A study found that people think of pollution coming from big
environmental disasters, and not daily exposure to chemicals from carpeting,
furniture, cosmetics and other things we buy
(Source: Immanuel Giel at Wikimedia Commons)
A new study finds people are
surprised to learn how much of their
exposure to chemicals comes from the
things they buy. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A new study finds people are
surprised to learn how much of their
exposure to chemicals comes from the
things they buy. Rebecca Williams reports:
In this study, researchers showed women the results of tests done in their
homes. The researchers sampled dust and they also measured chemicals in the
women’s bodies. On average, they found about 20 different chemicals.
Rebecca Gasior-Altman is the lead author of the study in the Journal of Health
& Social Behavior.
“Participants were surprised about where these chemicals were coming from
and did not anticipate that they were likely coming from products they brought
into their homes every day and used on their bodies unknowingly and were not
from big industrial dumps.”
She says, before, the women had thought of pollution coming from big
environmental disasters, and not daily exposure to chemicals from carpeting,
furniture, cosmetics and other things we buy.
Digital TV is killing the analog star
(Source: Zaphod at Wikimedia Commons)
In a couple of months, television
signals will be going digital. Congress
is requiring the switch. In February, if
you have an analog TV with rabbit ears,
it’ll be useless unless you get a converter
box. And even before the official transition,
people have been buying up new digital TVs.
Rebecca Williams reports the switch to DTV
has some people worried about the growing
pile of TV trash:
Transcript
In a couple of months, television
signals will be going digital. Congress
is requiring the switch. In February, if
you have an analog TV with rabbit ears,
it’ll be useless unless you get a converter
box. And even before the official transition,
people have been buying up new digital TVs.
Rebecca Williams reports the switch to DTV
has some people worried about the growing
pile of TV trash:
(sound of guy playing guitar hero)
William Borg says he’s really bad at Guitar Hero. So instead, we’re
watching one of his teenage customers play the game on a huge flat screen
digital TV.
“And this is another reason customers are after those high definition TVs
because you can really maximize the overall picture and sound quality.”
There’s not an analog TV in the place. Best Buy doesn’t sell them anymore.
You can’t buy them anywhere actually, except maybe at a thrift store.
Digital TV is killing the analog star.
“I think the end of analog TV is here.”
Megan Pollock is with the Consumer Electronics Association. She
represents TV makers and big box retailers.
“Just like record players some people will just fall in love and keep them for
as long as they can but I think in 5 to 10 years it’ll be very, very hard to find
one in anyone’s home.”
That’s right – analog TVs are gonna be museum pieces, or, more likely,
filling up landfills.
Megan Pollock says sales for digital TVs go up every year. She expects 36
million to sell next year.
In February, all broadcasters are required to switch over to digital TV. If
you have one of those old TVs with rabbit ears or an antenna, you’ll have to
get a converter box. If you’re hooked up to cable or satellite, you’re fine.
You don’t have to buy a new TV.
But TV recyclers say they’re seeing more people getting rid of perfectly
good analog TVs anyway.
Linda McFarland runs a TV and computer recycling business.
“We’re really gonna start seeing these in droves.”
We’re standing in front of seven foot tall stacks of old TVs.
McFarland says of all electronics, TVs are the least valuable. And the TVs
are full of toxic stuff. Especially lead in the cathode ray tubes.
Most of the time we export our TV waste. It ends up in Asia or Africa.
There, everyone from grandparents to little kids use acid or open flames to
melt the circuit boards to get to the tiny bits of gold and silver.
“Children are working on top of these electronic heaps and breathing
cyanide acid.”
Linda McFarland says it’s easy for recyclers in the US to make deals with
importers in other countries. They sneak the TV waste in along with much
more valuable computer parts.
“You might just stick it on containers and tell the marketplace that’s buying
from you I’ll give you two good containers for every container I give you.”
McFarland says that probably happens nine out of ten times. She wants new
laws to force recyclers to take care of TVs correctly.
That’s at the end of a TV’s life. Others want to start at the beginning. They
want TV manufacturers to do more.
Barbara Kyle is with the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. She says it’s not
just the lead in old TVs, many new digital TVs have toxic mercury in them –
and that’s hard to remove too.
“I think of the LCD TV as the poster child as to how this industry is still not
thinking about how to design with the end of life of products in mind. It’s
clearly not even in their work plan.”
But – she says some companies are getting better about taking back old TVs
for recycling. She says Sony, Samsung and LG already have good
programs. Others are just beginning.
Kyle says, whatever you do, don’t throw your old TV in the trash. She says
it’ll take some work, but you can find a responsible recycler – one that
doesn’t export waste to developing countries.
Both Obama and McCain say they support fixing the Great Lakes (Photo by Lester Graham)
Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November.
The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November. The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Great lakes advocates have been urging Washington to approve a 20 billion dollar restoration package for the lakes.
Illinois senator Obama says he’s willing to come up with an additional 5 billion dollars. He’d get the money by rolling back tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies.
Michigan Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow is helping promote Obama’s plan. She says it goes well beyond the Bush Administration’s unmet promises to pay for lakes cleanup.
“What we are seeing through this plan is actually putting the dollars into a trust fund so the dollars would be there.”
Senator Obama also wants a coordinator of Great Lakes programs to tackle toxic hot spots, invasive species and enforcing a compact to protect the lakes from large water withdrawals.
The McCain campaign says Senator McCain supports fixing the Great Lakes, but he’s not
ready to commit to an amount yet.
The veggies in your garden could have lead in them (Photo courtesy of the USDA)
More Americans have started
planting their own gardens in recent
years. But it turns out a lot of
urban gardens are contaminated with
lead. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
More Americans have started
planting their own gardens in recent
years. But it turns out a lot of
urban gardens are contaminated with
lead. Julie Grant reports:
Last year 22% of Americans planted a garden.
Wendy Heiger-Bernays is professor of environmental health
at Boston University.
She says if you have an urban garden, she would expect to find heavy metals, especially lead, in the soil. It comes from old garbage, dripping oil, and peeling paint.
“Older homes have been demonstrated to leach lead from the home through the drip line and into the soil.”
Even small amounts of lead in the blood can cause learning disabilities in children.
Heiger-Bernays says you don’t have to throw away this year’s veggies. Just wash them well. And peel root vegetables.
And to get ready for next year, Heiger-Bernays says have your
soil tested. If there’s lead, add a foot of clean compost to the top of the garden bed. Next Spring plant only in that top layer.
The beach looks beautiful... until you stumble on dead birds and fish killed by Type E botulism.
(Photo by Rebecca Williams)
A poisoned seagull on a Lake Erie beach.
(Photo by Lester Graham)
Researcher Dr. Brenda Moraska LaFrancois and the team getting ready to head out on Lake Michigan to investigate the avian botulism mystery. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Researcher Dr. Hans Van Sumeren holding the Little Benthic Vehicle – a remote operated machine that allows the dive team to take photos and collect samples from the bottom of Lake Michigan. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
A deadly toxin is spreading across
the Great Lakes, killing fish and birds.
Rebecca Williams reports scientists are
trying to put the puzzle together as quickly
as they can:
Transcript
A deadly toxin is spreading across
the Great Lakes, killing fish and birds.
Rebecca Williams reports scientists are
trying to put the puzzle together as quickly
as they can:
(sound of waves lapping the beach)
It’s one of those perfect beach days. Not too hot, not too crowded. Everything’s
just right.
Unless you don’t like rotting fish and dead birds full of maggots.
Hunter Brower is hanging out at this Lake Michigan beach. He says he’s seen a
lot of dead gulls here in recent years.
“It’s disgusting. We’re out here to enjoy our time and it’s just not right.”
The birds and fish are being killed by Type E botulism. Basically, it’s food
poisoning. For about a decade now, botulism has been killing huge numbers of
birds in the Great Lakes.
We’re talking about more than 75,000 birds – and scientists think that’s probably
a very conservative estimate. That’s because birds could be dying and not
reaching the shore. And it’s very hard to know how many fish are getting killed.
They’re harder to diagnose.
“It’s really one of nature’s most potent toxins.”
Mark Breederland is with Michigan SeaGrant. He says some studies show the
toxin can paralyze fish.
“They can actually lose their orientation and be bobbing up and down vertically
and that would be easy pickin’s if you’re a loon.”
Loons and other birds eat those poisoned fish, or, even grosser, they’ll eat the
maggots in dead birds on the beach, and get sick. The toxin can make birds lose
control of their neck muscles. Their heads fall in the water and they drown.
Beaches full of dead fish and birds aren’t great for tourism. But scientists are
more worried about what this means for endangered species – from the giant lake
sturgeon to the tiny piping plover.
Mark Breederland says they’re also worried about the thousands of migratory
birds that get killed on their way south in the fall.
“They’re just driving down their migratory highway, pulling over for a rest stop to
get something to eat, and that’s their last and final resting spot.”
So scientists are trying to pin down what’s going on.
There’s one main hypothesis. It involves some nasty little critters: invasive zebra
mussels and their cousins, the quaggas. They got into the lakes in the ballast
water of foreign ships.
Both mussels suck in lake water and filter it. They’ve made the lakes a lot clearer
than they used to be.
The clearer water means more sunlight can reach the lake bottom, and that
kick-starts algae growth. When the algae die, it sucks oxygen out of the water.
And, all of that is perfect for a bacterium that produces the botulism toxin to go forth
and multiply.
Okay, now, remember those pesky mussels? Scientists suspect they can take in
the toxin but they’re not affected by it. But fish that eat the mussels get sick.
One fish in particular loves to eat mussels. It’s the invasive round goby. And
there are lots and lots of gobies in the Lakes. That could mean lots of poisoned
snacks for bigger fish and birds.
Researchers have a bad feeling about all this, and they’re trying to confirm their
hunches.
(sound of boat engine starting up)
Brenda Moraska LaFrancois is headed out on Lake Michigan to investigate. She’s
part of a team that’s collecting samples from the lake bottom.
She says this is a tough mystery to unravel.
“These are really complicated systems and unfortunately they’re continuing to
change.”
As soon as scientists think they have a handle on what’s going on, some new
invader gets in and messes everything up again. So it’s really hard to know what
could be done to stop the outbreaks.
The experts say, if you go to the beach, it’s safe to swim. But you shouldn’t eat any
fish or waterfowl that seem sick.
Your local wildlife managers might tell you: don’t touch it, but get something to
bury the dead animal down in the sand, so other birds won’t feed on it and spread the
toxin.
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.
Toy makers use phthalates to make hard plastic pliable (Source: Toniht at Wikimedia Commons)
News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:
Transcript
News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:
So you might expect that the government has tested those
chemicals to make sure they’re safe. But you’d be wrong.
Daryl Ditz is senior policy advisor at the Center for
International Environmental Law.
He says the US Environmental Protection Agency has never
assessed the hazards of most chemicals used in every day
products.
“That means the EPA doesn’t know, and you and I don’t know,
which materials on the shelves are more dangerous and
which are less.”
Ditz says only a few hundred chemicals have been
thoroughly tested by the U.S. government, but there are
80,000 chemicals used in products on the market.
In the U.S., the EPA has to prove a chemical is harmful to
keep it off the market.
(sound of toy store)
Dorothy Bryan is shopping at this upscale toy store in Northeast Ohio.
She’s got three grandkids. She’s looking at an
organic cotton bunny, colorful wooden blocks, and of course
Thomas the Tank Engine. She
pays more for toys at this store than she would at the big box
retailer. But Bryan says they’re worth it.
“They’re not toxic. That’s the big part. They’re not the
plastic toxic things.
I purchase usually the wooden toys. The little one puts
everything in his mouth.”
But most kids’ toys are made of plastic. And lots of plastics are made with phthalates. It makes them pliable.
But phthalates are endocrine disruptors. They’re gender-bender chemicals that make girls develop earlier and reduce testosterone levels in boys.
That’s why
California has banned the use some phthalates in toys. So
have Japan and the European Union.
But Daryl Ditz, chemical expert at Center for International
Environmental Law, says regulators in the U.S. don’t have
much power to ban phthalates or other chemicals.
Chemicals here are innocent until proven guilty.
“That is, companies can sell virtually anything in a product or in a barrel unless it’s been proven
to be dangerous.”
But other countries are starting to take the opposite
approach. Ditz says the European Union is rolling out a new
set of laws that make chemicals guilty until proven
innocent.
“They’re putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders
of the chemical makers. As opposed to having the
environmental authorities look for a needle in the haystack,
they’re saying, ‘this should be the responsibility of the
companies who make these materials.’”
Under the EU law, manufacturers will have to study and
report the risks posed by each chemical: whether they
cause cancer, birth defects, or environmental problems.
The Bush administration and chemical manufacturers tried to
block the European law. But they couldn’t.
Ditz says leaders in the
chemical makers’ trade group are now running around like
their hair is on fire. They’re worried – the costs to comply
could be in the tens of millions of dollars for some
companies that export chemicals to Europe.
But many individual companies have already started to
comply with the law.
Walter van het Hoff is spokesperson for Dow Chemical in
Europe. He says cataloging Dow’s 7000 chemicals is a
huge effort, but they don’t have a choice.
“You need to comply; otherwise you cannot sell them
anymore in the European Union.”
There are a half billion consumers in the EU and Dow wants to keep them. Dow and other
manufacturers might have to reformulate – or even abandon
some chemicals if the EU decides they’re unsafe.
While the U.S. is not considering a comprehensive chemical
review like Europe’s new laws, about 30 states are
considering new regulations on chemicals in toys. The Toy
Industry Association doesn’t want a patchwork of laws, so
it’s called for national toy safety standards.
Many new shower curtains contain PVC (Source: DO'Neil at Wikimedia Commons)
A new study looked at off-the-shelf
shower curtains and came up with some disturbing
findings. The Center for Health, Environment
and Justice studied polyvinyl chloride plastic
shower curtains and found that PVC shower
curtains can release as many as 108 toxic
chemicals. Lester Graham talked with Sarah
Burkhalter with the environmental journalism
site: grist.org. He asked just how
much of a concern these PVC shower curtains
are:
Transcript
A new study looked at off-the-shelf
shower curtains and came up with some disturbing
findings. The Center for Health, Environment
and Justice studied polyvinyl chloride plastic
shower curtains and found that PVC shower
curtains can release as many as 108 toxic
chemicals. Lester Graham talked with Sarah
Burkhalter with the environmental journalism
site: grist.org. He asked just how
much of a concern these PVC shower curtains
are:
Sarah Burkhalter: “It depends. This group – The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice –
tested five shower curtains, and their claim is that new-shower-curtain-smell is up to 108 nasty
chemicals that have been added during processing. At the same time, you know, there are
chemicals in everything. So, to an extent, you just have to choose your battles. Shower curtains
have become the emergency-du-jour, if you will. But, there is plenty else to worry about if you
already have a shower curtain. It’s not an emergency.”
Lester Graham: “Now we should point out that these shower curtains are not special shower
curtains. These were bought at Bed Bath and Beyond, and Kmart, and Sears, and Target, and
Wal-Mart. And I don’t even know what I would replace my shower curtain with. Got any ideas
about that?”
Burkhalter: “Sure. Well, the thing about these shower curtains, you know, it’s not even the shower
curtains themselves. It is the plastic they’re made of. And that is plastic #3. Its poly-vinyl chloride,
or PVC, or you may sometimes you may just see it as vinyl. And at grist.org, our advice columnist
always says, ‘no vinyl, that’s final’. That’s her tagline. She says, ‘no PVC for me’. That’s her other
way to remember it. Really, as much as you can avoid this plastic #3. Which, is difficult to avoid.
It’s in toys, and hospital tubing, and jars, and pill bottles. But as much as you can avoid this, is for
the benefit, certainly. As far as shower curtains go, there are a lot of alternatives. You can always
go for a door instead of a curtain. When our advice columnist, Umbra, wrote about this very issue
in 2006, she recommended polyester shower curtains. They also make organic cotton, and nylon.
There’s a different plastic, its PVC-free, its called ethylene vinyl-acetate, or EVA, so if you look for
EVA plastic shower curtains, those are a good alternative. Or, you could always take up
exhibitionism.”
Graham: (laughs) “Well, how hard are these things to find – these other, non-PVC shower
curtains?”
Burkhalter: “They’re going to get easier and easier to find as time goes by. Actually, IKEA phased
out PVC shower curtains over a decade ago. Sears, Kmart, Wal-Mart, and Target are all in the
midst of phasing out PVC. And, actually, Target had a goal for this spring, I think they said 88% of
their shower curtains now don’t contain PVC. So, if you look at the labels, and try to avoid things
that say PVC, you should be able to find alternatives, even in these big box stores.”
Graham: “So, what do you have hanging in your shower?”
Burkhalter: “Well, I have to say that I took a shower this morning, and it is a plastic shower curtain.
But, you know, I’ve had it for a couple of years, and the Center for Health, Environment, and
Justice, when they tested, they found that some of these chemicals hung-out for a few weeks, but
after a month or so, your shower curtain has probably done off-gassing all the chemicals that it’s
going to. So, if you’ve had your shower curtain for a couple of years, you know, really, instead of
trashing it, it’s probably best just to hold on to it. Don’t’ burn it – that is something that you really
don’t want to do with PVC. That’s kind of one of its great dangers, is that it releases dioxin, a nasty
chemical, when it’s burned. So, but as long as you’re not licking it regularly, you can probably hold
on to your old one.”
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.
A layer of smog over upstate New York at sunset on October 21, 2000 (Photo courtesy of the Earth Science and Image Analysis Laboratory, Johnson Space Center)
Researchers have identified the top corporate
air polluters in the country. Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Researchers have identified the top corporate
air polluters in the country. Mark Brush reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency identifies what factories around the country are
polluting. But sometimes it’s hard to know who owns those factories.
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts sorted that out. They name the
companies on their Toxic 100 list. Turns out – a lot of the companies that make the most
money, are often making the most pollution.
DuPont, Nissan Motor, Archer Daniels Midland, the Bayer Group, and Dow Chemical
top the list.
Michael Ash is the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. He says
everyone has the right to know who is polluting their air.
“So in terms of the citizen seeing this report, I hope that she or he could use this as a tool
for thinking about exposure in her own community and to limit that exposure.”
But to limit your exposure – Ash says you first have to know what company is
responsible.
A study found that people think of pollution coming from big environmental disasters, and not daily exposure to chemicals from carpeting, furniture, cosmetics and other things we buy (Source: Immanuel Giel at Wikimedia Commons)
