Tag: clean

Cleaning Up Compact Fluorescents

  • Photograph of illuminated incandescent-replacement fluorescent bulb. (Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are one of
those classic environmental dilemmas. They’re very
efficient – they use as little as one fourth of the
energy a traditional lightbulb uses. But there’s
a twist: they have a small amount of the toxic chemical
mercury in them. Rebecca Williams takes a look at
what to do if a lightbulb breaks in your home:

Transcript

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are one of
those classic environmental dilemmas. They’re very
efficient – they use as little as one fourth of the
energy a traditional lightbulb uses. But there’s
a twist: they have a small amount of the toxic chemical
mercury in them. Rebecca Williams takes a look at
what to do if a lightbulb breaks in your home:

You can’t get around it – right now there has to be mercury in compact
fluorescent lamps, or what the experts call CFLs. The bulbs can’t produce
light without it. But mercury is toxic. It can cause brain damage and
developmental problems in fetuses and young children. And that worries
people.

The good news is: the amount of mercury in compact fluorescents is very
small. On average there are about 5 milligrams of mercury in a CFL.
That’s about what would fit on the tip of a ballpoint pen.

Jeff Krcmarik is an expert on household hazardous waste.

“There’s 100 times more mercury in a thermometer than in one CFL.”

Krcmarik says there’s absolutely no reason to panic if a bulb breaks in your
house. You just need to be careful cleaning it up.

So, let’s have the experts walk us through it. First, we’re going to have to
smash a light bulb.

“Well we have a compact fluorescent light bulb here and what we’re going to
do is break it and then bring over our methylmercury gas vapor detector to
show what exactly the exposure issue is with a broken CFL.”

Okay, here we go. And kids – don’t try this at home.

(sound of lightbulb breaking)

(high pitched whining sound of vapor detector)

“This is what we use to identify hot spots in mercury spills. Dan’s going
to wand over it.”

Dan is Dan Moody. He’s the guy with the vapor detector.

“Right now we’re showing about 936 nanograms. We like to see below
300 to 400 nanograms for mercury in the environment, particularly in a residential setting or anywhere children
would be spending time.”

Very quickly, the reading’s dropped to 304 nanograms. That’s because we’ve
got the door open and the room is vented. Moody says that level’s not
something to worry about for your average adult.

The problem is the mercury can linger in your house if you don’t clean it up
the right way.

Most importantly the experts say never, ever use a vacuum. Vacuums can
spread mercury vapor through your house.

Deb Stahler is a researcher with the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection. She recently tested the best ways to clean up broken
fluorescent bulbs.

So, when you break a bulb:

“Make sure that your pets and children and other extraneous people are out of the
room. Open a window and leave the room yourself for a little while.”

Wait about 15 minutes to let the room air out before you clean up the broken
bulb.

“So when you go back in the room then I’d recommend having stiff paper, like
index cards or even just a deck of cards, to pick up the bigger pieces.”

Here’s where good ol’ duct tape comes in. You can use it to get the last
little shards of glass off the floor. Then, put all your materials into a
glass jar with a lid, seal it up, and take it out of the house.
Although some states don’t allow it, in most states, it is legal to throw
the broken lightbulbs in the trash.

And when you go to the store to replace those lightbulbs, you do have some
choices.

Alicia Culver is with the National Green Lighting Campaign. She says
manufacturers are trying to find alternatives to mercury in fluorescent
bulbs. But for now, the best you can do is try to buy ones with lower
mercury levels.

“We’re encouraging consumers to not just buy the cheapest CFL but to look
for ones that are Energy Star rated. And Energy Star is starting to put a
mercury limit on lightbulbs that they’ll qualify and rate.”

So, the bottom line? Culver says compact fluorescents are still the best
lightbulbs to buy.

Because they’re so much more efficient, compact fluorescents cut back on
electricity use. And that reduces demand on coal-burning power plants: by
far the biggest source of mercury we’re adding to our world.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Stopping Ships’ Stowaways

  • A ship discharging its ballast water (Photo courtesy of the US Geological Survey)

Congress might take a final vote soon on a bill
that would make foreign ships treat ballast water to
kill unwanted species, before entering US waters.
Many environmental groups support the measure, but some
worry about the loss of state control. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

Congress might take a final vote soon on a bill
that would make foreign ships treat ballast water to
kill unwanted species, before entering US waters.
Many environmental groups support the measure, but some
worry about the loss of state control. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Backers of the ballast water requirement, recently passed by the House, hope to reduce the
number of invasive species brought in by foreign vessels.

Dozens of non-native species, like the zebra mussel, are causing major problems in the
Great Lakes. But the group ‘Midwest Environmental Advocates’ is raising concerns.

Executive Director Karen Schapiro says the House bill would prevent states from
developing ballast water treatment standards that are tougher than federal law, or that
take effect sooner.

“You know we would like to see the most feasibly stringent standards on the table, on the books,
even if that’s done on a state by state basis.”

But the shipping industry says it doesn’t want a patchwork of state regulations. The
national ballast water language is part of a Coast Guard bill that still has to be reconciled
with a Senate measure.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Allergies: Are We Too Clean?

  • This label on a package of cookies has six foods of the Big Eight. Over 90 percent of food allergies are caused by just eight foods: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts such as almonds, soy, wheat, fish and shellfish. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Doctors say problems with allergies are
increasing. Up to 30% of Americans are
allergic to something. Rebecca Williams reports
doctors are trying to figure out why allergies are
on the rise:

Transcript

Doctors say problems with allergies are
increasing. Up to 30% of Americans are
allergic to something. Rebecca Williams reports
doctors are trying to figure out why allergies are
on the rise:

Micaela Keller is ten years old. Her world is full of things that might
make her sick.

“I’m allergic to pollen, ragweed, anything in the daisy family, nuts, all
nuts, dairy, soy, cats and grass.”

Food allergies are usually the worst allergies. Micaela says she knows
right away if she accidentally eats something she’s allergic to.

“When I have soy I will get really itchy and might get red in the face. My
lips might start swelling up or something.”

In the worst cases… allergic reactions can make it hard to breathe.
Sometimes, your airways can shut down, your blood pressure can drop and you
can die.

Experts say cases of food allergies have doubled over the past 10 years.
Kids have seen the highest increases. But no one knows exactly why.

Dr. Marc McMorris treats kids’ allergies. He’s in charge of the Food
Allergy Clinic at the University of Michigan.

He says our immune systems are so complex that there’s probably not a simple
explanation. He says there are probably at least three different things
going on.

First, allergies run in families. If both parents have allergies, there’s a
70 to 80% chance their child will have allergies.

Second, there’s the way we process food in this country. Take peanuts for
example. Dr. McMorris says dry roasting peanuts makes them more likely to
cause reactions.

Then… there’s the third thing and it’s really causing a lot of debate.
It’s called the hygiene hypothesis. The idea is: we might be too clean for
our own good.

“The immune system is put there for survival, to fight
bacteria, viruses and parasites and that type of thing and in the last 50 to 80
years we’ve had antibiotics, vaccines and a much cleaner world, and if the
immune system doesn’t have to worry about those issues as much it’s going to
find something else to do.”

So… instead of constantly fighting off bacteria… the immune system
thinks something as harmless as a peanut butter sandwich… is going to hurt
the body. So the immune system treats the peanut butter like an invader.

Dr. McMorris says there’s evidence that the more germs you’re exposed to
early in life, the less likely you are to have allergies. He says it
doesn’t make sense to go back to a dirtier lifestyle. But he says we should
be careful about some things… like not over-using antibiotics and harsh
antibacterial soaps.

He also says being exposed to some kinds of bacteria might help. He says
there’s evidence that having pets in the house might make you less likely to
develop allergies.

“The data for pets would say if you have three or more cats or dogs within a
household that you have a lower risk for allergies.”

That’s because you’re exposed to a certain bacteria animals carry. It might
help your system fight off allergies.

But Dr. McMorris says it’s not a good idea to rush out and get a litter of
kittens if you already have allergies in the family. That could make the
problem a lot worse.

Remember Micaela, the girl with all the allergies? Her mom thinks having
pets in the house does help.

(Joy to dogs: “Say hi. High five!” dogs bark)

Joy Keller says her kids have grown up with dogs. They’ve been tested and
it turns out they’re not allergic. So their doctor said they should keep
the dogs. Keller says they just have to vacuum more often.

“We’ve been told right from the beginning, keep where they sleep clean but
don’t be obsessive about cleaning, they have to live in this world and so
the world is not a sterile place.”

The world is not a sterile place. But maybe… we’re trying to make it a
little too sterile.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Many Household Chemicals Not Tested

Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:

Transcript

Two government agencies are agreeing to work together to test chemicals in products we use. But Lester Graham reports… there are still lots of hurdles and years of delays before products already on the shelves can be tested for safety:


Three years ago, a government report showed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could not assess the health risks of 85% of the chemicals in the products you probably have in your bathroom or out in the garage.

The Government Accountability Office found part of the reason then, and now, was because laws protect corporations’ secrets—over public knowledge about health risks.


On top of that other reports found the EPA was years behind in testing chemicals at all.


Now the EPA and the National Institutes of Health are going to be working together to test chemicals faster and without using lab animals.


The agencies will be testing the safety of chemicals ranging from pesticides to household cleaners to see if they harm human health.


The one problem… it will take, quote, “many years” to validate the new testing methods before the testing program can be fully implemented.

For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Corporations Go Green to Boost Sales

Sales of household cleaning products don’t increase much
each year. But sales of environmentally-friendly cleaners
are growing at a rate of 20% or more. And that’s gotten the
attention of some of the biggest companies in the cleaning
products business. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Sales of household cleaning products don’t increase much
each year. But sales of environmentally-friendly cleaners
are growing at a rate of 20% or more. And that’s gotten the
attention of some of the biggest companies in the cleaning
products business. Julie Grant reports:

Pam Whittington cleans for a living. Most of her customers
have cabinets full of cleaning products: bleach, Soft Scrub,
Windex. Whittington says those cleaners do a good job.

“They work well, but they’re strong. You get kind of ill.
Sometimes, I mean, I’ve physically gotten ill from cleaning
products, almost to where you have to leave the home
because it’s so strong.”

Whittington tries to use the more natural products, even
vinegar and baking soda, and says they work fine for most
jobs. But sometimes, there’s just too much soap scum, too
much grime – and she needs the big guns – like bleach.

“Oh, yes. Bleach is totally strong. But you need something
to kill the germs. And bleach does that. Or, vinegar does to
an effect, but still you have to get things clean. And bleach
whitens things, and gets rid of all the stains.”

One of companies best known for selling bleach is Clorox.
Matt Kohler is a brand manager for Clorox. He says they
wanted to make a more natural product line for years. But
when they tested the concept with consumers, few people
were interested in buying environmentally friendly cleaners.

“And really up until this year the market for green cleaners,
we weren’t seeing enough consumer interest to be able to
be able launch something that could sustain itself in the
market.”

But a couple of things happened last year that opened the
green door for Clorox. Kohler says the company’s scientists
came up with natural cleaners that worked as well the
regular cleaners. And something else happened. Believe it
or not, Kohler says Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth got people thinking more about environmental issues. So
much so, that for the first time many started worrying about
the chemicals in cleaning products.


“So there’s really this group of consumers out there, and it’s
growing and getting bigger every day, that are looking for
ways to live a greener lifestyle. And they’re just not satisfied
with the options that are currently available. So when we got
all that data together, we really realized the market is really
ready for a green cleaning product, and that Clorox is pretty
well positioned to come out with a product that will meet their
needs.”

Clorox has started stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart, Target,
and most supermarkets with GreenWorks. That’s their line
of ‘natural’ cleaners, made with things like coconut, lemon
oil, and corn-based ethanol. The Sierra Club environmental
group has endorsed the new products line. But others are
skeptical about Clorox’s motivation.

Alex Scranton is science director for a group called Women’s
Voices for the Earth. Last year she surveyed the ingredients
in the major household cleaners – looking for chemicals that
are dangerous to human health and the environment. She
found that the Clorox Company makes 15% of the worst
products on the market. She says it’s hypocritical for Clorox
to now call itself a ‘green’ company.

“Well, you know, this is the question we had when Clorox
released their GreenWorks product. They were very
pleased to make these new products that were effective
cleaners, were 99-percent natural, or naturally derived
ingredients. And so it begs the question: if you can do that
with your new products, can you in fact apply that technology
to your old products? Why sell both?”

Clorox says most people still want their bleach and their
Pinesol. And that the company will keep selling them as
long as people keep buying them. But Scranton wonders if
people would buy them if they knew what was in them. She
says most mainstream products don’t disclose all their
ingredients on the label. It’s not required by law.

“These companies can pretty much use any chemical they
want, with a few limitations in their products, without too
much regard for what the long term impact could be either
on the environment or on health.”

Scranton says if people understood how dangerous some of
the ingredients can be, it might really convince them to buy
alternative products. Clorox says it’s giving people a choice,
and will be watching sales of Greenworks carefully. But it
won’t stop selling products that people keep buying.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

End of the Internal Combustion Engine

  • Fuel cell-powered cars will be much simpler and cheaper to build than internal combustion engine-powered vehicles. (Photo courtesy of Ford Motor Company)

Hydrogen fuel cells have been billed as the next big thing for cutting
down on vehicle emissions. Cars that run on these fuel cells emit only
water. Automakers are investing heavily in the technology, and there
are still some major obstacles. But as Dustin Dwyer reports, there is
at least one big advantage for automakers to push fuel cells:

Transcript

Hydrogen fuel cells have been billed as the next big thing for cutting
down on vehicle emissions. Cars that run on these fuel cells emit only
water. Automakers are investing heavily in the technology, and there
are still some major obstacles. But as Dustin Dwyer reports, there is
at least one big advantage for automakers to push fuel cells:


Of course, automakers want to be seen working on something that could
be good for the environment, and people in the industry will tell you
there are a number of reasons for pushing fuel cells. But there’s one
reason that might matter more than all the others.


(Sound of music…”money, money, money”)


Yep, money.


And if you don’t believe ABBA, you can just take it from Larry Burns.
He’s the head of research and development at General Motors. GM says
it’s spent more than a billion dollars developing fuel cell technology.
That’s money a company like GM can’t afford to waste.


At a recent energy symposium, Burns broke it all down, and talked about
the real reason GM is involved in the technology:


“First of all, we want to accelerate industry growth, for business
reasons. In fact, if I was up here telling you we were doing it for
reasons other than business reasons, you shouldn’t take me sincerely.”


So, what are those business reasons?


For Larry Burns it starts with the fact that today only 12 percent of
people worldwide own a car. To get the other 88 percent, Burns says
future vehicles need to be cheap and clean.


Some will debate whether hydrogen vehicles would truly be clean. They
say, at best, hydrogen just shifts the pollution upstream to the power
plant.


As for the cheap part, that’s also a problem. Right now, prototype fuel
cell cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. But fuel cells
have a few things going for them on the cost front. Take Ford’s new
HySeries Drive Hybrid Edge prototype.


Engineer Mujeeb Ijaz looks under the hood:


“So I guess the first thing you’ll notice when you look under the hood
of the Edge is it doesn’t have a lot of equipment here. In fact, it’s
quite empty.”


It’s empty because all the important stuff, including the fuel cell, is
tucked in a sleek package hidden underneath the vehicle.


The fuel cell itself is only about six inches high, and about as big
around as a coffee table. That’s an incredibly simple design compared
to today’s complicated and clunky internal combustion engines:


“There’s a lot of technology that goes into it, but from a fundamental
standpoint, when you lay out a fuel cell and you lay out an engine,
we’re not dealing with a lot of unique parts.”


So, unlike an engine that has to be machined and assembled in different
ways for most vehicles around the world, a fuel cell only has a few
parts that get stacked together the same way every time. That means
once they ramp up to mass production, fuel cells could save automakers
a lot of, well…


(Sound of music…”money, it’s a gas”)


But before automakers can save all that fuel cell money, they still
have to answer all the questions about where the hydrogen itself comes
from, how to get it into gas stations, and how to store it in the
vehicle.


Automakers say they can make it work. But not everyone agrees. Joseph
Romm is an expert on energy issues, and he says, a lot of the problems
with hydrogen fuel cells might be out of automakers’ hands:


“Each of them probably requires a major technology breakthrough, and
you just don’t know. You might see a breakthrough in five years, you
might not see a breakthrough for fifty years.”


Romm wrote a book called The Hype About Hydrogen. He says fuel
cells have long been thought to be just over the horizon:


“Fuel cells are always just 10 or 20 years away, and so it allows the
car company to seem like they’re doing something for the environment,
without actually having to do anything.”


Romm says he’d bet on better battery technology and biofuels to cut
down on gas use.


Regardless of who’s right, what’s clear is that the auto industry could
be on the verge of a revolutionary change, one that could be good news
for the environment: the end of the internal combustion engine.


It won’t happen just to make people feel good, or to save the
environment.


It’ll happen for a reason you can bank on.


(Music)


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Maggots: Reviving an Ancient Medical Treatment

  • Maggots can be used as a medical treatment. Specifically, to help treat wounds. (Courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)

An ancient medical treatment is starting to be used again to treat wounds. But for many people, just the thought of the treatment is stomach-turning. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Melissa Ingells has the story:

Transcript

An ancient medical treatment is starting to be used again to treat wounds,
but for many people, just the thought of the treatment is stomach turning.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Melissa Ingells has the story:


Ray Peterson has already lost one leg to diabetes. On his remaining foot
there’s a deep wound, and it’s not healing. It’s not getting better because
of the diabetes. He could lose his second leg.


His doctor is taking the dressing off Peterson’s wound. The wound…is
ugly. It looks like someone drilled a quarter-sized hole deep into
Peterson’s foot. The wound smells bad, and then the doctor finds
maggots. The blowfly larvae are squirming around in there. The doctor
is not surprised, though. He put the maggots there a few days ago. It’s
part of the treatment to save Ray Peterson’s leg.


They’re not exactly the kind of maggots you’d find in your garbage can,
but they’re similar. Last summer the FDA approved maggots as medical
devices.


The maggots eat the dead tissue, not the live flesh. In a process
researchers don’t completely understand… the maggots actually clean
and disinfect the wound much better than a surgeon could. Apparently,
they’re attracted to the bacteria in the dead tissue.


Ray Peterson is in his doctor’s office, trading in some big, full maggots
for some new hungry ones.


The old, fat maggots are washed off with saline. The doctor has to dig around
with the tweezers to get a few strays out.


Ray Peterson says he doesn’t mind seeing the process.


“I enjoy watching them, truthfully.”


The doctor cleans the wound a bit more and then places tiny, new maggots on
it with a small spatula.


(Sound of office)


There are plenty of maggot jokes as Dr. Dowling and the nurses work on
Peterson’s foot. Dowling says that his staff has become comfortable with
the maggots, but many health care professionals are not.


“Actually the patients react much better than the doctors. Every patient
I’ve done it on has been very excited and enthusiastic. I can’t say that’s
always the case for the medical community at large. I’ve had some
doctors tell patients if you have maggots on your foot, don’t come in my
office, but I think that will go away with time the more it’s accepted.


The new maggots start moving around as soon as they feel warmth and smell
food. Dr. Dowling and his nurses quickly contain them with a bandage.


“We build a cage around the wound to hold the maggots in, we’ll put the
maggots in, cover up the cage, and leave it there for two to three days,
and during that time the maggots will increase in size two to three times.
And then, when they come in we’ll take the cage off and wash the maggots out
with saline solution, and look at the wound and decide if it needs another
application or not.”


Several clinical studies have been conducted on the maggot treatment.
The results have been overwhelmingly good, but because the idea is so
repulsive to many patients or their doctors, the practice is still not
widespread.


Robert Root Bernstein is a professor of physiology at Michigan State
University. He co-wrote the book “Honey, Mud, Maggots and other Medical Marvels.”


“Taking a maggot or a bunch of maggots and putting them in a wound and watching
them crawl around in there is not something that most people find appealing, and
usually okay for the patient – the patient doesn’t actually have to look. It’s the
practitioners who have to deal with these squirmy little things and have to put
them in and take them out who seem to have most of the problem with the therapy.”


Root Bernstein says maggot therapy might catch on. That’s because doctors are seeing
more and more diabetic wounds as the rate of diabetes keeps going up in the U.S.
When medicines such as antibiotics don’t work on the stubborn wounds,
patients and doctors sometimes turn to the maggot therapy as their last hope for
recovery.


Ray Peterson found out about maggot therapy when his daughter saw an
article in a local newspaper. He says at first his friends were a little put
off, but then started kidding him about the procedure.


“They call me maggot man. Just for a joke. I go along with them. You’re a pretty
good sport about this. You gotta be.”


And Peterson says the good-natured ribbing is sure a lot better than the
alternative. Peterson also thinks if people can get past the “ick” factor…
more people’s limbs might be saved by maggot therapy.


For the GLRC, I’m Melissa Ingells.

Related Links

Combating Inland Invasives

  • Eurasian Watermilfoil is one of the non-native species that has invaded inland lakes. (Photo courtesy of National Park Service)

Invasive plants, fish and other creatures are threatening many inland lakes. Environmentalists and property owners are trying to stop the spread…before the invaders dramatically alter the smaller bodies of water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann-Elise Henzl reports:

Transcript

Invasive plants, fish and other creatures are threatening many inland
lakes. Evironmentalists and property owners are trying to stop the
spread…before the invaders dramatically alter the smaller bodies of
water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann-Elise Henzl reports:


It’s strange to think that plants and animals from Europe, Asia and Africa
are living in small lakes in the Midwest. Boaters have taken invaders
there…after picking them up in the Great Lakes.


The big lakes are home to more than 160 aquatic invasive species,
including Eurasian Watermilfoil. The stringy plant grows in thick
clusters that get up to 12 feet tall.


“I have seen lakes where if you fell out of the boat in these massive
weeds and you weren’t wearing a life jacket, I don’t care how good a
swimmer you are, you would sink. You can not struggle your way
through these thick entanglements of weeds.”


Ted Ritter leads an effort to reduce aquatic invasive species…in
Wisconsin’s Vilas County.


(Sound of pontoon motor)


On one afternoon he takes his pontoon boat on a lake that had an
infestation of Eurasian Watermilfoil.


“It is a very aggressive plant and it has no natural predators to control its
growth, it grows up to two inches a day.”


When Eurasian Watermilfoil finds conditions it likes, it takes over
quickly. A piece as small as two inches can break off, and float away to
create a new plant.


Eurasian Watermilfoil is widespread in northern Michigan… northern
Wisconsin and other places. It’s one of dozens of aquatic invasive
species on the move in the region.


One of the worst invaders is zebra mussels. They can ravage a lake’s
ecosystem.


(Sound of motor boat)


So far, they’ve made it to just one lake in northern Wisconsin. Mike
Preul with the Lake Superior Chippewa scuba dives there, to count the
mussels. Three years ago, he found 7 adults per square meter. This year,
he counted more than 14-hundred:


“They’re still increasing. What they’ve seen in other systems is that just
like with any other exotic species they’ll come in, the population will
explode, they’ll kind of eat themselves out of house and home, and then
they’ll come down to a level and reach a steady state.”


No method has been discovered to get rid of zebra mussels, but there are
ways to control some invaders.


Herbicides can be used to kill Eurasian Watermilfoil, and some property
owners chip in to buy aquatic insects to kill the plants.


Les Schramm did that on his local lake:


“As the larvae hatches it burrows into the stem of the Eurasian
Watermilfoil and sort of eats out the center vascular part, and it falls over
and dies.”


People fighting aquatic invasive species say it’s like fighting weeds in a
garden — the work never stops and it can be expensive.


Ted Ritter of Vilas County says it costs thousands of dollars to treat a
lake once. So, often people do nothing.


Ritter says that can hurt the environment. He says it can also threaten the
economy, in areas like northern Wisconsin that rely on tourism.


Ritter says the invaders can reduce the appeal of a lake. He mentions a
plant called “curly leaf pondweed.” When it dies in the middle of
summer, it creates algae blooms that look like slimy green pillows:


“When people arrive at resorts and they look out and they see that very
unappealing lake they say ‘I’m not staying here,’ and they go somewhere
else. When realtors bring prospective buyers out to look at a property,
people get out of their car and they go right to the lake and they say ‘oh
my, I’m not even interested in looking at the house. This lake is
horrible.'”


Because it’s so difficult to control invasive species, Ritter and others
fighting the invaders focus on prevention.


Local volunteers and workers from the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources spend hours at boat landings. They urge people to clean their
boats, trailers, and fishing gear thoroughly when going from lake to lake,
that can keep unwanted plants and creatures from traveling along.


For the GLRC, I’m Ann-Elise Henzl.

Related Links

Epa Proposing New Rules for Sewage Plants

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new rules on how sewage treatment plants clean water after heavy storms. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

The US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new rules on
how sewage treatment plants clean water after heavy storms. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


When rainstorms overwhelm sewage treatment plants, cities sometimes
blend raw sewage with clean water that can contaminate local rivers and
lakes with bacteria. To stop this, the EPA’s proposing a compromise
with local governments. Cities may blend waste when there’s no
alternative, but they must improve their waste treatment systems.


Alexandra Dapolito Dunn represents an alliance of city treatment
facilities. She says local governments need this flexibility.


“There are going to be some communities around the country where, due
to the low income and the distressed nature of an urban population, they
may have a difficult time affording the most cutting edge technologies
available.”


It’s not clear how much money cities will save under the proposed
guidelines. Upgrades can cost millions of dollars, and right now,
treatment centers compete for limited federal assistance.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Prospecting for Wind

  • The wind is up, and so is interest in wind power development. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Wind power is a small, but fast-growing segment
of the U.S. energy market. Right now, energy companies are scouring rural America for the best spots to put up wind turbines. But wind is not enough – these companies need land, too. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one wind developer’s search for its next wind farm:

Transcript

Wind power is a small, but fast-growing segment of the U.S. energy market. Right now, energy companies are scouring rural America for the best spots to put up wind turbines, but wind is not enough – these companies need land, too. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one wind developer’s search for its next wind farm.


The search for wind power could turn into a modern-day gold rush. Wind’s becoming a profitable way to meet growing demand for clean energy, but wind power companies face an obstacle: they can’t just find a windy spot and throw up some wind turbines.


They’ve got to sign a contract with a landowner, usually a farmer, who’s willing to rent out some breezy land. Mike Donahue is Vice President of Midwest Wind Power. His main job: find windy land and the farmers who own it. Donahue says the job’s changed recently.


“The biggest difference is the level of knowledge and sophistication that local elected officials and landowners have gotten regarding windpower. I mean, when we first started, they were like, ‘Wind what? Wind turbine? What’s that?’ They didn’t even know what a wind turbine looked like, let alone whether they wanted one in their field or not.”


For their part, savvy farmers aren’t waiting around for companies to call them. They’re taking the initiative. David Coffey farms hundreds of acres in Illinois. A few months back, he did a little investigating.


“First of all, I just had got the information from the Farm Bureau Magazine and what was going on in other areas. And I just got it in my mind, I thought, ‘Well, I’ve got a ridge here, what’s it worth?'”


So Coffey got equipment from a university and tested the wind along his ridge. The initial results were promising, and the university posted the data online. Donahue’s company noticed the results, and gave David Coffey a call.


Which leads us to today. Coffey’s agreed to give the company a tour of the area. After some quick introductions, Donahue, his partner Tim Polz, and I, squeeze into Coffey’s white pickup.


(Sound of door shutting)


Coffey drives us along a maze of gravel-lined back roads and soy bean fields. Soon, we see the ridge that brought Donahue’s company here. It’s not that spectacular, really. It’s just a big, rolling hill, but it spreads to the horizon.


DONAHUE: “Just eyeballing this, it looks like this ridge runs how many miles, would you say, from east to west?”


COFFEY: “Well, I would say it’s going to be close to… I’d say eight to ten.”


DONAHUE: “And then it’s roughly a mile across it?”


COFFEY: “Yeah, or a little better, if you’re gonna stay right on top of it, I’d say.”


Midwest Wind Power wants a large site like this, because it’s hard to turn a profit on smaller ones. Several farmers own bits of this ridge, so Donahue might have to deal with all of them, and that could be a headache.


David Coffey says some locals are worried about helping out. Landowners who build support for the project might not have enough wind on their own farms to qualify for a turbine and a rental
contract. Donahue says there’s a way to smooth that over. If someone’s been helpful but is left out…


“We actually do offer a kind of good neighbor compensation package to them as well.”


Of course, maybe other companies noticed David Coffey’s wind data, too. Donahue’s assistant, Tim Polz, broaches the subject.


“Have you guys had any of the other developers give you any type of financial offers?”


Coffey says yes, but doesn’t elaborate. Donahue makes his pitch. He says his company offers more than good rent, it offers other benefits attractive to farmers.


“Along those lines, we grant a great deal of flexibility to the landowners to have input into turbine locations, access road locations, cabling routes.”


Even with this flexibility, though, money counts. The company will pay farmers about seven thousand dollars each year for every turbine on their property. That’s a lot for an Illinois farmer. On average, they make only thirty thousand dollars in farm income each year.


Soon the conversation shifts away from money. Donahue asks whether Coffey’s neighbors are mostly farmers.


“If you’re in an area that has a number of non-farming residential homes, maybe built in wood lots, or people who want to live in the country, they’re less accepting of having wind turbines developed in view of their homes.”


Coffey assures him nearly everyone’s a farmer out here. And with that, he ends the tour.


“Well, what do you think of the area?”


Donahue says the company needs to run more wind tests along the ridge, but overall…


“The first impressions are very favorable as to the site and its potential. We’re looking forward to meeting with your other landowners and then ultimately, meeting some elected officials as well.”


It’s not clear what will come of today’s meeting. Maybe another company will land a contract, or perhaps there’ll never be turbines here, but the chances for success improve with each encounter.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links