sickness - The Environment Report

Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

There's a movement to stop using pesticides and sprays on your lawn (Photo by Ilja Wanka)

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship
with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush.
We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and
dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out
and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs.
But some people say it’s not necessary and could
do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

So, you might be using pesticides on your lawn right now. And of
course, the pesticide industry says that’s okay.

The industry says the chemicals are safe to use on the lawn if you use
them correctly.

Alan James is president of Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, or RISE. It’s a trade group for pesticide companies.

“If individuals or professional applicators read the labels and follow
labels, the likelihood of misuse of pesticides is virtually zero because the
labels provide all the information a consumer or professional needs to
apply products both efficiently and safely.”

But the problem is, not everybody reads the label.

Alan James says if you’re hiring someone to spray your lawn you should
make sure they’re certified and insured. You should also take your kids’
and pet’s toys off the lawn before they spray.

But a lot of people say there’s no point in using chemicals just to make
your lawn look good.

Jay Feldman is with the group Beyond Pesticides. He says of the 30
most common lawn pesticides, most of them are suspected by the
Environmental Protection Agency to cause cancer, birth defects or other health problems.

“There’s a range of adverse effects that are indicated as a part of the
pesticide registration program at EPA. EPA knows this information.
Why not remove pesticides from the equation, especially in light of the
fact that they’re not really necessary?”

There’s a movement to stop using pesticides in North America. Both
Ontario and Quebec have banned the sale and cosmetic use of
pesticides. And Home Depot in Canada recently said it will stop selling
traditional pesticides all together by the end of the year.

So if you’re not going to use pesticides, what do you do?

That’s a question Kevin Frank gets a lot. He’s an extension agent at
Michigan State University and an expert on lawns.

“I love to mow my lawn on the weekends because nobody can call me on
the phone or email me with questions.”

He’s been showing me green, healthy test plots of grass and some that
look sad and neglected. The scientists here have been working to find
ways to have good-looking lawns without a lot of chemicals.

Back in his office, Kevin Frank says he tells people they shouldn’t be
afraid to experiment.

“Do you have it in you to let it go for one season and see what happens?
And it could be ugly, so you’ve got to be prepared for that!”

He says a healthy, dense lawn is actually really good at fighting off
weeds and pests all on its own. So, how do you get a healthy, dense lawn
without a lot of chemicals? Frank says it might take a couple years to get
there. And it means going against conventional lawn advice.

“We’ve done a great deal of research here at Michigan State that runs
contrary to what I call ‘turf dogma’. You know: water deeply and
infrequently – and we’ve shown if you do it on a more frequent basis you
end up with a healthier plan overall.”

He recommends watering lightly – just 10 minutes – every day instead
of soaking the lawn once a week. Frank says it’s also good to fertilize
twice a year, use a mulch mower, and mow high instead of giving the
grass a buzz cut.

He says that could make your lawn so healthy, it might mean you won’t
need to spray or hire someone to spray your lawn.

He says the biggest adjustment in reducing pesticide use is managing
your expectations, and deciding how many weeds and bugs you can live
with.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

States Go Farther to Reduce Mercury

Some of the fish caught in the Great Lakes are unsafe to eat due to mercury (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The government warns people not to eat too
much Great Lakes fish. That’s because some fish are
contaminated with mercury – a toxic chemical. Some
of that mercury comes from coal-burning power plants.
Erin Toner reports more states are beginning to make
power companies cut down mercury pollution:

Transcript

The courts have ruled the federal government has not done enough to reduce mercury
pollution. Now, more states are adopting their own rules.

Illinois and Minnesota require power plants to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2015.
Wisconsin is following suit, but its plan gives utilities more time to get to 90% if they cut
other pollutants at the same time.

Keith Reopelle is with the group, Clean Wisconsin.
He’s happy with the new rule, but says it could be stronger.

“It does require the largest power plants to reach the 90% reduction on average over their
fleet, that’s not really the same as requiring every plant to get a 90% reduction.”

Wisconsin’s largest utility says complying with the new rule will be a ‘technological
challenge’. Power bills are expected to go up between 5 and 12 dollars a year to pay to
reduce mercury pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Erin Toner.

Fish Disease Spreads to New Waters

Signs of VHS, from the Michigan DNR (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Despite efforts to stop it, there’s a new
indication a nasty fish virus is spreading. Christina
Shockley has the latest:

Transcript

Despite efforts to stop it, there’s a new
indication a nasty fish virus is spreading. Christina
Shockley has the latest:

The name even sounds scary: viral hemorrhagic septicemia. It causes fish to bleed to
death.

VHS has been in the Great Lakes for at least three years. Officials have been trying
to confine it to the Great Lakes basin, but now it’s spread into central Ohio.

Elmer Heyob is with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

He says the worst-case scenario is that VHS could get into a hatchery that stocks fish
for lakes and streams, and that cloud hurt the region’s economy.

“First the hatcheries, then the fishery, then the people that support the fishery, the
boating industry, it just goes on and on.”

Heyob says to stop VHS from spreading, you shouldn’t move fish from one lake to
another, and you should clean boating and fishing equipment before you move to a
different lake.

Researchers believe eventually fish build up immunity to the disease.

VHS does not pose a threat to people.

For The Environment Report, I’m Christina Shockley.

Cure for Frog Killing Fungus?

A solution may have been discovered to save frogs from the chytrid fungus (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Frogs are in trouble. A nasty disease caused by a fungus is wiping out frogs around the world. But researchers might have found a solution. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Frogs are in trouble. A nasty disease caused by a fungus is wiping out frogs around the world. But researchers might have found a solution. Rebecca Williams has more:

A disease caused by something called chytrid fungus is sweeping through frogs. When the disease moves through a frog population it can wipe out 80% of the entire population. Scientists have been rushing to find something that might help.

Reid Harris is a biologist at James Madison University. He says he’s discovered there are friendly bacteria that live on some types of frogs. And they can kill the fungus.

“It does seem like the pathogen moves in this predictable wave, so you might be able to get out in front of that wave sort of like a fire line.”

Harris says it might be possible to give wild frogs extra doses of the bacteria to fight off the fungus. But first they have to make sure there won’t be side effects.

For The Environment Report I’m Rebecca Williams.

Tomato Ban Smashes Some Farmers

The tomato ban was really tough on some farmers (Photo by J. Beavers, courtesy of the USDA)

The Food and Drug Administration continues
to investigate the source of tainted tomatoes that
sickened more than 160 people. It’s narrowing down
the source of the salmonella bacteria, and has lifted
a ban on tomato sales in many states. Julie Grant
reports on how the ban has affected tomato growers:

Transcript

It’s been a tough June for Florida tomato growers – who
grow 90% of the nation’s tomatoes. It’s not that they’ve
been working too hard – it’s that they haven’t been able to
work.

Lisa Lochridge is with the Florida Fruit and Vegetable
Association.

“Business pretty much ground to a halt for Florida tomato
growers. There were tomatoes out in the fields left, there
were tomatoes in the packing houses just sitting there, there
were tomatoes on trucks that were being turned away.”

Lockridge says Florida growers will have lost 500-million
dollars as a result of the ban. Now that the ban has been
lifted in Florida, she says growers are restarting business
and shipping tomatoes to the stores, cafeterias and
restaurants that want them.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Mercury in Your Pearly Whites

George Washington's dentures (Photo courtesy of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)

Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:

Transcript

Moms Against Mercury and several other groups sued the FDA. They said the agency
was failing to inform the public about the dangers of mercury in dental fillings.

Mercury can do damage to the nervous system. But people’s exposure from fillings has
long been debated.

Charlie Brown is a lawyer for the groups who sued the FDA. He says getting mercury
out of dental offices will protect those most at risk.

“It’s permanent damage to the developing brain. Not like a guy like me losing brain cells
everyday, but to the child whose potential is being destroyed by neuro-toxic damage.”

As a result of the lawsuit, the FDA changed its message about mercury exposure from
dental fillings. They now say the exposure might hurt the nervous systems in developing
children and fetuses.

The agency plans take a closer look at the science and issue a final rule next year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Toxin Leeches Into Canned Foods

(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)

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.

Soap Suds Whip Up Toxic Chemical

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

(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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Living Downstream From Dow Chemical

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

(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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Vincent Duffy.

Interview: The Attack on Science

Michaels' book about industry's influence on science. (Oxford University Press)
Bisphenol-A, in bottles like these, is one instance where Michaels says companies are calling for more data, even though the picture is clear (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.

Transcript

David Michaels: “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.”

Lester Graham: “We hear about Bisphenol-A in plastics, of course we hear about mercury in fish,
phthalates, even something like dioxin – industry scientists say ‘we’re safe, these are in minute
quantities’ or ‘the jury is out on just how dangerous this chemical is’. If they are dangerous, why
doesn’t the government make that determination and phase these products out?”

Michaels: “Well, right now, the Bush administration has absolutely abdicated its responsibility to
protect the public’s health and the environment. It’s not even a question of phasing them out, the
Bush administration has turned a blind eye, and said ‘we’re not even going to think about those
chemicals’. I’m hoping that as public consciousness of this increases, we’ll have more demand on
regulatory agencies to do something.”

Graham: “You’re very critical of the Bush administration in the book, saying scientific review
boards are stacked with industry officials. Why, or how, does the scientific community continue to
allow that?”

Michaels: “Well, the scientific community doesn’t have the power to stop it. But the scientific
community has me furious about this. And over and over again, not just individual scientists, but
mainstream science organizations, like the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
have issued statements, have passed resolutions complaining, criticizing the Bush administration.
But that’s all we can do. Congress has to stop it. And, the American public has to stop it.”

Graham: “The members of the Bush administration often point out, ‘hey we can’t make knee-jerk
reactions, over some single study, or even a small group of studies, we really need to rely on
sound science, this needs more review’. And it sounds like common sense to many of us.”

Michaels: “Well, when I hear the Bush administration call for ‘sound science’, I see what they’re
doing is calling for something that sounds like science, but isn’t. Bisphenol-A is a great example.
There are well over 100 studies showing that this causes endocrine disorders and reproductive
disorders in laboratory animals. And there are less than a dozen studies that say it doesn’t cause
it. The question we have to ask is: should we be exposing our babies, our children, ourselves to
potentially toxic chemicals that we don’t know that they’re safe?”

Graham: “And Bisphenol-A is, of course, used in plastics, in liners of canned foods, and so forth.
It’s a product that we come across a lot.”

Michaels: “Not only that, the studies are right now that 90% of us have Bisphenol-A in our body.
We can tell that from studies where we’re are excreting it in our urine. So, it’s out there are we’re
being exposed to it. We don’t know what the effects are, but since it causes harm in animals, why
should we be exposing ourselves to it?”

Graham: “You note that journalists are often the victims of their own determination to get both
sides of the story. What are you suggesting? That journalists ignore industry when it questions
studies or scientific method? That would assume that corporations are always bad actors.”

Michaels: “No, but I think it’s very important to note, for example, when an industry scientist
criticizing the study, to note, for example, that, you know, that this criticism is being paid for by the
industry. But the other criticisms, which are, you know, are independent, often paid for by the
government through grants to universities, are independent, and therefore have a lot more validity.
We have example after example, in the book, and all through the medical literature, of companies
that essentially create studies that provide the results they want. In my reviewing it, I’ve never
found a study which disagrees with what the sponsor wanted them to hear. It’s just overwhelming.”

Tag: sickness

Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

Transcript

Related Links

States Go Farther to Reduce Mercury

Transcript

Related Links

Fish Disease Spreads to New Waters

Transcript

Related Links

Cure for Frog Killing Fungus?

Transcript

Related Links

Tomato Ban Smashes Some Farmers

Transcript

Related Links

Mercury in Your Pearly Whites

Transcript

Related Links

Toxin Leeches Into Canned Foods

Transcript

Related Links

Soap Suds Whip Up Toxic Chemical

Transcript

Related Links

Living Downstream From Dow Chemical

Transcript

Related Links

Interview: The Attack on Science

Transcript

Related Links