contaminants - The Environment Report

Parental Common Sense

Two recent medical studies have shed some light on the cause and possible prevention of childhood asthma. The first, a Canadian study, examines the relationship between breastfeeding and the risk of developing childhood asthma. The second study out of southern California indicates a connection between smog and childhood asthma rates. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that the reports confirm what the parents of many asthmatic children have understood all along:

Transcript

I’ll never forget the day that the pediatrician marched into our infant daughter’s hospital room and demanded that I stop breastfeeding her. Sarah had been in intensive care for several weeks in an attempt to control her asthma – without success. Her doctor turned to the only remaining variable he could identify – breast milk. My husband and I were convinced that the immunological benefits of breastfeeding offered Sarah the best chance for survival. We put up such a stink that within 24 hours Sarah was allowed to resume breastfeeding. Months later, a specialist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children not only commended our decision – he felt that breastfeeding had probably saved Sarah’s life.

Eight years later a new study out of the same Toronto hospital confirms our parental intuition. According to the report, breastfeeding actually protects children against asthma. The longer they breastfeed, the more protection they’re offered. The study found that when infants were breastfed for nine months or longer, the risk of asthma and wheezing was reduced by 50%.

The results of the study are no surprise to me. It has been eight years since Sarah first left the oxygen tent that was her home as an infant. Today, her once life-threatening condition has been replaced by a mild asthma. It’s only triggered when she has a bad cold or if she’s exposed to high levels of air pollution.

Which leads me to a second study out of Southern California. Researchers there have spent eight years studying the effects of ground level ozone on childhood asthma. They’ve concluded that ozone not only triggers asthmatic attacks, it can actually cause it.

What both these studies confirm is that environmental factors – both positive and negative – can have a dramatic effect on the incidence and severity of asthma. As the parents of a severely asthmatic child, these are common sense lessons that we learned by carefully observing our daughter. For us, they simply confirm what we already knew.

The big lesson here is that parental observation and intuition provide us with valuable tools for protecting our children’s health – often years before the scientific community reaches the same conclusions. Unfortunately, this anecdotal evidence is too often dismissed as being unscientific -as if that were the watermark that everything should be measured by. In light of these recent studies, maybe its time we considered the importance of good ol’ common sense.

Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario. She comes to us by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.

WEBSITE INFO:

“Breastfeeding and Asthma is Young Children – Findings from a Population -Based Study”, Sharon Dell, MD, Teresa To, PhD., (November 2001) can be found at the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine website at www.archpediatrics.com

Information about the Children’s Health Study can be found at the National Institute of Health Studies at www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/ozasth.htm and the California EPA site at arbis.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr013102.htm

Proposed Pipeline Divides Community

A Findlay, Ohio-based oil company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding has the story:

Transcript

A Findlay, Ohio based Oil Company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding reports.

The proposed 149-mile long pipeline will cross the Ohio River from Kenova, West Virginia and snake through parts of the Wayne National Forest and scenic Hocking Hills in Southeastern Ohio and South Central Ohio. Company spokesman Tim Aydt says the project will help stabilize gasoline prices in a region stretching from eastern Illinois to western New York.

“The existing pipeline infrastructure that serves us today is decades old and it was designed when there was only one grade of gasoline and one grade of diesel fuel. And it was designed to serve a population about half the size it is today. Over time, with the growth we’ve had in the Midwest we’ve outgrown that pipeline capacity and as a result we’ve witnessed the last two summers where we’ve had constrained supply that’s resulted in price spikes.”

The pipeline might help stabilize gasoline prices in the region by adding a second source of supply for refined petroleum products. Currently, The Great Lakes region is dependent solely on pipelines running out of refineries in the Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Texas. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal also presents a potential environmental risk. The pipeline will cross 363 streams, 55 wetlands, and parts of three watersheds. For some, the prospect of a pipeline carrying gasoline and jet fuel through environmentally sensitive areas has sparked fears. Jane Ann Ellis is a founder and trustee of Crane Hollow…. a privately owned, dedicated state nature preserve in the path of the pipeline.

“If this pipeline would be built and if there was any kind of leak this would decimate the clean water that we have. It is easier to keep your drinking water clean than it is to clean it up afterwards. And it’s cheaper in the long run for the general public.”

Michael Daniels also opposes Marathon-Ashland’s project. He owns a country inn that attracts tourists from Ohio and surrounding states. He says many of his customers come to the region to hear chirping birds, babbling brooks, and to see the fall foliage. Daniels says both construction and operation of the pipeline will have a negative effect on his business.

“Certainly! Who would want to come as a tourist and be exposed to that kind of noise and intrusion into their experience? So, there’s no question that it will impact my business.”

But company spokesman Tim Aydt says the pipeline route through parts of a national forest and other environmentally sensitive areas is the best possible route.

“We wanted to avoid population centers. We wanted to avoid residential or commercial developments and we wanted to avoid flood plains where we could. So, when all of that was put into the mix we came up with the best route overall. Obviously it’s not the cheapest route because it’s not a straight line between two points. But, about 80 percent of the route follows existing utility corridors or those areas that are less prone to development.”

Marathon-Ashland says without the pipeline the Great Lakes could soon face shortages of gasoline, lines at the pump and greater fluctuations in gas prices. The tension between the company and pipeline opponents turns on the question of whether Marathon-Ashland will be required to submit an “environmental impact statement.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is expected to make that decision early this year following a recommendation from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Corps spokesman Steve Wright says there’s no question such a requirement will delay the project.

“That will take longer. You know they take varying lengths of time but certainly they can’t be done very quickly.”

Marathon-Ashland contends an environmental impact statement (EIS) is unnecessary. But, opponents of the plan say the EIS is critical since the pipeline puts so many streams and wetlands at risk for potential pollution.

For the Great Lakes radio Consortium I’m Tom Borgerding

Battery-Powering Bacteria

U.S. scientists have identified bacteria that can eat pollution and generate electricity at the same time. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Greener Cleaners

Joseph DeSimone, founder and chairman of Micell Technologies, explains the cleaning process that clothes undergo in his Hanger’s store in Morrisville, NC.

Consumers may not realize it, but the simple act of dropping off clothes at the cleaners could end up harming the environment. For decades, dry cleaners have used a toxic solvent to clean clothes. Now there are many contaminated former dry cleaning sites across the country. But a solution to the dry cleaning problem may now be available. A new chain of cleaners is touting a “greener” system that uses a non-toxic everyday substance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Patty Murray has more:

Reining in Diesel Exhaust

The EPA is planning to regulate smoke from diesel engines in farm and construction equipment. Photo courtesy of NESCAUM.

You see them every time you pass a construction site: big machines belching thick diesel smoke. The smoke isn’t just annoying. It causes major health and environmental problems. Now, after years of dealing with other issues, the EPA is taking on this major source of uncontrolled pollution: emissions from farm and construction equipment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert looks at the challenges the EPA faces in this far-reaching regulatory effort:

Transcript

You see them every time you pass a construction site. Big machines belching thick diesel smoke. The smoke isn’t just annoying. It causes major health and environmental problems. Now, after years of dealing with other issues, the EPA is taking on this major source of uncontrolled pollution: emissions from farm and construction equipment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert looks at the challenges EPA faces in this far-reaching regulatory effort.

Emissions from diesel engines create problems for both the environment and people’s health. Diesels release nitrogen oxides, which are a factor in acid rain and smog. They also spew very fine particulates that can lodge deep in the lung when inhaled. And that causes respiratory problems.

Controlling these emissions is no easy task. That’s because most diesel engines still burn fuel containing high amounts of sulfur. The sulfur clogs up existing pollution control devices. And that makes it a lot tougher to come up with ways to reduce emissions. But Christopher Grundler, deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality in Ann Arbor, Michigan, says its an important challenge.

“In the year 2007 we estimate that off road or non-road emissions will make up over 40% of the air pollution from mobile sources or transportation sources, so it’s a big deal.”

In tackling air pollution, EPA’s first job was to clean up gasoline car emissions. Now its moving onto diesels. The agency’s first challenge came when they issued a rule for highway trucks last year. That plan drops sulfur content in diesel fuel from 500 parts per million to 15 parts per million. It also reduces overall diesel emissions by 90% by the year 2007. The EPA now wants to use this rule as a model for farm and construction equipment as well. But the agency is likely to face opposition from refiners, who are fighting the on road rule. Jim Williams is with the American Petroleum Institute.

“We feel that the ability of the refining industry to make sufficient volumes of 15 ppm in the timeframe that EPA wants us to is highly questionable, whether we can do that. We’ve done some studies that show there will be supply shortfalls with the 15-ppm limit.”

Williams is pushing to phase in the requirement over a longer period. He says that would give refiners more time to produce the necessary quantities of low sulfur fuel. Until then, refiners also want to continue providing high sulfur fuel.

But Engine Manufacturers don’t like that idea. They’ve agreed to support tough standards only if the switchover to low sulfur fuel happens quickly. Jed Mandel runs the Engine Manufacturers Association. He’s worried that if cheaper, low sulfur fuel remains abundant; users could continue relying on the dirtier fuel.

“If there are dual fuels available — if there’s cleaner fuel on the marketplace for some time, as well as higher sulfur dirtier fuel, and there’s a price differential in that fuel, there will be a disincentive for users to buy the cleanest engines.”

Mandel says that could cause a delay in purchasing these engines for several years.

Like Mandel, Jason Grumet, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, also wants tight standards. Northeast states, plagued with acid rain and smog caused largely by these diesels, are pushing the EPA to develop the tightest standards possible to meet clean air goals and also to better protect equipment operators.

“The particles from diesel emissions can lodge very deep within the human lung and we know that these particles are carcinogens, so for folks who work with construction equipment every day or on construction sites, for people who farm or plow fields for several hours a day, we think that the emissions of diesel pollutants cause a very substantial and real threat to their health.”

(sound of tractor)

Herb Smith isn’t worried about his health. Smith hops off his tractor and stands on the land that his family has farmed in Ida Township, Michigan since 1865. Despite years of inhaling diesel fumes, Smith said he’s in perfect physical condition. Though he supports regulations to control diesel emissions, he’s worried that the EPA will place undue hardship on farmers.

“I am concerned about fuel costs because our margin in farming is very slim and anything we add to fuel costs, we have to absorb it.”

Smith fears that some of the smaller farmers may not be able to bear higher fuel and engine costs and could go out of business.

Despite the many different viewpoints on the issue, EPA’s Grundler is confident that his agency can develop a rule that will bring tremendous public health benefits at a reasonable cost.

“We’ve shown we can do it for cars and SUVs. We’ve shown it can be done for heavy duty on highway engines. I’m absolutely certain it can be done for these sorts of engines as well.”

The agency expects to issue a technical report outlining emission control options by the end of the year. A proposal is due by the middle of next year. For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Treated Lumber a Health Hazard?

A just-released study by two environmental groups has found high levels of arsenic on the surface of pressure-treated wood products. The Environmental Working Group and the Healthy Building Network tested pressure-treated wood purchased from home improvement stores in 13 cities. In releasing their findings, the groups are calling for a ban on the use of the lumber in construction. Their findings add to the growing concern about the safety of the chemicals used to treat this wood. Those chemicals are now being re-evaluated by both the Canadian and American governments. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, the two governments are approaching the issue differently:

Transcript

A just released study by two environmental groups has found high levels of arsenic on the surface of pressure-treated wood products. The Environmental Working Group and the Healthy Building Network tested pressure-treated wood purchased from home improvement stores in 13 cities. In releasing their findings, the groups are calling for a ban on the use of the lumber in construction. Their findings add to the growing concern about the safety of the chemicals used to treat this wood. Those chemicals are now being re-evaluated by both the Canadian and American governments. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, the two governments are approaching the issue differently.

For years, Don Houston at the Canadian Institute of Child Health has been calling for warning labels on pressure-treated wood. The lumber is used in playground structures and picnic tables throughout North America. And it’s treated with a preservative called Chromated Copper Arsenate, which protects the wood from insects and fungi. The preservative is made from arsenic, chromium and copper. And Houston says children who are exposed to the wood may be exposed to those chemicals, as well.

“It’s not just children’s play structures. I’d rather suspect even more problematic is the deck that’s on the back of their house because often times children spend more time there. It’s all sorts of structures that are put in outdoors – decks, balconies, retaining walls; even the telephone pole that might be in a schoolyard might be problematic.”

Houston says the problem arises when arsenic and chromium, which are both carcinogens, remain on the surface of the wood. A study of ten playgrounds conducted by Health Canada in the late 1980’s detected both substances on the surface of play structures made with pressure treated wood. Arsenic and chromium were also found in the nearby soil. Health Canada warns people who work with pressure-treated wood to wear gloves and a mask and to thoroughly wash clothing and exposed skin once they’re finished. The agency also warns against burning pressure treated wood. But Houston says there are still no guidelines for children.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense for the guy who’s building it to use gloves and then the child ten minutes after it’s built to be walking over it and running on it barefoot and having greater potential health impact from the exposure.”

But scientists at Health Canada say the research findings have been mixed. They point to studies conducted by the U.S. EPA in the late 1980’s that found minimal health risks. Now, fifteen years since they last evaluated these chemicals, both Health Canada and the EPA are taking another look. The update is required by law in both countries. Richard Martin is a toxicologist at Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. He says the presence of arsenic is not always a cause for concern.

“Although there’s a number of reports out there of arsenic being found in soil, and although they’re useful, arsenic is found in all soil. So we need to go the extra step to determine to what extent there’s potential for exposure to children and that type of thing.”

Martin says his agency is reviewing research to determine the effect of exposure on both adults who work with cca-treated wood and children who play near it. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking the review a step further. Jim Jones, the deputy director of the EPA’s office of pesticide programs, says they’re concentrating on the exposure to children first.

“It was the children’s exposure through cca-treated wood we think are the most important to look at as they’re the group in the population that is likely to have the greatest exposures, just because of the way in which they interact with playground equipment and on decks.”

The EPA also plans to take soil samples near cca-treated wood structures in 75 playgrounds around the United States. And it’s considering a recommendation that people apply sealants to pressure-treated wood in the interim. The EPA’s scientific advisory panel suggested the agency take that measure. The EPA and Health Canada are collaborating on the re-evaluation – sharing their findings and their recommendations. Don Houston of the Canadian Institute of Child Health hopes that will lead to legislation in both countries that will restrict the use of this lumber in places where children play. The EPA and Health Canada are expected to announce their recommendations next spring.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Epa Limits Pesticide Exposure for Children

The Environmental Protection Agency is increasing restrictions on two pesticides that are used on food children frequently eat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has this report:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is increasing restrictions on two pesticides that are used on food children frequently eat. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.

Under recent federal legislation, the E-P-A has been required to review all classes of pesticides and their potential affects on children. That’s because kids are considered to be more vulnerable to any adverse effects than adults. The new restrictions affect two chemicals, azinphos-methyl and phosmet. They’ve been used to ward off insects from certain fruits, nuts, and vegetables for 35 years. But, the E-P-A has stated that azinphos-methyl, which is sold under the trade names of Guthion, A-P-M, and Sniper, poses an unacceptable risk to children six and under. So use of the pesticide is being restricted. Farmers will phase out use or no longer be able to use it on nearly 40 different crops. Phosmet is sold under the trade name Imidan. The EPA is further tightening its use on nine fruits, including apples, grapes, and peaches. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Smog Reduction Plan in Motion

Great Lakes states are slowly complying with new EPA rules designed to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl explains:

Transcript

Great Lakes states are slowly complying with new EPA rules designed to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

The US EPA is requiring states to reduce emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, a main component in smog and ground level ozone. Coal-fired power plants and industrial boilers are the main producers of the pollutants. John Summerhays is an environmental scientist with the EPA’s Midwest Office. He says the reduction is an attempt to improve public health:

“The smog and ozone can cause a variety of health effects that are principally hard on the lungs. It can contribute to various lung diseases, so this is a big step forward for public health protection.”

Illinois and Indiana recently had their emission reduction plans approved by the Federal Government. Pennsylvania and New York have also been approved. Ohio and Michigan still have yet to submit reduction plans. The deadline for implementing the measures is 2004. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

New Project Studies Immigrant Health

Researchers from five universities will study the effects pollutants have had on children in immigrant communities. The study is the main focus of a new children’s environmental health center. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Rogers has more:

Transcript

Researchers from five universities will study the effects two pollutants have had on children in immigrant communities. The
study is the main focus of a new children’s environmental health center. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Rogers reports.

Experts have long worried about PCB and mercury levels in fish caught in the Fox River, around Appleton and Green Bay, Wisconsin. The fish is a staple for Laotian and Hmong refugees in the area.

University of Illinois veterinary biologist Susan Schantz will head up a new project that will go beyond studying the health effects.

“We will also be working with the families to try to reduce exposure to the contaminants, be using educational tools to inform them about where it’s safe to fish, what types of fish are safe to eat, and even how they can prepare the fish when they’re cooking it to reduce their exposure to the chemicals in the fish.”

The Friends Environmental Health Center is one of four new children’s health research centers to be funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

New Feed Reduces Toxins in Manure

Large-scale livestock operations face a big challenge: how to
handle all the manure the animals produce. Manure spills and runoff can
contaminate water with nitrogen and phosphorous. The result can be
polluted drinking water, or fish kills in streams and lakes. But now,
Purdue University researchers have found a way to significantly lower
the
pollutants in hog manure. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy
Nelson reports: