December, 2008 - The Environment Report

Childhood Obesity Antidote: A Walk to School

In a suburban area of Chicago, kids protested to make the area safer for walking to school (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Kids in big cities often live
close to school, so you’d think walking
to school would be an easy solution to
cutting childhood obesity. But some
parents worry about traffic, abduction,
or gangs so much, they stuff their kids
in the car instead. Shawn Allee met some
groups who want parents to overcome that
fear and let kids burn more calories:

Transcript

“I’m going to walk you through what Safe Routes To School is and we’ll talk about
how it works in a place like Chicago.”

This is Melody Geraci.

She’s with the Active Transportation Alliance, a Chicago group that promotes walking and
biking.

For Geraci, there’s plain-jane walking to school where you toss your kid a lunch bucket and
wave goodbye – and there’s organized walking.

In some parts of Chicago and other big cities – parents don’t trust the plain-jane kind.

“When we ask parents, why does your child not walk or bike to school, a lot of
parents will say ‘distance’ – it’s too far. That’s not the case in Chicago. Most kids
live close enough to their neighborhood school to get there by foot, right? But then
they say traffic. People are driving crazy. The streets are hard to cross, not enough
crossing guards, all that stuff.”

Geraci says organized school walking is a remedy: put kids together, and put adults in the
mix.

“There’s this phenomenon called safety in numbers. So if you have fifteen people at
an intersection at a light, they’re much easier to see than just one person trying to
navigate it all by themselves and nobody’s seen what happened.”

Geraci says this safety in numbers idea goes a long way in fighting traffic problems.

It can also work on fear over gangs or abduction.

“When fewer people are outside, walking places, biking places, just being out in
their environment, what happens? Things happen. Crime. There are fewer people
watching.”

Geraci’s message resonates with Carmen Scott-Boria.

Scott-Boria recommends walking to school as a solution to childhood obesity.

But she hesitated at first, because of her experience as a kid.

“The same time that I walked to school, that was also a prime gang-recruiting time
after school, so I definitely was intrigued by the gangs and got involved with gangs
because I walked to school.”

Scott-Boria says she’s not trying to scare parents – she just wants them to know what
they’re up against – and how organized they need to be.

To get an idea of what organized school walking can look like, I head to one of Chicago’s
elementary schools.

Victoria Arredondo and Remedios Salinas are near the school’s back entrance.

They run a walking school bus.

Every day, Arredondo and Salinas walk kids on a fixed route between school and home.

It’s like a bus, with no wheels – and no air pollution.

Arredondo says she gets plenty out of it.

“When I’m walking, I feel famous. People greet me, the neighbors, the businesses,
because they see us with the children and they greet us.”

Arredondo appreciates the recognition – because, every once in a while, it’s clear how
important her volunteer work is.

“We have a problem with gangs. A young lady got caught in the crossfire last year.
Since then the violence has settled down. It’s sad because after the loss, people want
to help.”

Her partner Salinas says that doesn’t last long.

“Sometimes people sign up but they don’t continue after a month, they stop doing
it.”

Salinas and Arredondo say their walking school bus makes everyone feel safer and fewer
cars clog up the street near school.

That translates into cleaner air and more exercise for kids.

That’s a community asset they’re glad to protect – they wish more parents would get on
board.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Toxic Toys Still on Shelves

A lead detector finds over 5000 parts per million of lead in this toy. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

Millions of toys were recalled
last year because of lead contamination.
There were about half as many recalls this
year, but lead in toys is still a problem.
Rebecca Williams reports there’s a new law
that will limit the amount of lead in any
toy or children’s product, but it won’t go
into effect until after the holidays:

Transcript

There is already a federal limit on how much lead can be in the paint on
kids’ toys. But lead can also be in places you might not expect – like plastic
parts of toys.

The new law puts a limit on lead in any part of a toy. But the new law won’t
take effect until February 10th. So that means toys that you can buy now
can legally have very high levels of lead embedded in them.

Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center. It’s an environmental group
that’s been testing toys for lead.

(beep)

He has an analyzer that tells you what elements are in a toy – in this case, a
plastic building block.

“So when I look at the results here, this orange block has over 3,000 parts
per million of lead. Now remember this will be illegal to be on the shelves
in February. It’s legal now because the lead’s not in the paint, it’s embedded
in the plastic.”

Babies and little kids’ brains and bodies are still developing. Since they tend
to put toys in their mouths, they’re really vulnerable to damage from lead.

“There is no safe level of lead in blood. Pediatricians have said a little bit of
lead causes a little bit of brain damage and a lot of lead causes a lot of brain
damage. We think toys shouldn’t be involved in causing any amount of
brain damage.”

Mike Shriberg says there is no way to know just by looking which toys have
lead and which ones don’t. But he says children’s jewelry is by far the
worst. They found it’s five times more likely to have lead than other toys.
He says simpler toys, such as unpainted wooden toys, tend to be safer.

“Just to be clear there is no surefire rule.”

Shriberg’s group has tested 1,500 toys this year and has put the results up on
their website: healthy-toys dot org.

The group found about one in every five toys still has lead.

Mattel and Hasbro say they’re carefully testing their toys this year. And
retailers such as Toys R Us and Wal-Mart are also testing toys.

The National Retail Federation did not return calls for comment.

The National Association of Manufacturers did not want to comment for this
story. But in a recent Wall Street Journal article – a spokesperson for the
trade group said billions of dollars in inventory could be lost when the new
lead law goes into effect.

Three billion toys are sold in the US each year. So who’s going to make
sure all those toys comply with the new law? A small government agency.

Julie Vallese is with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

“CPSC always has investigators in the field looking for products in violation
of safety standards. Now it is a big market and we do have limited
resources. But we have a systematic way of going about looking for
violations and we will be doing that come February 10th.”

Last year, the New York Times reported that just one man, named Bob, was
responsible for testing toys for safety.

Agency officials say that’s not true – they say many people test toys. We
asked how many. We asked repeatedly. We wanted to know the exact
number of people who test toys for lead. But they refused to tell us.

Congress has promised more money for more toy testers. But that has not
happened yet.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says besides – industry has the
biggest responsibility here.

The agency says when the new toy law goes into effect in February, it’ll be
up to the manufacturers, the retailers and the importers to make sure the toys
they’re selling are not in violation of the new lead law.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are packing up, there's not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Transcript

It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through
rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:

Critics say President George W. Bush is doing a lot of last minute shopping for his
friends in big industries.

“What’s happening in Washington right now is a really quiet sneak attack on a lot of
fundamental protections that Americans enjoy under the law.”

That’s John Walke. He’s a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He says these last minute Bush rules are not good for the environment – and they’re not
good for people.

“It’s important to realize we’re talking here about midnight de-regulation. These are
actions that are removing safeguards and protections of public health, and public welfare,
and the environment, and giving industry the permission to commit those harmful acts.”

So what kind of harmful acts is he talking about? Here are just some of the more than 60 rules and
regulations the Bush Administration is working on or have finalized.

A rule that makes it easier for coal mining companies to dump their waste into nearby
creeks and streams.

A rule changes that would allow older coal burning power plants to pump out more air
pollution without having to install clean up equipment.

A rule that would allow large dairies or livestock farms to police pollution from their own
operations.

And a rule that would make it more difficult to protect workers from toxic chemicals.

It’s a long list. But the main philosophy of the Bush Administration is that big industries
need a break from government regulations.

The Administration says they’ve been working on these rules for a long time. But
they’ve waited until the last minute to finalize a lot of them.

Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there’s not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. Your party
lost the election. So why not? Jimmy Carter’s administration was famous for it. The
term ‘midnight regulation’ was coined when Carter kicked last-minute rule making into
high gear. And every president since then has had his own last-minute rule changes.

The incoming Obama Administration is promising to go through these rules. Jon Podesta
is with Obama’s transition team. And he talked about that on Fox News Sunday.

“As a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders
reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, which ones should be repealed, and
which ones should be amended.”

Overturning some of these rules won’t be easy. Joaquin Sapien is a reporter for
ProPublica. He’s been following these midnight regulations closely. He says what
makes the end of this administration different is how it planned for the end. Last May,
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten contacted all the federal agencies.

“What they did was they sent out a memo saying, ‘get your work done on these
regulations by November the first.’ So that would give these agencies plenty of time to
get them in effect before the next administration takes over, thereby limiting what the
next administration could do about some of these rules.”

Once the rules are finalized – they become effective in thirty to sixty days. And once that
happens – Sapien says it’s pretty much a done deal.

“And so, if a rule is in effect by the time the Obama Administration takes over, there’s
really very little he can do.”

For every rule that has gone into effect, it would take a lengthy rule-making process to
overturn it – a process that can take months and more likely years to complete.

There is another option. Congress can review the rules – and stop them before they’re
enforced. But with all the attention on the financial crisis, and with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, experts think Congress won’t do that. And that these last minute rules will
be government policy for awhile.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Growing Upward, Not Outward

Valcent's vertical farm has hundreds of clear plastic sheets holding pockets of plants. These hang from moving racks. (Photo courtesy of Valcent)

It takes a lot of land to grow
crops. There are concerns there won’t
be enough land to grow all the needed
food for the rapidly growing population.
That’s why some researchers and business
people are creating what they call
vertical farms. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

On the outside, it looks like a big green house. Inside,
there’s an overhead conveyer system.

It looks kind of like a dry cleaner. Hanging from the moving
racks are hundreds of clear plastic sheets. Each has rows of
pockets. In each pocket, there’s a vegetable plant.

The conveyor moves them around to make sure the plants
get enough light, nutrients and water.

Glen Kertz is president of Valcent Products, which is building
its first commercial-scale vertical farm in Alberta, Canada –
where it can be expensive to truck in fresh produce.

“A couple of hundred years ago, they couldn’t get fresh
lettuce in the dead of winter. But do they want it today?
Yes.”

Kertz and others think we could vertical farm in cities in
skyscrapers.

But Kurtz says the farm’s heat, lighting and conveyor system
all run on fossil fuels and he wants to switch to renewable
energy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Tuna Catch Limit Ignores Science

A tuna fishing trip from May 1979 (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

That bright red tuna at the sushi bar comes from a fish that’s in trouble. Rebecca Williams reports scientists want to see fewer bluefin tuna caught in some places in the world. But the organization that sets limits is ignoring the scientists’ advice:

Transcript

Bluefin tuna is the highest sushi grade tuna. So a lot of people want to eat it. Scientists say it’s being overfished.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas sets the catch limits. Scientists told the commission to lower the tuna catch in the Mediterranean. But instead… the commission raised it.

Rebecca Lent is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
She suggests you ask the restaurant manager where your tuna came from. She says the western Atlantic stock is managed better.

“If it comes from New England, if it comes from Canada, it’s likely a very well managed fish that came with its own tail tag and it’s carefully being monitored. If it was something that was imported I would have more concern about consuming it.”

So if the tuna comes from Europe or the Middle East – Lent says you should go for a different kind of fish.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

New Standards for Organic Fish

Farmed fish, such as salmon, eat a lot of wild fish that happen to swim into their pens. And that means they could be eating over-fished species. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service)

To be labeled organic, animals
have to be fed all organic food. But
under the new proposal that won’t be
the case for fish. Julie Grant reports
that in the recommendations for organic
fish, the standard is much lower:

Transcript

Some fish is raised in huge net-pens in the ocean. Farmed
fish, such as salmon, eat a lot of wild fish that happen to
swim into their pens. And that means they could be eating
over-fished species.

New recommendations by the National Organic Standards
Board would go ahead and allow farmed fish to eat up to
25% wild food – as long as it’s not from endangered species.

George Leonard is director of aqua-culture with the Ocean
Conservancy. He says these standards would weaken the
organic label.

“You don’t change the organic standard to be consistent with
current practices, you hold the organic standard steady and
you allow or you incentive the industry to change their
practices to reach that standard.”

The new “organic fish” recommendations still need final
approval from the USDA.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Air Pollution Rule Has Some Fuming

Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

The proposed rule change would change how air pollution is measured from power plants
that expand their operations.

Right now, the air pollution is capped at a certain amount
per year. The new rule would cap the amount of air pollution allowed by the hour.

That
means a power plant could put out a lot more air pollution over the course of a year.

John Walke is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says
this little change in the rule could have a big impact.

“So as soon as these utility companies began to expand their plants and to pump out more
smog and soot pollution. People in surrounding communities would see their air quality
worsen.”

Six northeastern states are urging the EPA not to go forward with the rule change. In a
recent letter sent to the EPA they say the rule change – quote “threatens the quality of our
states’ air and the health of our citizens.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Trout Used as the ‘Canary’ in a Stream

Natural resources workers wade in the Vermillion River, 30 minutes south of Minneapolis. They're sending mild shocks through the water to capture trout and measure them. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Brian Nerbonne is a trout habitat expert with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. He says when developers minimize the flow of warm stormwater into streams, it can help trout survive and flourish. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
The trout in the Vermillion River grow quickly, because they have other fish to eat. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

Suburban growth typically degrades
the quality of rivers and lakes. But
developers are finding ways to protect
water quality even as they build housing
developments and malls. Stephanie Hemphill
reports on a stream in a major metropolitan
area that still has trophy-sized native
trout in it – and how people are working
together to protect the trout:

Transcript

A half dozen people in waders stand nearly waist-deep in a bend of
the Vermillion River. They’re getting ready to send electric shocks
through the water.

(sound of gas motor starting)

They’re looking for trout.

They’re stunning the fish so they can catch them in nets. When they
have about ten fish of all sizes in their bucket, they pull their boat to
the side to count and measure them.

“You can see on the one he’s pulling out right now, it’s a male, it’s got
that big hook jaw on the front. 532. These are millimeters; that’s
about 21 inches. ”

Brian Nerbonne is a trout habitat specialist with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, and today he’s a happy man. He’s
collecting a healthy batch of trout on this river just thirty minutes from
downtown Minneapolis. He figures the big ones they’re finding are
about six years old.

“Fish grow really fast in the Vermillion: you saw when we were
shocking there’s a lot of a other fish, suckers, creek chubs, and things
like that they can eat, they grow a lot faster eating those other fish
than if they were just eating bugs.”

Biologists regard trout as a kind of canary in the coal mine. These
trout are healthy, and that’s a sign that this river is healthy for all
kinds of animals, including people.

As you walk along the stream, you can see schools and houses and
roads literally a stone’s throw from the river. Typically, development
like this threatens the trout, because it produces warm, dirty storm
water runoff.

Twenty years ago, a local sportsmen’s group asked the state to
designate parts of the Vermillion River as a trout stream. That would
mean local governments would have to do more to protect the water
quality, and not all of them were happy with the idea.

State planner Michele Hanson had the task of coaxing local officials
to get on board.

She did that by doing what the DNR is doing today – shocking the
river to show local officials there was something there worth
protecting.

“Once everyone believed us that it’s trout stream, then we went out
and met with every community along the river, of the section that we
were going to designate as trout stream, to tell them what it would
mean to them, what changes might happen.”

It would mean every town, every township and county that the river
flowed through would have to make some changes in the way they
developed.

Now, in some sections of the river, builders must leave a buffer to
protect the stream, as much as 150-feet wide.

Also, they need to avoid increasing the amount of runoff. Rainwater
that sheets off roads and driveways and rushes directly into the river
is too warm for the trout.

Builders are learning how to get the water to soak into the ground
instead. They can build narrower streets and shorter driveways.
They can build rain gardens and other landscaping that holds the
runoff long enough that it can soak in.

The state is also building structures in the river to provide better
hiding places and spawning grounds for the trout.

(sound of counting fish)

It’s all aimed at holding onto a rare treasure – a healthy trout stream in
a major metropolitan area.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Orphaned Bear Cubs Find Refuge

Sally Maughan and her assistant John Knight (Photo by Sadie Babits)
The bears' enclosure (Photo by Sadie Babits)
A shy bear cub (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Many state wildlife agencies can’t
or won’t take in injured or abandoned
critters. They rely on a lot of volunteers
to do the job. One woman in Idaho has made
it her life’s work to give orphaned bear
cubs throughout the West a second chance.
Sadie Babits brings us this profile:

Transcript

Sally Maughan used to be known as the “squirrel lady.” As a wildlife
rehabilitator, she took in weasels, foxes, raccoons and a lot of
squirrels.

She had no intention of working with bears until one day the
Idaho Fish and Game Department called.

“And they kept calling because nobody else had an enclosure that could hold a bear.”

Maughan named that first bear cub Ruggles. That was twenty
years ago.

So far, she’s helped 189 orphaned bear cubs from around the
West. She runs a non-profit in Boise called the Idaho Black Bear
Rehabilitation Program.

(sound of outdoors and cars passing)

It’s a chilly afternoon but it’s sunny. So Maughan, her helper John Knight
and I sit outside on her front steps. It’s hard to ignore the smell as
we talk. You know that musty smell of animals and straw and well, bears. It’s kind of an
animal barnyard smell out here.

This place used to be surrounded
by pasture. Not any more. On one side there’s an upscale subdivision.
And on the other side, there’s another large subdivision. Maughan says
her neighbors don’t mind the bears and sometimes she’ll let them come
visit.

“We don’t want bears seeing people any more than they need to.
John just comes in and feeds and comes back out. And I do the bottle
feeding which is when they really attach so once they are weaned he
pretty much takes over from there.”

(sound of gate opening)

Sadie: “So who’s that?”

John: “That is one of the Oregon bears.”

The cub makes a bee line for his house the minute he spots us. Maughan’s
assistant John Knight explains this bear and two others are the only
ones here at the center.

The bear pokes his head out then ducks right
back inside as I check out the roomy enclosure. There are logs to play
on and green apples to eat.

John: “That’s their swim tub.”

Sadie: “They have a swim tub.”

John: “Yep. They like to break it often.”

Sadie: “Will they get in there during the winter?”

John: Yeah. Some bears do. It’s odd. One bear last year was in it everyday. It was
snowing – 30 degrees. He was in it.”

These cubs are orphans. We don’t really know what happened to their
mothers. They may have been killed by licensed hunters or even illegally killed.

Each year more orphaned cubs show up at Maughan’s place. She’s one of only
a few bear rehabilitators in the West.

Jon Rachael works for the Idaho Fish and Game as a wildlife manager. He says they have
to turn to people like Maughan.

“We simply don’t have the personnel or resources to handle all
of that.”

Just in the last year, Sally Maughan took in 53 bears. It was a bad
year
for berries and there were a lot of wildfires around
the West.

“What are you going to do? Say, ‘I’m sorry I can’t take you – just die?’ Uh-uh. Can’t do
that. So, hopefully, eventually, there’ll be some more rehab-ers
for bears. It’s a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of energy.”

The World Society for the Protection of Animals covers most of Maughan’s
expenses. She relies heavily though on donations. It’s still not enough.

Anything left from her paycheck as a travel agent goes back to the bears.
She’s even wiped out her retirement just to get these black bears back
into the wild where they belong.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Part Ii: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings, one of which is depicted in this photo that dates from the time of Zion, Illinois' founding. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The nuclear industry is eager to
build new nuclear power plants, but for
now they’re just far-off plans. The real
growth industry is in containers to hold
radioactive spent fuel. Dozens of closed
nuclear plants need somewhere to put spent
fuel waste, and these containers fit the
bill. Shawn Allee looks at why one town’s
bracing for their arrival:

Transcript

Illinois’ Zion nuclear power plant hasn’t produced electricity for eleven years.

It’s so close to Lake Michigan you can smell the beach. But other than that, the empty
parking lots and office space make the place seem dead.

The plant manager says that’s not the case.

“I think a lot of people have a vision of us playing cards or swinging our golf clubs
on the beach. I would say we’ve been extremely busy the entire time.”

Ron Schuster says he and other workers remove hazards from the station, like diesel fuel
and electrical equipment.

But one hazard is still here: the spent nuclear fuel.

And when the power plant is dismantled, that radioactive waste will be put in new
containers.

They’re concrete casks.

Schuster: “A cask is approximately fifteen feet tall. It looks like a small silo and
there is no radiation exposure on the outside of these things.”

Allee: “So from this office window, can we see where the casks might go?”

Schuster: “We’ve got four spots on this site that have been at least looked at. When
it comes time to actually put the fuel in dry-cask storage it will be a huge structure,
about as big as a football field.”

Schuster’s confident this will be a simple and safe solution.

Not everyone in Zion so convinced.

“This cask issue, just sitting on the site was never appealing to me.”

Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings close to the power plant.

In other towns with spent-fuel casks, nuclear power plants sometimes get turned into non-
nuclear power plants or into parks.

But Delisle and the city of Zion are hoping to do more – maybe build new commercial
buildings or even homes.

Delisle says having concrete containers full of radioactive waste left on-site could make
their work harder.

“So, I hope the casks are relocated somewhere else. Having them next to a
population of about 23,000 people is probably not a great place for it to be.”

Other communities are in the same position – they’ll be left with spent fuel casks even if
their dead nuclear plants get torn down.

There’s a simple reason.

“We don’t really have a final resting spot for these casks at the moment.”

Dave Lochbaum is with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

“The federal government is way behind schedule providing a repository for high-
level waste.”

Lochbaum says the government has one storage place in mind.

It’s inside Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but that’s still just being studied.

Power companies can sometimes move spent fuel to other plants or facilities.

But Lochbaum says politically, that just won’t fly.

“There’s no revenue from electricity being generated, so it’s a hard sell to go to a
community and say we’d like to have you store spent fuel for decades into the
future. The easiest way out is to leave it where it is, because those communities have
already accepted that fate.”

Well, cities like Zion say they didn’t accept this exact fate.

They bought into nuclear power for jobs and property taxes – they didn’t count on
babysitting spent fuel waste.

But that’s likely to happen, because the government won’t take it. The power companies
won’t dare move it, and the towns can’t move themselves away.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Month: December 2008

Childhood Obesity Antidote: A Walk to School

Transcript

Related Links

Toxic Toys Still on Shelves

Transcript

Related Links

Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour

Transcript

Related Links

Growing Upward, Not Outward

Transcript

Related Links

Tuna Catch Limit Ignores Science

Transcript

Related Links

New Standards for Organic Fish

Transcript

Related Links

Air Pollution Rule Has Some Fuming

Transcript

Related Links

Trout Used as the ‘Canary’ in a Stream

Transcript

Related Links

Orphaned Bear Cubs Find Refuge

Transcript

Related Links

Part Ii: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

Transcript

Related Links