Chemical Making You Fat?

A common group of chemicals used in all kinds of products is being
associated with increased obesity. Lester Graham reports this study
is the latest to link the chemicals to health problems:

Transcript

A common group of chemicals used in all kinds of products is being
associated with increased obesity. Lester Graham reports this study
is the latest to link the chemicals to health problems:


Phthalates are found in cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, lubricants, paints,
pesticides, plastics and more. A Harvard study had linked phthalates
to lower testosterone levels in men and lower sperm counts.
Testosterone also helps keep men lean.


Dr. Richard Stahlhut and his team at the University of Rochester looked
at the data and the Harvard study and took it to the next step:


“If what they found is correct, then what we should find perhaps is
that higher phthalate levels are associated with more abdominal obesity
and insulin resistance.”


And that’s what they found. The authors of the study published online
by Environmental Health Perspectives hypothesize that phthalates
might be directly linked to more belly fat and pre-diabetes in men.


The higher the phthalate level found in a person, the greater the
chance of abdominal obesity.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants

  • Tom Micheletti (right), and Excelsior Energy Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Bob Evans (left). They are locating where the proposed power plant will be built near the town of Taconite, Minnesota. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)

Acid rain, mercury pollution, and huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas carbon-dioxide are the down sides of burning coal in electric power plants. And yet, some energy experts are saying America should be using more coal. They say new coal technology can produce electricity with few of the pollution problems of traditional coal power plants. Bob Kelleher reports:

Transcript

Acid rain, mercury pollution, and huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are the down sides of burning coal in electric power plants. And yet, some energy experts are saying America should be using more coal. They say new coal technology can produce electricity with few of the pollution problems of traditional coal power plants. Bob Kelleher reports:


Coal has a well deserved bad reputation. Typical coal burning power plants release mercury, sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and lots of carbon dioxide. Those releases mean toxins in the air, soot, acid rain, and many believe global warming. But Tom Micheletti says there’s a way to use coal with very little pollution.


Using heat, steam, pressure, and oxygen, coal can be broken down to a relatively clean gas, and a handful of other chemical products. The gas is burned, to turn generators and produce electricity. The technology is called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. Micheletti says, the technology isn’t new, but applying it this way is.


“All we’re doing is marrying the gasification technology, with a technology that’s been well established, the combined cycle gas technology – power plant technology. And all we’re doing is simply putting those two technologies together.”


Micheletti is Co-President of Excelsior Energy, a company formed to build the nation’s first large scale coal gasification electric power plant in northeast Minnesota. At 600 megawatts, it would dwarf demonstration plants now online in Indiana and Florida.


Some experts say coal gasification is not only promising, it’s more practical than nuclear power, natural gas, solar or wind. Daniel Schrag is a climatologist and head of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.


“We have a lot of coal in the US. We’re very fortunate that way. The problem is that coal produces more carbon dioxide per unit energy than any other fossil fuel. And so, when we burn coal and make electricity, it’s really bad for the climate system.”


Schrag says there’s more carbon dioxide around us now than humans have ever experienced. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Most scientists believe it blankets the earth, forcing temperatures higher.


Schrag says, when used to generate electricity, coal gasification has big advantages over conventional power plants, because it can capture CO2.


“You get more energy for the amount of coal you put in, and that’s good for carbon emissions. The other thing is that it seems to be cheaper in an IGCC plant, or a gasification plant, to capture the carbon dioxide after one extracts the energy from the coal, and then makes it much easier to capture it and inject it into a geological reservoir.”


The key, Schrag says, is a process called sequestration. You capture, and then sequester it, or lock that carbon dioxide away, where it won’t escape into the atmosphere. It’s already being done.


This is the Dakota Gasification Company, just outside Beulah, North Dakota. Here they turn coal into a burnable gas and almost a dozen other products. They also produce plenty of carbon dioxide, but the CO2 is not vented into the air; it’s trapped and compressed. That’s the noise.


The CO2 is piped more than 200 miles into Canada where it’s pumped into oil wells, forcing the last oil out and leaving the CO2 underground. Near oceans it can be pumped under deep ocean sediments, where it stays put.


And that’s all very good, but others say even good power plants might be a bad idea.


Ross Hammond is with the Minnesota based organization Fresh Energy. Hammond says gasification’s proponents are overlooking conservation and the opportunities for clean energy.


“When we’ve exhausted all the clean options including biomass and photovoltaics, and wind and the other options, then we need to look at coal.”


But Harvard’s Daniel Schrag says it’s not as simple as pushing money toward pollution free energy.


“And the answer is complicated. The answer is perhaps not. It may be that coal is so cheap that even the extra cost of capturing the carbon and storing it underground may still make it cheaper than the alternatives, than wind and solar.”


Schrag says we’ll need it all – nuclear, hydro, wind and biomass. But to satisfy the nation’s hunger for energy, he says we’ll need coal – best used in coal gasification.


For the Environment Report I’m Bob Kelleher.

Related Links

A Closer Look at Mercury Hair Test

  • Hair is now a way to test people for mercury levels, as opposed to more invasive tests of blood and urine. (Photo by Anna Miller)

Health officials are experimenting with another way to gauge the level of mercury in people who eat a lot of fish. The only test sample needed is… hair. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

Health officials are experimenting with another way to gauge the level of mercury in people who eat a lot of fish. The only test sample needed is… hair. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Doctors can already test your blood and urine for mercury. Now, as a less invasive technique, some health officials can test the hair near your scalp for the toxic chemical. There’s some debate over the quality of the tests, the lab analyses, and over what a high test reading means. The federal health warning for mercury in hair is one part per million. But that’s for susceptible populations like an unborn fetus.


Jack Spengler is a professor of environmental health at Harvard University. he recently ate a lot of fish and says his hair tested out at 3 parts per million of mercury.


“But I’m not going apoplectic about it because I know if I just watch my consumption, I can moderate that over time… and there’s that safety margin…that I suspect I’d have to be much higher for much longer to really have symptoms. ”

Prolonged high levels of the most toxic form of mercury, methyl mercury can trigger various health problems in adults such as memory loss and cardiovascular damage.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Public Water Systems in Need of Funding

A new study says we need to spend billions of dollars more on public drinking water systems. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Could Global Warming Worsen Asthma?

Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Worldwide, the level of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere has risen. So scientists have been studying what might happen to plants if the C-O-two level continues to rise. One study indicates the increase in C-O-two levels makes conditions more favorable for weedy species… such as ragweed, which aggravates asthma. Paul Epstein is with the Harvard Medical School and has been working with the study.


“The ragweed pollen counts go up so that doubling of asthma in the last several decades may be partially accountable just by the rise in CO-2 as well as, perhaps, prolongation of seasons and the early arrival of spring and the late arrival of fall.”


Epstein says it appears the air pollution that is believed to be causing global climate change and triggers asthma could be compounding the problem by indirectly contributing to the increase in pollen allergens. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.