BPA is found in things such as plastic water bottles, canned goods, and baby bottles
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Transcript
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, is just about everywhere – one of most commonly manufactured
chemicals in the world. It’s main use is to make plastics hard and shatterproof.
It’s found in consumer products such as plastic baby bottles, water bottles, C-D cases,
eyeglasses and the lining of tin cans.
Rick Smith is with the group, Environmental Defense. Smith says particularly at risk are
infants.
“So there’s very good evidence that kids that are exposed to it earlier on in life are
more prone to breast cancer, prostate cancer later on in life.”
Research has also linked BPA to heart disease, diabetes, and liver problems. Smith says
BPA is in virtually every tin can in people’s cupboards, and evidence has shown that it
can leach into the food or beverage, even at room temperature.
Health Canada says the levels of BPA most adults are exposed to are not harmful.
But Smith and other environmentalists are calling for a complete ban in consumer
products.
One study found PCB-11 in 90% of the air samples from Chicago (Photo by Lester Graham)
A potentially toxic chemical called
PCB-11 has been found all over the air in a
major city. That’s surprising, because people
thought the chemical hadn’t been used in years.
Gabriel Spitzer reports regulators could start
looking in other cities:
Transcript
A potentially toxic chemical called
PCB-11 has been found all over the air in a
major city. That’s surprising, because people
thought the chemical hadn’t been used in years.
Gabriel Spitzer reports regulators could start
looking in other cities:
Keri Hornbuckle says not much is known about PCB-11.
That’s because no one really expected to stumble on it.
“This finding is important, and I think it’s alarming. We should find out what the
health effects are for this chemical.”
Hornbuckle is a University of Iowa professor.
She looked at air samples from all over Chicago, and found the chemical in about 90% of
the samples.
She says the source is a mystery, though it might come from paints breaking down.
“Now, it could be that in all those places where we would expect to see the other
PCBs, we’d also see this one. But it’s a surprise, because no one thought it would be
produced.”
Hornbuckle says she found PCB-11 using a new, detailed way of analyzing air samples.
Other PCBs have been linked to cancer and neurological problems.
While some flame retardants are now banned, one - Deca - is still commonly used (Photo courtesy of FEMA)
Two forms of a toxic flame retardant
are being phased out by companies or banned
by state laws. But, Lester Graham reports,
a third form is still being used:
Transcript
Two forms of a toxic flame retardant
are being phased out by companies or banned
by state laws. But, Lester Graham reports,
a third form is still being used:
The third flame retardant, called Deca-BDE, is still being used in drapes, carpets,
furniture upholstery and the plastic cases of electronics, like your computer.
PBDE’s are being found in fish and wildlife, and even in mothers’ breast milk.
Studies have found they cause developmental problems and liver cancer in
animals. Environmentalists say just like the other two PBDEs, Deca-BDEs should
be banned.
Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center.
“There is no reason to have toxic chemicals like this when we’re fighting fires. The
Fire Chiefs Association, the firefighters, they support banning this chemical because
they know there are safer alternatives that keep us just as safe from fires.”
But unlike the other PBDEs, most states have not passed laws to ban deca-BDEs.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
The thin plastic lining used in many canned foods and soft drinks contains a chemical
called bisphenol-A.
Canada is taking steps to restrict the use of the plastic in baby
bottles and formula can linings. In the U.S., some retailers have removed some
products using plastic with bisphenol-A.
Aaron Freeman is with the Environmental Defense Fund in Canada. He says this
chemical has been linked to too many health problems to ignore.
“Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in girls, attention deficit
disorder, and so on – those are all health effects we’re seeing sharp rises on.”
Freeman concedes cans lined with plastic containing bisphenol-A have not been proven
to cause the diseases. But he says since the canning industry has other plastics it can
use, it’s just a sensible precaution to stop using plastic with bisphenol-A.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Consumer advocates say most soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics contain 1, 4 dioxane (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:
Transcript
Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:
(sound of laughter)
Moxii Rose has been running around all afternoon. She’s
this tiny two and a half year old. She giggles as she dumps
her toys and spills juice on the carpet.
She’s excited when it’s time for a bubble bath.
(sound of running water and child in bathtub)
And so is her mother, Khalilah Pickings. Once Moxii gets into
the tub, she finally quiets down.
“And normally when we have bubble bath time, I just sit right
here. And let her do whatever she needs to do. Gives her a
minute to calm down, and me a minute to calm down.”
Khalilah says she hasn’t thought about it a lot, but figures if
the stores can sell kids bubble bath and lotion, they must
be safe.
But some consumer advocates aren’t so sure.
David Steinman started worrying about the bubble bath his
kids were using. He heard bubble bath might have
something called ‘1, 4 dioxane’ in it. The Environmental
Protection Agency lists it as probable carcinogen.
“I took the products they liked and some others that were
from other companies to a laboratory to have them analyzed, to see
if they did contain this chemical. And they all had it. Every
single product.”
Even the products labeled ‘natural’.
Now, you won’t find 1, 4 dioxane on ingredient lists on the
back of the bottle. It’s not added to soaps and detergents.
When other chemicals are combined, they create 1, 4
dioxane. It helps make soaps foamy and work well.
Steinman says that when children get in a warm bath, their
pores open and can soak the chemical right into their
systems.
Studies show that 1,4 dioxane causes cancer in lab animals.
Scientists are debating how much those findings in rats and
mice apply to people.
Bob Hamilton’s company sells soaps and dishwashing
liquids under the Amway label. He’s an expert on the
regulation of soap.
“There is not a concern based on the best scientific review
that has been done over many decades. The levels that are
found are minor contaminant levels that are well below any
concern levels as expressed by regulators in every country
around the world.”
The US government doesn’t really have any standards for
the amount of 1, 4 dioxane allowed in products. And even
though the EPA lists it as a probable carcinogen, the agency
says the tiny amount in consumer goods is still safe.
Consumer advocate David Steinman says the government
only looks at the amount 1, 4 dioxane in each product
individually. No one considers that we’re using bubble bath,
soap, lotion, and dishwashing detergent every day.
“When do a lot of little bits of chemicals become a whole
lot?”
Steinman wants consumers to force change. He wants
people to buy only the soaps that don’t contain 1, 4 dioxane.
But single mother Khalilah Pickings says she’s already
overwhelmed with trying to be a good mom. How is she
supposed to know whether products have 1, 4 dioxane and if
it’s a real concern or just something environmentalists are
worrying too much about?
“If it hasn’t hurt anyone and if people aren’t like getting
cancer or some crazy weirdo Ebola virus soap-causing
disease, just leave me alone. I’ve got enough to think about, okay?
It’s just me and her here. I don’t have time to think about
the soap that I’m using.”
Pickings says she doesn’t really trust the government, but
she has to assume if it allows the products on the market,
they won’t hurt her little girl.
A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
Transcript
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
(sound of backyard)
Kathy Henry’s backyard runs down to the bank of the Tittabawassee River.
It’s a beautiful view, but that’s not what Kathy Henry sees.
“When I look back there now, I see dioxin.”
You can’t really see the dioxin, but it is there. Dow Chemical started
dumping dioxin into the Tittabawasee river in the 1890s. Dioxin is believed
to cause cancer and damage reproductive systems. And, there are high
concentrations of dioxin not only in the Tittabawasee, but in all the water
and floodplains between the chemical plant and Lake Huron 50 miles
downstream.
Kathy Henry first found out about the dioxin seven years ago when a
whistleblower at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
warned local environmentalists about the contamination. She has wanted to
sell her house ever since.
“We’ve lived here for 24 years. We loved living in here. Now I’m afraid to
go out in my own yard. I just, psychologically, couldn’t stand living here
anymore. I had to get out.”
Dow says it will clean up any dioxin that’s proven to be dangerous to human
health, but the company has spent decades fighting with Michigan and the
US Environmental Protection Agency over how much of it is a threat.
Dow spokesman John Musser says there’s no proof anyone has gotten sick
because of the dioxin.
“We’re not seeing any impacts. We’re not seeing any cause for alarm. We’re
not seeing any imminent health threat. If it’s not a problem for humans or
the environment, then maybe the best thing to do is to leave it alone.”
But Michigan environmental officials are not so laissez-faire about the
contamination. They continue to warn residents about eating fish from the
rivers, about eating wild game killed in the region, and about swimming at
some beaches.
Robert McCann is with the state of Michigan. He says science is way past
the point of debating whether dioxin is dangerous.
“Study after study has shown that there are some very serious potential health
effects from being exposed to it, even at some lower levels over a long
period of time and those health effects do include things like cancer and
diabetes as well as some more minor health effects that can be caused from it.”
But Dow does debate whether dioxin is dangerous. John Musser says
Michigan and the EPA are using bad science based on dioxin exposure to lab
animals. He says Dow has human data from employees that show dioxin is
not as dangerous as people think.
“They were exposed at extremely high levels. And we’ve tracked their
health and their death records for 60 years and we’re not finding any ill
health effects.”
Attacking regulatory science is a common defense for industries. David
Michaels is an epidemiologist at George Washington University. He says
just like big tobacco questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer,
big business always questions the science.
“Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years
as they can they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be
disturbed. It works.”
For example, a recent meeting supposed to update residents about clean up
efforts turned into more of a debate between government scientists and scientists
hired by Dow. One member of the audience got sick of it.
“I’m not a geologist, I’m not a toxicologist, I’m just a resident that lives on
the river. And the last I knew dioxin was the most toxic substance known to
man. And what I’m seeing here is you guys trying to find excuses to justify
poisoning us.”
The EPA recently forced Dow to clean up four hot spots along the river,
including one spot with the highest concentration of dioxin ever found in the
United States.
But the last few months have had more set backs than
progress. In January, the EPA gave up trying to negotiate a clean up
agreement separate from Michigan’s. It said Dow’s proposals were going
backward.
Earlier this month the Region 5 director of the EPA was fired. Mary Gade
says it was because of her tough stance against Dow Chemical.
Clear, colored plastic bottles - such as this one - are made of plastic number 7, which contains BPA (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Recently there’s been a big concern about
bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics.
Some plastic baby bottles and some water bottles have
been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an
online environmental news outlet. The journalists
at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few
years. We got a chance to talk with Sarah Burkhalter
at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly
in the news:
Transcript
Recently there’s been a big concern about bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics. Some plastic baby bottles
and some water bottles have been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an online environmental news
outlet. The journalists at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few years. We got a chance to talk
with Sarah Burkhalter at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly in the news:
Sarah Burkhalter: “BPA has been in our bottles for a long time, and there have just been some
more high-profile studies in the last year. Back in February 2007, the National Institutes of Health
came out with a report saying that there was a link to BPA and health problems. Even at that point,
people were switching over to glass baby bottles and things like that. But just in the same week,
there was another National Institutes of Health high-profile report, just a few days separate from
when Health Canada – the Canadian Health Department – also expressed concern. So, I just think
it was in the news, and people are suddenly realizing that this is a problem.”
Lester Graham: “So, it was a one-two hit in the media, plus when you mention baby bottles, or
possibly the liners of formula cans, that gets people a little nervous, if there’s something toxic in
that stuff.”
Burkhalter: “Absolutely. And, the thing with BPA is that it’s an endocrine disrupter, it can mimic
estrogen. And so the plastics industry has been saying, ‘well, we use it in such small amounts, no,
it’s no problem’. Other studies have said that even in very, very small amounts, BPA can sneak in
and change cell structure, and really muck-up the reproductive system. And it’s been linked to
early puberty, and breast cancer, and behavioral disorders, and all kinds of things. So when they
hear about this being in, you know, things that we’re regularly eating and drinking from, they pay
attention.”
Graham: “Now, here’s the big question – we’ve seen retailers pull some bottles off of the shelves,
there’s been this controversy with Nalgene, and now even a lawsuit against Nalgene about their
plastic bottles – what plastic bottles are safe to use, what ones can’t I use, how do I tell the
difference?”
Burkhalter: “well, BPA is found in number 7 plastic – that’s also known as polycarbonate or lexan –
and that’s the clear, hard plastic. So Nalgene bottles – not the white ones – but the brightly
colored, clear ones. Those are number 7. There’s also, as you mentioned, plastic adhesive in
linings of cans, some of those, BPA is also in some dental sealants. But when it comes to bottles,
number 7 is the one you want to watch out for when we’re talking about BPA. Number 3 has its
own problems – that’s PVC or vinyl – that’s another one you want to watch out for. If you gotta use
plastic, you’re gonna want to look for numbers 2, 4, and 5.”
Graham: “So we look for those numbers on the bottom of the bottle?”
Burkhalter: “Yup. Those are, I mean, you know, they’re not on every plastic, but if there is a
number on them, its ‘2, 4, and 5 to stay alive’. It’s the rhyme I just made up.”
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
Transcript
Chances are your doctor doesn’t know much about environmentally-related
illnesses. Ann Murray looks at why most US doctors and nurses aren’t even
talking about environmental connections to their patients’ health and what’s
being done to remedy the situation:
In 1999, Jo Ann Meier was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was shocked
to discover she had the disease. No one in her family had a history of cancer.
And she only had one of the standard risk factors for the illness:
“Of course, you always speculate when you have a disease like this. Was it
something I did or was it something that I was exposed to?”
Meier says her doctors never talked to her about possible environmental
links to her illness. Today, Meier is cancer free and runs a non-profit that
raises money for breast cancer research. She hears similar stories about other
primary care physicians from the breast cancer patients she works with every
day.
“There’s a great deal of anger about the misinformation or lack of
information given to them in general. I mean, it would be great if your PCP would
say you have to look at what you’re doing on a day-to-day basis that might
be affecting your health.”
Jo Ann Meier’s experience isn’t unusual. Experts agree that most doctors and
nurses aren’t ready to deal with the environmental links to dozens of
illnesses like cancer or lung disease. Sometimes crowded doctors’ schedules
or fear of being seen as an environmental advocate get in the way. Leyla
McCurdy directs the Health and Environment Program at the National
Environmental Educational and Training Foundation in Washington, DC.
McCurdy says medical providers don’t know much about environmental
health issues because training is so hard to come by.
One of the challenges that we are facing in terms of integrating environmental
health is the lack of expertise in the area. There are very few leaders who
are willing to take the time and create their own materials to educate the
students at the medical and nursing schools:
“As a result of this small pool of experts, and an already crowded set of
courses, most med students get only about seven hours of environmental
health education in four years of school. Established doctors and nurses have
even fewer training options.
A small but growing number of health care institutions, non-profits and
agencies are stepping in to fill the training gap. On this morning, medical
residents and staff doctors crowd into a hospital lecture hall.
“Welcome to medical grand rounds. Our speaker today is Doctor Talal ElHanowe,
who is going to talk to us about estrogenic pollutants in the environment and
the risk they pose to people.”
“Can these chemicals, which resemble estrogen, in one way or the other, cause an increase in the risk
to develop cancer? And the answer is yes.”
ElHanowe is a medical doctor and research scientist. He works with the
University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Environmental Oncology. The Center
is developing environmental health training for doctors and nurses. After his
seminar, ElHanowe says response to the program has been good. But his job
of relating environmental health risks can be tough because doctors aren’t
used to treating diseases with causes that are hard to pin down.
“In the scientific community, we can’t prove everything. Many things are
very difficult to prove.”
ElHanowe’s boss, Devra Davis, says medical providers will have to be
satisfied with substantial evidence, not absolute proof, that certain
environmental toxins increase the risk of illnesses, and steer patients to safer
alternatives. Davis is a nationally known epidemiologist. She says
environmental medicine’s emphasis on prevention is the shot in the arm
American health care needs:
“Because no matter how efficient the health care system becomes at finding
and treating disease, if we don’t reduce the burden of the disease itself, we’ll
never be able to improve the health of Americans.”
But to make environmental medicine standard issue in schools and practice,
a lot more doctors and nurses will need to be educated. And that means a lot
more funding. It’s hoped as medical providers make the connection between
environmental exposures and public health, funding sources will open up
and environmental medicine will make its way into mainstream health care.
Activists want Target to stop carrying PVC plastic products because of potential links with toxins. (photo by Lester Graham)
Polyvinyl chloride and the chemicals used to make it are thought to be
linked to birth defects and cancers. So activists are urging companies
to stop using the plastic. America’s 6th largest retailer Target was
recently handed 10,000 signatures at its annual shareholders
meeting. The petition urges the company to phase out the use of PVC
plastic in the products it sells. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports:
Transcript
Polyvinyl chloride and the chemicals used
to make it are thought by some to be linked to
birth defects and cancers. The petition was
delivered to the annual shareholders meeting.
Lisa Ann Pinkerton has more:
In white hazmat suits and dust masks, about 30 protesters chant on the street in front of the new Target store.
It’s the site of this year’s shareholder meeting
and one of those protesters is Brad Melzer, a biology professor at Lake Erie
College in Ohio. But Melzer’s not shaking a protest sign right now. Instead, he’s trying to keep his infant
son shaded and cool in the noon-day sun. As little Winston lounges in a stroller, sucking on a bottle, Melzer says he’s
here today because he’s read about PVC plastic and its possible toxicity to
children:
“To be honest, I don’t even know if this nipple has PVC in it. He could already be
ingesting these things.”
Protests like this one are happening simultaneously in 200 locations across the country,
but in Cleveland, protesters have turned in a petition with 10,000 signatures urging Target
to stop stocking its shelvesproducts containing polyvinyl chloride, or PVC.
Not too far away from the Melzers, is Doctor Cynthia Bearer of Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, and she chats with a
woman holding a protest sign reading “Way off Target with Toxic Toys.”
Bearer’s main concern is chemicals called pthalates, which help soften PVC plastic. The
most common is known as DEHP. Bearer says the chemicals may leach from teething
rings, shower curtains and packaging, and put young children at risk:
“Pthalates are known to be endocrine disrupters. They interact with the thyroid
hormone.”
And they can cause abnormalities in infants, she says, including reproductive
difficulties:
“So we can actually measure health effects, particularly on male infants in terms of their
sexual development at the time of birth from exposure to pthalates.”
Like Dr. Bearer and Brad Melzer, some of the protesters are science professionals.
Some are just concerned parents and others are advocates for children. Maureen Swanson is with the Learning Disabilities Association of America. She says the development of children’s brains might be impaired by exposure
to chemicals in PVC. She says even if science can’t pinpoint right now why 1 in 6
children suffer from learning disabilities, something needs to be done. She says the burden on America’s schools is growing:
“The percentage of school funding that has to go to help these kids who have learning
and developmental disabilities, then that impacts the school’s ability to fund other
educational needs.”
Some precautions have been made to reduce exposure to some of the PVC-related chemicals.
The US Food and Drug Administration has advised against using DEHP in medical
devices, and the Environmental Protection Agency has listed it as a probable carcinogen,
but the government doesn’t bar the use of DEHP in any product.
Even without the ban on the chemicals, 53 companies, including Target’s largest competitor, Wal-Mart, have begun phasing
out the products that contain PVC. Target Spokeswoman Carolyn Brookter says her company has some options it’s working on,
but it’s reluctant to set a time table for phasing out PVC. But she says that doesn’t mean that Target isn’t taking the
issue seriously:
“We’re talking to out buyers, we’re talking to our venders and we’re asking them to look
into some alternatives that we have.”
If Target doesn’t move on the PVC issue, new dad Brian Melzer
says he’ll be left with a difficult shopping dilemma:
“I don’t like shopping at Wal-Mart at all. But… if Target continues its practices of not phasing
out PVCs. Yeah, then definitely I would choose one of their competitors, and if it had to
be Wal-Mart, I guess it would have to be Wal-Mart.”
However, at this point, Target Spokeswoman Brookter doesn’t think the company will
lose business on this single issue.
For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.
Colin Horwitz is a researcher at Carnegie Mellon. He's working on a chemical that will break down pollution released by pulp and paper mills.
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
Green chemistry looks a lot like the kind of chemistry most of us learned in high school. This is an experiment on a pollution-eating catalyst being conducted by a grad student at Carnegie Mellon’s Green Oxidation Lab.
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
Modern chemistry is everywhere – the paint on our walls, the ink on the morning newspaper, and the plastics in our computers.
Problem is – the chemicals are also in our air, water, and food. Reid Frazier visited a chemist who is trying to re-think how chemicals are made:
Transcript
Modern chemistry is everywhere: the paint on our walls, the ink on the
morning newspaper, and the plastics in our computers. Problem is – the
chemicals are also in our air, water, and food. The Environment
Report’s Reid Frazier visited a chemist who is trying to re-think how
chemicals are made:
This room looks and sounds like a chemical lab anywhere in the world.
Trays full of vials sit atop machines with blinking lights. Notebooks
filled with hand-written numbers sit next to computer screens. But this
isn’t a typical chemistry lab.
Evan Beach is a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh. He works at the Institute for Green Oxidation Chemistry, or
Green Ox. Beach is analyzing wastewater from a pulp and paper mill:
“We try and work with as close to the real pollution as we can. We
actually have the paper mill ship the stuff to us.”
Beach is working on a chemical that he hopes will clean up the
wastewater before it hits rivers and streams.
The Green Ox lab is run by Terry Collins. His career as a green chemist
started as a college student in his native New Zealand. He worked
during summers at a plant that made refrigerators. One summer, he
discovered that workers using a cleaning agent were all getting sick.
“Just in lunch with them I’d hear about their headaches and their blood
noses and I realized, my goodness, they’re using an awful lot of these
organic solvents, and if there’s any benzene there, these are signature
benzene intoxication conditions, early stage.”
Collins calculated the workers were getting slowly poisoned by benzene,
a chemical that’s known to cause cancer. He told company officials
about it and they promised to replace it.
“So I went a way, nine months later, I felt an obligation I went back
and checked they had made no change so I went and I got every paper I
could and I took it and dropped it on the chief chemist and I can still
remember his jaw hitting the floor when I opened the door and gave it
to him, I then tried to get the institute of chemistry to help and they
told me not to even bother going to the health department, that they
wouldn’t help, and they were probably right, and I just felt immensely
frustrated by the situation.”
After this experience, Collins decided to focus his research on
reducing the harm caused by modern chemicals. He started designing a
chemical catalyst in the 1980s. When combined with hydrogen peroxide,
the catalyst eats through long chains of harmful chemicals. It could
potentially clean up the paper, textile, and plastics industries. It
could also curb pollution found in almost every home in America: The
water coming out of your tap.
“If you have a glass of water in most American cities you get some
Prozac and you get many other things as well that come from the
pharmaceutical industry.”
The drugs can be found in trace amounts in tapwater. Their effect on
human health is still unknown. But these drugs are being flushed into
the environment and they don’t break down easily. Once they enter
rivers and streams, these chemicals can last for decades. Scientists
believe they might be affecting fertility in some animals. Collins and
his colleagues believe the catalyst they’re developing could break down
these drugs once they hit the environment.
Some believe all chemists should take a more holistic look at the
compounds they make. Sasha Ryabov is a physical chemist who works in
Collins’ lab. He worked as a traditional chemist at Moscow State
University in his native Russia. Ryabov converted to green chemistry
when he came to Green Ox. Since he’s made the switch, he thinks that
all chemists should consider themselves green:
“It’s not the future field… It’s a natural part that cannot be
separated. The green chemistry we are thinking should be part of
chemistry as a whole.”
While academics like Collins are forging new grounds in their field,
some big companies have started to follow suit by using more
environmentally-friendly products. One hitch is that the federal
government provides little funding for research in the field. A bill
before congress could boost funding for green chemistry. Regardless of
funding, Collins says all chemists must do their part to address some
of the problems their discipline has helped create:
“If you’re a chemist, and you have this information, it’s a burden to
carry. But we have to deal with it, we have no choice; we have to look
after the children of future generations.”
For the sake of those future generations, Collins hopes more chemists
see the value of taking the long view when they’re in the laboratory.
BPA is found in things such as plastic water bottles, canned goods, and baby bottles (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
