halley is an attorney for the NWF.


“The Michigan State Police applied to register their towers and to build their towers, and they were
allowed by the FCC to do that, without conducting the proper environmental review.”


Halley says these reviews can help position towers outside of migratory bird
flyways.


She also says lowering some towers would eliminate the required lighting.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ashley McGovern.

Related Links

Usda to Tighten Biotech Crop Regulations?

The government says genetically engineered crops are safe, but it wants to strengthen biotechnology regulations anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The government says genetically engineered crops are safe, but it wants to strengthen biotechnology
regulations anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing stricter regulations for approving genetically
modified crops. The USDA also wants to take a harder look at the possible impact to the
environment posed by the bio-engineered crops. The agency insists that current bio-tech crops are
safe, but indicates the technology is advancing fast. Megan Thomas is a spokesperson for the
USDA.


“The science is continuing to evolve on a daily basis and we want to make sure that our regulations
are able to meet those demands today and in the future.”


Some environmental groups have been calling for more restrictions and testing of genetically
engineered crops. They are skeptical that the USDA will implement the kind of regulations the
environmentalists want, but they say the government’s proposal is a good first step. The USDA is
taking public comment on its proposals until March 23rd.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Administration Changes Mercury Rules

The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing
mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the
rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Julie Grant reports:


Mercury is toxic. It can cause brain damage, especially in young children and fetuses. Forty-
percent of the mercury in air pollution comes from power plants, but it’s never been regulated as
a pollutant. The EPA had planned reductions of 90-percent by 2007. But now, the Bush
administration plans reductions of only 70-percent by 2018.


EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt praises the plan as good for the environment and the economy.
Environmentalists and others say it’s a complete deception. To implement the new program, they
say the administration has downgraded mercury from the “hazardous pollutant” category. Leavitt
denies that:


“We are not changing the status of mercury at all. It is a dangerous toxin and our objective is to
reduce it in the most aggressive way we possibly can.”


The new rules regulating mercury go into effect next December. For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links