Tag: chemicals

Questions About New Water Disinfectant

  • Karen Lukacsena owns an aquarium store outside of Pittsburgh. She's recommending that customers filter their tap water. This is because Chloramine, a new chemical more utility companies are using to purify water, kills the fish (and could be toxic to humans, too). (Photo by Katherine Fink)

The way your tap water is disinfected might be changing. Federal regulations to improve water safety are leading water utilities to switch the kind of chemicals they use. But Katherine Fink reports one of those chemicals might do more harm than good:

Transcript

The way your tap water is disinfected might be changing. Federal regulations to improve water safety are leading water utilities to switch the kind of chemicals they use. But Katherine Fink reports one of those chemicals might do more harm than good.

Elmer’s Aquarium has tanks and tanks of fish.

“These are all freshwater; these fish come from all over the world.”

Karen Lukacsena is the Vice President of Elmer’s Aquarium here in a suburb of Pittsburgh.

“Elmer’s has been here for 40 years, and Elmer was my father.”

A lot has changed since Elmer started the business. For instance, there are different products that purify tap water for aquariums:

“Because we don’t really know when someone comes in here what their water’s treated with–whether it’s chlorine or chloramine. And they can always call and check, but to be safe, we just think everyone should go ahead and treat their water.”

Chlorine poisons fish. But if you set water out for a few days, the chlorine will dissipate. Chloramine is different. It’s what you get when you mix chlorine and ammonia. And it does not dissipate. It sticks around.

That’s one reason drinking water providers like it. Paul Zielinski is with Pennsylvania-American Water:

“We don’t see the decay through the distribution system reaching our furthest customers like we do with chlorine; it tends to stay longer in the system and provide a higher disinfectant level, if you will.”

That means even if the water stays in the underground pipes for a long time, chloramine will still be doing the job, disinfecting the water. Until recently, only about one-fifth of water providers used chloramine. Soon, two-thirds of them might be using it. That’s because of new federal rules that take effect in 2012. The Environmental Protection Agency found when organic matter—such as vegetation—mixes with chlorine, it increases the risk of bladder cancer and reproductive problems. So Zielinski says water providers like his are being ordered to limit that risk:

“So one of the ways to do it is obviously to switch from chlorine, which generates these byproducts, to chloramines, which doesn’t.”

But all disinfectants have their downside. For one thing, chloramine corrodes lead and copper pipes. Many water providers add other chemicals to prevent that from happening. But a few years ago, when Washington D.C. switched to chloramine, lead got into the water. Lead is toxic. It can cause learning disabilities. So much lead got into the tap water that researchers believe some young children lost IQ points.

The EPA’s regulatory arm says chloramine’s safe. But an EPA chemist, Susan Richardson, says she’s not so sure:

“Personally, as a private citizen, I would be a little bit concerned myself, and might have a filter on my faucet.”

Richardson’s research found that chloramine also creates byproducts in drinking water. And those byproducts appear even more toxic than the ones created by chlorine:

“I’m really hoping that some of the toxicologists at EPA carry this further to really help us assess that.”

“And in the meantime, we’re going to be drinking this water.”

Susan Pickford is an attorney who doesn’t want her town’s water to be disinfected with chloramine.

“Bathing in it, using it in cooking, and exposing ourselves to huge toxins until the EPA gets around to regulating them.”

Pickford is fighting plans to use chloramine in her central Pennsylvania town. She says there’s a better way to reduce toxic byproducts, and no one’s talking about it: filtering the water.

“If they could filter, and they can, there is filtration available that would help them filter 70 to 80 percent of those organics out of the source water, then when the chlorine cleans the water, it wouldn’t be creating all these byproducts.”

But better filtration systems are expensive. And utilities say water bills would go up for customers. That’s not popular. So they say it’s a matter of customers deciding how much of a risk they’re willing to take, and how much they’re willing to pay.

For the Environment Report, I’m Katherine Fink.

Related Links

Kicking a Chemical Out of Cans

  • Tomatoes are posing a problem for a BPA-free lining - they are so acidic they can eat through it (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

More than a hundred studies have linked a chemical in plastic to health problems. Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, and early puberty. This chemical, bisphenol-A or BPA, is used to coat the inside of baby formula cans and almost all food and soda cans. Rebecca Williams visits one company that’s found a safer can:

Transcript

More than a hundred studies have linked a chemical in plastic to health problems. Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, and early puberty. This chemical, bisphenol-A or BPA, is used to coat the inside of baby formula cans and almost all food and soda cans. Rebecca Williams visits one company that’s found a safer can:

(sound of forklift backing up, pumpkin seeds pouring out of roaster)

It’s pumpkin seed roasting day at Eden Foods. It’s a natural foods company based in Michigan. It sells things like rice, canned beans, and all kinds of packaged fruits and sauces.

Michael Potter is the company’s president. More than a decade ago, he came across some news reports out of Europe.

“And I learned all the can linings in the USA were lined with this lining that leaches BPA into foods from the can.”

That got him thinking, and researching. Then he started badgering his can manufacturers.

“We virtually begged them to provide us an alternative. We persisted in hounding them and eventually the Ball Corporation said they’d make a can with an old lining they used to make.”

The lining’s made from a plant resin instead of the epoxy resin with BPA. The thing was, it would cost Eden Foods 14 percent more – that’s about 2 cents a can.

But Michael Potter says he had to make the switch.

“We’re selling this not only to people that we don’t know, in the market, we’re feeding it to our children, our grandchildren and ourselves – we didn’t want to eat bisphenol A.”

But there was one problem. He couldn’t make the switch for canned tomatoes.

Tomatoes are acidic, and they can eat through the plant resin can lining. That could lead to bacteria or rust getting into the food.

“There is no alternative for high acid foods other than bisphenol-A lining at this point. We are urging, nudging, demanding a bisphenol-A free alternative. And we’re optimistic we’ll end up with one.”

But the metal can industry says those alternatives just don’t exist right now.

John Rost is with the North American Metal Packaging Alliance. He says the industry is trying to find new materials. But he says shoppers shouldn’t worry about eating canned food.

“The levels of BPA that are coming from epoxy can linings are exceedingly low. We’re talking low parts per billion. That level has been deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada and the US FDA.”

That’s true, but Health Canada has declared BPA toxic. It’s making moves to limit its use.

A number of independent scientists debate that there’s any safe level of BPA.

Maricel Maffini studies BPA at Tufts University School of Medicine. She says they’ve seen harmful effects on lab animals at the same very low levels of BPA that are leaching into our food from cans.

She says that’s because BPA acts like the hormone estrogen.

“You just need a tiny little signal to trigger an effect. So I think it’s unfair to say there is a safe dose because as scientists we cannot say that yet. We have not found a dose that is low enough where we don’t see effects.”

She says babies and kids are the most at risk. She says BPA has caused lasting damage in lab animals when the animals were exposed to the chemical both before and after birth.

“I think we should be concerned, I think we should limit our consumption of canned foods especially if you are pregnant or if you have babies.”

It’s possible that US can makers will be forced to stop using BPA. Leaders in Congress have introduced bills that could soon ban BPA in all food and beverage containers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Paying for Risks on the Rails

  • This train in Graniteville, South Carolina, crashed while carrying chemicals called "toxic inhalation hazards." Transporting these chemicals is extremely dangerous, and rail companies think chemical companies should share some of the insurance burden. (Photo courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency)

Toxic Inhalation Hazards are a class of chemicals with a notorious name: if you inhale them, you die.
On the flip side, they’re useful: Take chlorine. It purifies drinking water. Another is anhydrous ammonia. It’s used for corn fertilizer.
The government feels some toxic inhalation hazards are so important it forces railroads to ship them, even though insurance is expensive.
Shawn Allee says rail lines now want the chemical industry to chip in:

Transcript

Toxic Inhalation Hazards are a class of chemicals with a notorious name: if you inhale them, you die.
On the flip side, they’re useful. Take chlorine: it purifies drinking water. Another is anhydrous ammonia. It’s used for corn fertilizer.
The government feels some toxic inhalation hazards are so important it forces railroads to ship them, even though insurance is expensive.
Shawn Allee says rail lines now want the chemical industry to chip in:

To understand why the railroad industry wants help with insurance, you should know what happened in Graniteville, South Carolina.
Phil Napier is Graniteville’s fire chief. Napier tells me, one night in January 2005, he got paged about a train wreck.
He hopped in his truck and before long, he found the train engineer.

“I stopped to roll the window down and this gentleman told me they had a chemical leak and he couldn’t breathe and he fell to the ground. And immediately, it hit me. It basically took my breath and all I remember is taking a U-turn heading north but I ended up south. There’s a time-zone in there that I have no memory.”

When Napier came to, he got word from his radio: the train carried chlorine and a toxic cloud was spreading.
Napier evacuated Graniteville. Later, he got a look by helicopter.

“We did a flyover. I mean, it was like a Twilight Zone – you could see cars all up and down the highways, with the doors open.”

Nine people died in the Graniteville derailment and chlorine spill. Since then, the railroad industry worried an accident like this could ruin them.

“The lesson we drew from that was, if there is a major catastrophe by the railroad carrying this material, could be forced into bankruptcy and be forced out of operation.”

That’s Ed Hamberger, the head of the Association of American Railroads.
Hamberger calls the Graniteville accident a tragedy for the town and a financial mess for the railroad responsible – Norfolk Southern.

“The accident in Graniteville resulted in damages of 400 to 500 million dollars.”

Norfolk Southern won’t confirm the figures, but consider this: it’s still in court over an incident involving nine deaths.

Experts say if a similar derailment happened in the middle of a big city like Chicago, it could kill at least 10,000 people.
Hamberger says railroads can’t insure against that.
You might think they would refuse to carry toxic inhalant hazards, but the government says they have to – because rail has the best safety record.

“The freight railroad industry has what is known as a common carrier obligation to carry these toxic by inhalation materials. Several of our members have said if they were not forced to, they would not carry it because of that liability threat.”

Hamberger says if the government won’t lift the obligation, it’s fair to require chemical companies to pay some insurance.
And, he says, it would make the public safer.
The argument goes, if chemical companies paid more to insure against transportation accidents, they’d create safer chemicals.

“With regard to the argument the chemical industry needs an incentive to make safer products, frankly, we have all the incentive in the world.”

Marty Durbin is with the American Chemistry Council.
He says chemical companies already pay insurance against accidents in their factories.
And they are looking for alternatives to chlorine and other toxic inhalant hazards.
Durbin says, besides, when trains leave their factories financial risk should be out of their hands.

“You have to have liability throughout the chain that helps motivate safety improvement.”

The chemical and railroad companies will battle this out in front of government agencies for a while.
In the meantime, each year, trains will make 100,000 shipments of toxic inhalation hazards along the nation’s railroads, even if some freight rail companies don’t want to.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Acupuncture for the Masses

  • Some consumers choose alternative treatments, like acupuncture, because they want a smaller environmental footprint from their medical care. (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)

Acupuncture has been used as a medical treatment in Asia for thousands of years. It’s catching on in this country, but it can be pricey. Now a new kind of low-cost acupuncture clinic is springing up with a goal of bringing acupuncture to the masses. As Ann Dornfeld reports, this new type of clinic might just be healthy for the planet, too:

Transcript

Acupuncture has been used as a medical treatment in Asia for thousands of years. It’s catching on in this country, but it can be pricey. Now a new kind of low-cost acupuncture clinic is springing up with a goal of bringing acupuncture to the masses. As Ann Dornfeld reports, this new type of clinic might just be healthy for the planet, too:

Esther “Little Dove” John is lying on a treatment table with the same blissful smile as someone who’s just had a massage. Except she’s about to get stuck with a couple dozen needles.

“Anything in particular you want to focus on today?”

“I have tingling in my fingers and numbness in the toes.”

Acupuncturist Jordan Van Voast taps fine steel needles into John’s hands; then her stomach, her legs, and her ears.

“All of a sudden, my body just relaxed.”

This would be a typical scene from an acupuncture clinic. Except the recliner that serves as John’s treatment table is just one in a circle of ten. It’s a treatment model called “community acupuncture.”

Jacque Larrainzar is getting treated in a chair across from John. She used to go to a standard acupuncture clinic with private rooms. But she prefers the communal style of this Seattle clinic, called – wait for it – “CommuniChi.”

“The feeling is very different. Seeing other people relax and just giving themselves the opportunity to heal is, in itself– I think it helps you to focus on yourself and heal.”

Community acupuncture clinics are designed to make acupuncture affordable to people at all income levels, regardless of insurance. Patients pay a sliding scale fee – as little as 15 dollars per treatment. It’s 60 dollars or more at a standard acupuncture clinic. Community acupuncture keeps costs down through low overhead: using one treatment room and recliners cuts down on electricity and laundry costs. And CommuniChi co-owner Serena Sundaram says that also means a smaller environmental footprint.

“All of those things are really different even than a regular acupuncture clinic, which is already a smaller footprint than a Western practice.”

You don’t need big, high-tech equipment for acupuncture or even electricity — just a place to lie down and a handful of tiny needles.

Patient Esther “Little Dove” John says she’s glad that acupuncture doesn’t involve pharmaceuticals.

“If I were using the mainstream treatment for my condition, I’d be expelling those chemicals into the environment and the fish would be taking it and the birds would be drinking it.”

Scientists have found high levels of pharmaceuticals in the water downstream from water treatment plants. They’re worried about the effect on fish.

Emily Wong is a physician at the University of Washington Medical Center. She practices Western medicine, but also studied acupuncture. Wong says there’s extensive evidence that acupuncture helps with a lot of health problems where Western medicine falls short, like headaches, back aches, and nausea.

But, she says acupuncture is no panacea. She says some acupuncturists claim to be able to treat conditions like kidney stones without scientific evidence to support their claims.

“I see it as being more similar to, for example, physical therapy as a modality that treats many conditions quite well, and as an alternative to a surgical approach or perhaps a pharmacological approach to some conditions.”

If acupuncture works as well or better than a stay at the hospital or a prescription of drugs, it could have a lot lower impact on the environment. And if the new community clinics bring more people to acupuncture, it’s possible the earth will get a little relief too.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

Water Pollution Feminizing Fish

  • Chemicals in the water are mixing up fish's gender (Photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Scientists already know estrogen from things like ‘The Pill’ is getting into the water and causing reproductive problems for fish. Male fish are picking up female attributes. Some males are even growing eggs. Now a study finds there are other chemicals getting into water that might be messing with fish gender even more. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

Scientists already know estrogen from things like ‘The Pill’ is getting into the water and causing reproductive problems for fish. Male fish are picking up female attributes. Some males are even growing eggs. Now a study finds there are other chemicals getting into water that might be messing with fish gender even more. Rebecca Williams reports:

This study’s found a group of chemicals that block the male hormone testosterone is getting into rivers.

Charles Tyler is the lead author of the paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

He says they don’t know exactly where these chemicals are coming from, but some medicines and pesticides can block testosterone. So, add that to the estrogen…

“And so it’s very likely they’re going to have interactive and additive effects, if you like, to induce a double whammy on the poor fish.”

Tyler says they don’t know if what’s happening in fish is also happening in people.

Human male fertility has been declining. But there might be other chemicals contributing to the problem.

And besides, there’s a difference. Fish can’t get away from these testosterone blocking chemicals or the estrogen in the water – they live and swim in them. So Tyler says they’re getting a much higher dose.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

The Dioxin Debate

  • 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)

A group of one-hundred organizations is calling on the government to
release a twenty-year-old report on a toxic group of chemicals called
dioxins. Kyle Norris reports:

Transcript

A group of one-hundred organizations is calling on the government to
release a twenty-year-old report on a toxic group of chemicals called
dioxins. Kyle Norris reports:

Dioxins are everywhere – they’re created through manufacturing, burning
garbage, even burning gasoline.

The US Environmental Protection Agency did this big assessment of
dioxins, 20 years ago. But the report’s release has been stalled all that time
by industry lobbyists.

Michael Schade is with the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice. He
says not releasing this report is a health-risk to all of us.

“Every time you go to the grocery store and you buy milk or cheese or you eat beef or
pork or fish, you’re being exposed to this chemical in the food that you eat. And until the
EPA releases this report we’ll continue to be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of
this chemical which has been linked to cancer and endometriosis and other serious health
problems.”

The one-hundred groups have sent a letter to President Obama saying the
government has a responsibility to tell us exactly how dangerous dioxins are.

For The Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Using Trees as Cleaning Tools

  • Argonne researchers and technicians are tracking how well poplar trees are containing and removing toxic solvents (such as Trichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene) from underground water. Pictured here are Cristina Negri, Lawrence Moss, John Quinn, Rob Piorkowski. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Transcript

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Argonne National Laboratory is a Big Science kinda place.

It’s a federal lab southwest of Chicago where they study particle physics, nuclear energy, and
advanced environmental clean-up.

The irony is, the place has been around so long, it’s now cleaning up its own environmental
messes.

In fact, it’s Larry Moss’s job. He takes me to a toxic waste site where trees help clean the soil.

More on those trees in a sec – first, here’s why Larry Moss needs them.

“This site was a very busy site back in the 50s and 60s. We had a large manufacturing process
for reactor components – did a lot of testing of reactor assemblies and different fuel mixtures. And to
do that you had to clean all that equipment and a lot of that solvent came down here.
There was a unit that was called a French drain, which basically was a trench filled with gravel. They would come down here and dump chemicals into this trench, and their theory was it would dissolve into the ground. They
thought it would just go away.”

Those solvents did not go away. They leeched into underground water.

The solvents potentially cause cancer and other problems, so the government said Argonne
needed to do something about the mess.

Researcher Christina Negri lays out what the options were.

“Put a parking lot on top of the pollution area
and basically leave it there forever. The other extreme, it would have been: dig out the soil, take it
somewhere – where you haven’t changed much. You’ve moved it from here to a landfill. That’s not the solution as
well.”

Those options – covering it up or carting it off – are also expensive.

So, Argonne researchers figured they’d try something new.

Negri says they hope to eliminate pollution on site – with the help of poplar trees.

Negri: “We’re taking advantage of a trait that these trees have to
go about finding water.”

Allee: “Let me get a closer look at a tree, here.”

Negri: “What you have to picture in your mind – See the height of the tree?”

Allee: “I’m looking at one that’s as tall as a three story walk-up building I live in.”

Negri: “You have to flip it 180 degrees and imagine the roots are going down that deep.”

Negri says they coaxed the roots into going straight down instead of spreading out. It seems to
work; the poplar trees are sucking water out of the ground and taking up solvent.

“Part of it is degraded within the plant. Part of it goes out into the air, which sounds like an
ominous thing to say, right? But if you do your calculations right, there’s much less risk when
these compounds are in the air than there is when they’re down 30 feet below.”

Negri’s team hopes the poplar trees will be more sustainable and cheaper than alternatives, but
they’re likely to be slower.

After all, it took years for the trees to grow. That’s fine for Argonne, because no one’s at risk – but that’s
not the case everywhere.

“Arguably, this is not the remedy you would adopt if you had, like, a tank spill or something that
you really need to go in right away, clean up and be done very quickly. It’s not a remedy if there’s
anybody’s at risk.”

This isn’t the only attempt to use plants to clean up toxic waste. The science behind it is called
‘phytoremediation.’

In other examples, scientists tried alpine pennycress to clean up zinc, and pigweed to suck up
radioactive cesium.

Negri says the trick is to use the right plant for the right toxin and know whether the plants stays
toxic, too.

Still, she says, toxic waste is such a big problem, it’s good to have lots of tools in your clean-up
toolbox.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Paint Regs Better for Environment?

  • Most paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds (Source: DanielCase at Wikimedia Commons)

When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:

Matt Testa started painting for his family’s real estate
business when he was a kid. He remembers his parents
worrying that all the chemicals in the paint would ignite a fire
– so they turned off appliance pilot lights before painting a
kitchen.

(sound of painting)

Today, as a builder and general contractor, Testa says most
paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds.
Even though a lot of people don’t like it.

“Well, when we’ve used some high VOC products, of course
there’s occasional dizziness on large commercial jobs.
We’ve had to clear buildings at times because of people
reporting headaches and other things with the fumes that
were being given off.”

Testa says you can almost taste those chemicals in your
nose and mouth hours after painting. But the VOCs don’t
just affect painters. When you open a can of paint, or
primer, or wood stain, the chemicals get into the air – and
cause ozone pollution, which contributes to smog.

“When you do the math, they’re talking about a quarter
pound per gallon. And you think of the millions and millions
of gallons of paints that are used, you’re talking about a
huge amount of VOCs.”

In recent years, states on the east and west coasts have
started cracking down on paint makers. Smoggy southern
California has the toughest laws against VOCs in paints.
The Northeast has also forced manufacturers to reduce their
chemical load.

And now tougher paint laws are spreading to states in the
middle of the country. Ohio, for instance, has had a tough
time meeting federal clean air standards. It’s hoping that
stirring up the paint laws will make a difference.

(sound of paint store)

That’ll mean changes at the store. When you buy paints,
primers, stains – they will be based less on oil – and more
on water.

Steve Revnew is marketing director for Sherwin Williams –
and its 3,300 stores nationwide. Walking around one of his
Ohio stores, he says they have to roll out a new line of
products.

“For example, some of the oil based stains, wiping stains
that you traditionally would use on your wood work and
those types of things, as they’re known today, that
technology will no longer be available.”

Companies such as Sherwin Williams have seen the
chemical limits coming for many years. Revnew says
they’ve developed new stains, paints and enamels with
fewer harsh chemicals – using new resin and polymer
technology.

He picks up a can of enamel – “In 2009, we’ll be introducing
a whole new product line that is VOC compliant. It will still
provide you the hard, durable finish for metal, wood,
concrete – those types of things. Only it will be VOC
compliant.”

The changes have some professional painters in the store
concerned. They worry that water-based paints and stains
won’t coat as well or last as long as the oil-based coatings.

Now that contractor Matt Testa has kids of his own, he’s glad
VOCs are being brushed aside. But if reducing the
chemicals means things need to be re-painted more often,
he says the changes won’t do anything to improve air
quality.

“Yeah, if you have to go back and repaint it, you’re really
going to leave a bigger footprint environmentally from the
truck trips, the amount of the paint you put back up, all the
delivery of that paint, etc.”

Testa says consumers will have to see for themselves if
these new, environmentally friendly products work as well as
the higher VOC paints.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Makeover for Cosmetics Industry?

  • Makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny under the Obama administration. (Source: Lupin at Wikimedia Commons)

The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny:

Transcript

The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and the Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny.

(sound of a store)

Claudia Lamancusa has been selling high end cosmetics at the mall for more than thirty years.

She says they recently started making a line of more natural powders, blushes and eye liners – because it’s what customers want.

“Well, I think they’re asking for them. They see it a lot on television and so the trend is going toward more mineral-based and natural products.”

And now the cosmetics industry is expecting the government ask more questions about what’s in makeup and perfumes.

Cosmetics makers already have to test products to make sure they’re safe for people to use. But they don’t have to test the environmental impacts of the chemicals in their products.

Industry officials expect that to change if Congress overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act. They say that would mean makeup makers will have to start reporting to a new, tougher Environmental Protection Agency.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Insecticide Chemical Is a Powerful Greenhouse Gas

  • Sulfuryl flouride, a chemical used to fumigate termite-infested buildings, is a potent greenhouse gas (Source: Esculapio at Wikimedia Commons)

The federal government is going to take some significant steps to reduce global warming gases. Carbon dioxide is the main target, but there are other types of greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with one researcher who found a potent greenhouse gas lingers in the atmosphere much longer than previously thought:

Transcript

We hear a lot about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. But there are other chemicals that trap heat and contribute to global warming. One of them is an insecticide used to fumigate termite-infested buildings. It’s called Sulfuryl fluoride. That insecticide is four-thousand times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. It’s been estimated that Sulfuryl flouride hangs around in the atmosphere for five years or so… but new research shows that it lasts a lot longer than that:

Mads Sulbaek Anderson is working with other researchers at the University of California-Irvine published a study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

He’s with us now… first, how is this termite insecticide used?

“Well, it’s used in a number of applications. What the fumigators do is, they basically cover the house in a giant tent. And then you fill up the house with this compound, and over the span of a few days, one or two days, this compound acts like a pesticide- it kills all of these bugs. After that time span, you remove the tent, and make sure that all of this compound evaporates and dissipates.”

What did you discover about how long this insecticide actually stays in the atmosphere?

“The usual routes by which pollution is removed from the atmosphere has to do with reactions, and there’s something called an OH radical, a hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere. That’s the usual cleaner of the atmosphere. In this case, this radical didn’t react at all with the compound – we couldn’t detect anything.”

Is this a significant contributor to global warming, or greenhouse gases?

“It’s still a question of how much is actually present in the atmosphere right now. But, we know how much is used every year of this compound. And so this compound, right, it’s 4,000 times more efficient in trapping the heat compared to carbon dioxide. But of course, there’s not much of it out in the atmosphere yet. But it’s more a precautionary tale, because other compounds are being phased out for other reasons and so sulfuryl fluoride could take over for those applications, if we don’t think twice about this. And it stays around for at least a few decades. So, it’s not an enormous problem by itself- we have to focus on the real problem, which of course is due to emissions from burning fossil fuels. But this compound too contributes to the warming of the atmosphere, or could potentially do it.”

Mads Sulbaek Anderson is a researcher at the University of California-Irvine. Thank you.

“You are very much welcome.”

Related Links