According to a recent report, a decade of cleanup measures to reductions in emissions have paid off in cutting levels of deadly particle and ozone pollution. (Photo courtesy of the NREL)
A new report finds some of the cities with the worst air pollution are breathing a little easier. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A new report finds some of the cities with the worst air pollution are breathing a little easier. Lester Graham reports.
The American Lung Association’s annual “State of the Air” report uses the latest data from 2006, 2007 and 2008. That’s just before the economy really tanked. Janice Nolan is with the American Lung Association. She says even though factories were still running at full tilt, improvement in air quality was seen across the nation. Particularly in cities the group watches closely.
“We’ve tracked some of the 25 most polluted cities each year to see how they’re faring and in each case we saw significant improvement in most of the cities in those twenty-five.”
Nolan says cleaner diesel fuel and new less polluting trucks… along with some improvements at coal-burning power plants helped. But she says other dirtier coal-burning plants and older diesel trucks continue to pollute the air.
Scientists have been using tiny particles of rust to draw arsenic out of water (Source: Roger McLassus at Wikimedia Commons)
You might be surprised to hear that a lot of drinking water has arsenic in it. It’s a problem all over the globe, especially when drinking water comes from deep under the ground. Julie Grant reports that some researchers are using tiny particles – at the nano-scale – and plain old rust, to remove arsenic from the water:
Transcript
You might be surprised to hear that a lot of drinking water has arsenic in it. It’s a problem all over the globe, especially when drinking water comes from deep under the ground. Julie Grant reports that some researchers are using tiny particles – at the nano-scale – and plain old rust, to remove arsenic from the water:
You can’t see, smell, or taste arsenic – but prolonged exposure to it can lead to skin discoloration and even cancer.
Vicki Colvin studies chemistry and nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston.
She says arsenic has a chemical bond with rust – and sticks to it. So they’ve been using tiny particles of rust to draw arsenic out of water in the lab.
Now Colvin says they’re working with a city in Mexico. They’re trying to make what they call nano-rust in the field, so the city can cheaply remove arsenic from its water.
“So, we’ve developed procedures and processes that help people make nano-rust not at a major university with a nanotechnology facilty. But you know literally in a restaurant setting, more maybe in a ceramics factory.”
Colvin says they will be experimenting in Mexico over the next two years.
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.
Researchers are studying whether nano-sized material could purge bacteria from the digestive tracts of poultry. The bacteria doesn't harm chickens and turkeys, but it can make people sick. The hope is that using nanoparticles could reduce the use of antibiotics in poultry. (Photo courtesy of USDA)
Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:
Transcript
Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:
Life on the nano scale is so tiny it’s hard to imagine. It’s as small
as 1/100,000 of a human hair. It’s as tiny as the width of a strand of
DNA. A nanoparticle can be so small it can actually enter cells.
Nanoparticles are loved by scientists and entrepreneurs for the novel
things they can do at those tiny sizes. They act differently. They
can go where larger particles can’t.
Many companies already sell new products with nano properties. The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies says there are almost 500 products
on the market that use nanotechnology.
Some of those products are starting to show up in the grocery store.
Jennifer Kuzma is with the Center for Science, Technology and Public
Policy at the University of Minnesota. She tracks nanotech
developments in food and agriculture. She says there are some edible
nano products on store shelves right now:
“One is a chocolate shake that is a nano emulsion of cocoa molecules so
you can deliver more flavor for less of the cocoa product.”
Kuzma says that’s just the beginning. She says hundreds more nano
products, including a lot of food products, are on their way to market.
In many cases, scientists are looking for solutions to food safety
problems.
For example, bacteria in the intestines of chickens and turkeys can
make people sick when poultry is undercooked. Right now farmers treat
their birds with antibiotics. But as bacteria are becoming resistant
to antibiotics, scientists are looking for other methods to fight the
bacteria.
Jeremy Tzeng is a research scientist at Clemson University. He’s part
of a team developing what he calls intelligent chicken feed.
Basically, chickens would be fed a nanomaterial that attaches to
molecules on the surface of the harmful bacteria. Then the bacteria
could be purged from the chicken along with fecal matter:
“If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using
antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it
is really small.”
Tzeng says his research is still in its early stages. He says there
are a lot of safety tests he needs to run. They need to find out if
the nanomaterial is safe for chickens, and people who eat the chickens.
And they need to find out what happens if the nanomaterial is released
into wastewater.
“As a scientist I love to see my technology being used broadly and very
quickly being adopted. But I’m also concerned we must be cautious. I
don’t want to create a miracle drug and then later it becomes a problem
for the long term.”
There are big, open questions about just how safe nanoparticles are.
Researcher Jennifer Kuzma says there have been only a handful of known
toxicology studies done so far. She says nanoparticles might be more
reactive in the human body than larger particles:
“There’s several groups looking at the ability of nanoparticles to
damage, let’s say your lung tissue. Some of the manufactured or manmade nanoparticles are thought to have greater abilities to get into the
lungs, penetrate deeper and perhaps damage the cells in the lungs, in
the lung tissue.”
In some cases, it’s hard for the government to get information about new
nano products. Kuzma says companies tend to keep their own safety data
under lock and key:
“Some companies might send you the safety studies if you ask for them. Others may not
because they of course have interests in patenting the technology and
confidential business information.”
So the government doesn’t always know all that much about what’s
heading to market. Agencies are trying to figure out how – and even
whether – to regulate products of nanotechnology. Right now, there are
no special labeling requirements for nano products.
In the meantime, nanotechnology is turning into big business. Several
analysts predict that just three years from now, the nanotech food
market will be a 20 billion dollar industry.
A new study raises concerns about efforts to dredge polluted sediment
out of waterways. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A new study raises concerns about efforts to dredge polluted sediment
out of waterways. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
A study by the National Research Council looked at the dredging of
contaminants from about 25 projects around the US. Study Chairman
Charles O’Melia of Johns Hopkins University says the report has two
main conclusions:
One is that dredging has some failings when it comes to achieving short
term pollution reductions. For example, particles can be left behind or
re-suspended in the water.
O’Melia also says the report points to the need for more monitoring of
dredging projects:
“Each site is different and it is not going to be possible, to be able
to come up a plan that you would know with certainty what would
work… that you have to go out and test it.”
The EPA is evaluating the study, but says for the most part, it’s happy
with existing dredging plans for rivers.
A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nano-technology. The coalition wants to start with a recall of sunscreens that use nano-materials. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Food and Drug
Administration to regulate nanotechnology. The coalition wants to start
with a recall of sunscreens that use nanomaterials. The GLRC’s Lester
Graham reports:
Nanotechnology uses materials as small as a protein molecule… about
one 80-thousandth of the width of a hair. The consumer advocates and
environmental groups say the use of nanomaterials has not been tested
for safety for human use or their impact on the environment.
George Kimbrell is the one of the groups, the Center for Technology
Assessment…
“We’re asking the agency to look into those effects as well, that is
environmental impacts as well as human health impacts of these products.”
Nanotechnology is being used in a variety of lotions and cosmetics and is
promoted as revolutionary technology. That’s because the particles can
get into the skin at the cellular level much more easily.
The environmental groups want the FDA to more strictly regulate
products containing nanomaterials until they are tested for safety.
A lot of studies have linked air pollution with heart and lung problems. A new study suggests your diet can worsen air pollution’s effects on you. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
A lot of studies have linked air pollution with heart and lung
problems. A new study suggests your diet can worsen air pollution’s
effects on you. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland
has more:
Every time you inhale, you’re breathing in tiny particles from dust, soot
and smoke. They can increase both the plaque buildup in your arteries,
and the risk of a heart attack or stroke.
Now, a study led by Dr. Lung Chi Chen at New York University’s
School of Medicine says a high fat diet combined with bad air led to a
faster buildup of plaque in the arteries of mice. He says that’s because
air pollution affects lipids – fats – in the blood. It changes their
characteristics, or oxidizes them, which leads to more plaque on artery
walls.
“If the mice are fed with high-fat, then the level of the oxidized
lipid will be higher, because they have more lipid in their blood.”
Dr. Chen says arteries of mice on a high-fat diet and breathing dirty air
were 42-percent blocked. Mice breathing clean air had arteries that were
26-percent blocked.
He hopes the study not only encourages people to eat better, but also
persuades the government to toughen air quality standards.
Air deposition is when air pollution settles out into lakes and streams and becomes water pollution. (Photo by Lester Graham)
We’re continuing our series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. Our guide through the series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats that experts identified is air pollution that finds its way into the Great Lakes:
Transcript
We’re continuing our series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes’. Our guide through the
series is Lester Graham. In this report he explains one of the threats is air pollution that
finds its way into the Great Lakes:
It’s called ‘Air Deposition.” Melissa Hulting is a scientist at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. We asked her just what that means:
“Air deposition simply is just when materials, in this case pollutants, are transferred from
the air to the water. So, pollutants in particles can fall into the water. Pollutants in rain
can fall into the water, or pollutants in a gas form can be absorbed into the water.”
So, it’s things like pesticides that evaporate from farm fields and end up in the rain over
the Great Lakes. PCBs in soil do the same. Dioxins from backyard burning end up in the
air, and then are carried to the lakes
One of the pollutants that causes a significant problem in the Great Lakes is mercury. It
gets in the water. Then it contaminates the fish. We eat the fish and mercury gets in us.
It can cause babies to be born with smaller heads. It can cause nervous system damage
and lower IQ in small children if women of childbearing age or children eat too much
fish.
One of the notable sources of mercury is from power plants that burn coal.
(Sound of coal car)
Railroad cars like this one empty their tons of coal at power plants all across the nation.
More than half of the electricity in the nation is produced at coal-burning power plants,
and with a 250-year supply, coal is going to be the primary fuel for a while.
One coal producing state is acknowledging that mercury is a problem. Doug Scott is the
Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. He says coal is important to
the energy mix, but we need to reduce pollutants such as mercury as much as possible.
“The policy of the state has been to try to work with the power plants to try to burn
Illinois coal as cleanly as you can. Now, that means a lot more equipment and a lot more
things that they have to do to be able to make that work, but we’re committed to trying to
do both those things.”
And, Scott says the federal government’s mercury reduction program does not go far
enough soon enough, but the electric utility industry disagrees.
Dan Riedinger is spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power industry trade
organization. Riedinger says, really reducing mercury emissions at power plants just
won’t make that much difference.
“Power plants contribute relatively little to the deposition of mercury in any one area of
the country, including the Great Lakes, and no matter how much we reduce mercury
emissions from power plants in the Great Lakes Region, it’s really not going to have a
discernable impact in terms of improving the levels of mercury in the fish people want to eat.”
“Relatively little? Now, that flies in the face of everything I’ve read so far. Everything
I’ve read, indicates coal-fired power plants are a significant contributor to the mercury
issue in the Great Lakes and other places.”
“It’s really not quite that simple. Power plants are a significant source of mercury
emissions here in the United States, but most of the mercury that lands in the Great
Lakes, particularly in the western Great Lakes is going to come from sources outside of
the United States.”
Well, it’s not quite that simple either. The U.S. EPA’s Melissa Hulting agrees some of
the mercury in the Great Lakes comes from foreign sources, but recent studies show
some mercury settles out fairly close to the smokestacks. She says you can blame both
for the mercury in your fish.
“You blame the sources that are close by and you blame the sources that are far away.
The bottom line with mercury is that we’re all in this together and it’s going to take
everybody reducing their sources to take care of the problem.”
Taking care of the problem is going to take some money, and that will mean we’ll all pay in
higher utility bills. The Illinois EPA’s Doug Scott says it’ll be worth it if we can reduce
mercury exposure to people.
“We know what the issue is. It’s not a matter of us not understanding the connection
between mercury and what happens in fish, and then what happens in humans as a result
of that. We understand that. We know it, and we also know to a great degree what we
can do to try to correct the problem, and so, it’s a matter of just going out and doing it,
and so I’d like to think it’s something that can be done sooner rather than later.”
And since Great Lakes fish have elevated levels of mercury, sooner would be good.
It’ll take a while for the mercury already there to work its way out of the ecosystem and
return to more normal levels.
Smokestacks, diesel engines, and a number of other things cause particulate emissions, which can create some negative health effects, and aggravate existing health problems. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)
In the summer, local weather forecasts often
include information about dangerous ozone levels.
But scientists are learning more and more about
another type of pollution that can reach harmful
levels even in the winter months. And as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports… we
might be hearing more about this type of pollution in
our daily weather reports:
Transcript
In the summer, local weather forecasts often include information about dangerous ozone levels. But scientists are learning more and more about another type of pollution that can reach harmful levels even in the winter months. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, we might be hearing more about this type of pollution in our daily weather reports:
Parts of the region recently reached “code red” for poor air quality. And
that had some people perplexed. Warnings about dangerous levels of ozone are
frequent on hot summer days, especially in urban areas. But this was the
middle of winter.
The warnings were for high levels of tiny particles that federal regulators
only recently began monitoring. They’re spewn from diesel engines,
factories, power plants, and fireplaces. Air monitors in Michigan,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Indiana recently registered unhealthy levels of
these particles – some of them for a few days straight.
Jim Haywood says the problem was an unusual weather event for this time of
year. Haywood is a meteorologist with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality. He says a high pressure system moved very slowly over
the Great Lakes region for several days. When you get high pressure, the air
below sinks, generating a layer of warm air that acts like a lid.
“So that warm air that was sinking effectively stops at a few hundred feet
from the surface of the ground. It acts like a cap. It does not let any of
the pollutants that are released at the surface pop up through that cap.”
So all the pollutants that would have gotten picked up and diluted by the
wind instead just hung out for days – building up, and reflecting sunlight
to create haze.
Eventually, a cold front pushed the high pressure system out of the way, and
took the pollution with it. But what about those few days when the Environmental Protection Agency was warning about unhealthy levels of particulate pollution? For people with
heart or lung disease, agency health officials say short-term episodes can
lead to asthma attacks or even heart attacks. And they say healthy children
and adults can experience throat and lung irritation.
Susan Stone is an environmental health scientist with EPA. She says
particle pollution warnings could soon become a staple of the daily weather
report – much like the familiar summer ozone warnings.
“With ozone, we have the network in place to be able to deliver those
forcasts, people are used to hearing that on TV, and we are working to
provide that same level of coverage for particle pollution.”
Stone says EPA is rolling out a new program called Enviro-Flash
nationwide. It sends real-time air quality information to people’s email
accounts or pagers. EPA is offering the service through state
environmental agencies. And beginning in 2010, areas that register
unacceptable levels of particle pollution will be required to clean up their
air.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
The state of Michigan is trying a new approach to stop the spread of foreign aquatic species in the Great Lakes – using a new system to clean ships’ ballast water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more:
Transcript
The state of Michigan is trying a new approach to stop the spread of foreign aquatic species in the Great Lakes – using a new system to clean ship’s ballast water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more.
A generator deep in the bowels of the Canadian freighter “Federal Yukon” spits copper ion particles at a cargo hold filled with ballast water. The particles poison any creatures living in the water…a second process cleanses the ballast before it’s drained into the Detroit River. It’s a test designed to find – and hopefully eliminate – any species carried in the water that is NOT native to the Great Lakes. Michigan Lt. Governor Dick Posthumous warned the threat from foreign species like zebra mussels is very real.
“Like an uninvited house guest…they come in uninvited…they eat all your food…and then they leave the house all messed-up.”
Posthumous says the Great Lakes Governor’s Association will meet with Canadian leaders this fall in Chicago to try and find ways to prevent the spread of foreign aquatic species. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Quinn Klinefelter.
According to a recent report, a decade of cleanup measures to reductions in emissions have paid off in cutting levels of deadly particle and ozone pollution. (Photo courtesy of the NREL)
