Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

  • There's a movement to stop using pesticides and sprays on your lawn. (Photo courtesy of Horia Varlan CC-BY)

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

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:

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.

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.

Related Links

Coal Ash Could Cause Cancer

  • Coal ash is sometimes used as an ingredient in concrete blocks (Photo source: Skepticsteve at Wikimedia Commons)

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

Transcript

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice uses data from the US Environmental Protection Agency – including a study that had been kept quiet since 2002.

Among the findings, people who live near coal ash storage ponds that are unlined, and who get their drinking water from a well, have a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from arsenic contamination.

Lisa Evans is an attorney with Earthjustice.

“It by far presents the largest risk to human health and the environment and there’s no reason to manage the waste in this way.”

The groups are calling for these storage ponds to be phased out and cleaned up in the next 5 years.

The EPA says new regulations are coming soon.

Power companies are willing to stop using storage ponds – but don’t want the coal ash classified as toxic. That would make disposal more expensive.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

A Rush on Face Masks for Swine Flu

  • Pharmacies have seen a rush on surgical masks, like this one, in response to the swine flu (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)

Some pharmacies are running out of face masks because people are buying them to try to protect themselves from swine flu. Lester Graham has more on that:

Transcript

Some pharmacies are running out of face masks because people are buying them to try to protect themselves from swine flu. Lester Graham has more on that:

One infectious disease specialist told us if we get to the point of an epidemic, anything that covers your mouth would probably be helpful.

But, people are not waiting until it’s a full-fledged epidemic before getting face masks.

One pharmacy we visited usually sells three different kinds of masks. It was sold out.

Those who can’t find masks at the local pharmacy are sometimes directed to hardware stores.

Lowe’s Public Relations indicated it has seen an increase in popularity of dust and respirator masks, but the home improvement chain declined to give specific numbers.

Health officials say if you’re going to use a dust mask, buy one rated “N-95.” It filters out 95% of particles.

But, some health officials say, it’s better for those who are sick to wear them than it is for you to wear one for protection from the swine flu.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

How to Avoid the Flu

  • Research finds that Americans don't wash their hands enough (Photo courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:

Transcript

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:

Some studies estimate about 70% of liquid soaps on store shelves have antibacterial ingredients in them. Ingredients such as a chemical called triclosan.

Allison Aiello teaches epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Aiello is lead author of a paper in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

She examined more than two dozen studies on antibacterial soaps containing triclosan. She says triclosan kills bacteria by going after the bacterium’s cell wall.

“The cell wall cannot be kept intact anymore; it’s not able to survive.”

But Aiello says there’s a growing body of evidence that even though antibacterial soap kills bacteria, it’s no better than regular soap at preventing illness.

Regular soap doesn’t kill bacteria, but Aiello says it works just as well at getting rid of bacteria and viruses like swine flu.

“Regular soap, is basically, it has a surfactant in it and what it does is it allows bacteria to be dislodged from hands and then the motion that you’re using under water helps dislodge it and make it go down the drain, basically.”

Aiello says it’s important to note that the soap studies were done with basically healthy people.

She says more research needs to be done to find out if antibacterial soaps could be more effective for elderly people or people with compromised immune systems.

But Aiello says generally, for healthy people, antibacterial soaps are no better than plain soaps at keeping you healthy.

And she says there could be risks to antibacterial products. She says there’s evidence from lab studies that antibacterial soaps might be adding to the emergence of super-bugs: bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

“In the laboratory setting, it is clear that there are mechanisms that can lead to antibiotic resistance when bacteria are exposed to triclosan.”

Aiello says they haven’t seen this play out for antibacterial soaps in the real world yet. But she says researchers need to keep an eye on it because antibiotic resistance might take some time to develop.

The soap industry dismisses the idea that antibacterial soaps might have something to do with antibiotic resistance.

Brian Sansoni is with the Soap and Detergent Association.

“The last thing we want to see is people discouraged from using beneficial products. Antibacterial soaps have proven benefits, they’re used safely and effectively by millions of people every day. Consumers should continue to use these products with confidence.”

The Food and Drug Administration has the final word on antibacterial soaps. But they’re still trying to figure out what to say about them.

The FDA has been trying to come up with rules for the products for more than 30 years. Right now there are no formal rules about the levels of antibacterial chemicals in soaps. And there aren’t any rules about how the products can be marketed or labeled.

There’s one thing both the soap industry and doctors agree on – Americans don’t wash up often enough with any kind of soap.

A recent study found one out of every three men walk out of the bathroom without washing their hands. Women did better than the guys, but still, about one of every ten women didn’t wash their hands either.

Experts say after you sneeze, cough or visit the restroom, you should scrub your hands with soap and water for 20 to 30 seconds.

That’s as long as it takes to sing the happy birthday song twice.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Swine Flu and Factory Farms: Any Connection?

  • It’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The current swine flu outbreak was first detected in a region of Mexico with large confined animal feeding operations – factory farms. Many environmentalists wonder if there’s a connection. Lester Graham reports:

A US government brochure indicates it’s not uncommon for influenza viruses to be exchanged between pigs and humans.

Mark Wilson is a professor of epidemeology at the University of Michigan. He says factory farms can make that exchange easier.

“The combination of animals being confined in close quarters as well as the large number of animals is likely to lead to more transmission of infectious agents among them. And as people – workers – are in contact with these animals, the possibility of transmission from those animals to those workers is increased. Absolutely.”

But, Wilson says it’s anyone’s guess whether this strain of swine flu began at a factory farm.

“Completely unknown at this point.”

Health officials from Mexico and the US Centers for Disease Control are investigating the source of the virus.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham

Related Links

Drugs in the Water

  • There is some confusion about what to do with unused medications (Photo source: Shorelander at Wikimedia Commons)

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

Transcript

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

In the U.S., there are about 12,000 brand name and generic drugs on the market. And who knows how many over the counter drugs.

Scientists are finding many of these drugs in our water. Everything from caffeine, to allergy and anti-cancer drugs, to antidepressants.

Now, they’re finding these drugs at very low levels. But they’re pretty much everywhere.

An Associated Press investigation found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of more than 40 million Americans.

“You know, we don’t think it’s enough to cause public harm but honestly nobody’s sure.”

That’s Sahar Swidan. She’s a pharmacist.

Right now, Swidan’s going through a five foot tall box of prescription drugs that people have brought to her store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They might be expired, or just not needed anymore.

(sound of pill bottle shaking)


“Asthma medications, growth hormones for patients – so really the gamut could be anything and everything.”

A disposal company picks up the drugs about once a month and incinerates them.

Swidan’s drug take-back program is pretty rare. Many pharmacies are not set up to collect unused drugs.

One reason is, it takes a lot of work. Swidan has to sort through the drugs and make sure there aren’t any controlled substances – things like narcotics. It’s illegal for pharmacies to take these back in most cases.

The Drug Enforcement Agency is talking about revising their disposal rules for controlled substances. But for now you usually have to get rid of them yourself. So, how do you do that?

You can dissolve pills or caplets in water, and mix in kitty litter or coffee grounds. That’s to make the stuff look gross and undesirable. Then dump it all into ziptop bags, wrap it up in duct tape, and throw it away.

But to make things more complicated, there’s still a short list of drugs that you’re supposed to flush down the drain. The Food and Drug Administration says the drugs on this list are too dangerous to toss in the trash.

Connie Jung is with the FDA’s pharmacy affairs department. She says the drug label will tell you if you’re supposed to flush them.

“For the small number of prescription drugs that have flushing recommendations they have these because the drugs are strong narcotic pain relievers or other controlled substances. These drugs can be dangerous to those who aren’t supposed to be taking them, particularly children or pets.”

Jung says the FDA is currently reviewing disposal methods for these kinds of drugs… because flushing them down the toilet is starting to raise some questions.

An even bigger problem is that most of the drug residues getting into our water are coming from drugs we take and excrete.

Bryan Brooks is a researcher at Baylor University. He recently found low levels of seven drugs in fish caught near wastewater treatment plants. He says these sewer plants just can’t filter out drugs.

“These wastewater treatment facilities were largely not designed to treat to really ultra low levels. Compounds like birth control medications can be active at low part per trillion levels.”

Right now Brooks is trying to sort out what effects drugs are having on fish.

Hormones like estrogen appear to be feminizing male fish. Antidepressants might change how fish behave. And no one’s sure how drugs might be affecting our drinking water.

Brooks says one thing that can be done at the treatment plant is adding reverse osmosis filters. But they’re expensive.

Brooks says there’s not much we can do about excreting drugs, but at the very least we shouldn’t be flushing drugs down the drain.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Government Fails at Food Safety

  • The reported number of salmonella cases has not gone down since 1996 (Source: Gene.Arboit at Wikimedia Commons)

Government agencies admit they need to do a better job at keeping food safe. Kyle Norris has more:

Transcript

Government agencies admit they need to do a better job at keeping food safe. Kyle Norris has more:

When you discover people are getting sick from a food bourne illness like salmonella, you want to stop others from getting sick from it as fast as possible.

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US Food & Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture finds the government is not getting any faster.

The report found the number of reported salmonella cases each year is about 15 people in 100,000. That has not gone down since 1996.

Lola Russell is a spokeswoman for the CDC.

“We are planning to increase the capacity of state health departments so that outbreaks can be better detected and investigated.”

Russell says the CDC will work to get more “boots on the ground” to detect an outbreak. The report also indicated the FDA is looking at the best options to prevent food borne illnesses in the first place.

For The Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Using Honey for Healing

  • Stores in Alandejani's hometown of Ottawa have had an increase in sales of manuka honey after the study was reported (Photo by Karen Kelly)

According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 90,000 Americans are diagnosed with an antibiotic-resistant infection each year. Doctors and patients are desperate to find an alternative treatment for these infections. Karen Kelly reports on the possibility of a new approach using a common household ingredient:

Transcript

According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 90,000 Americans are diagnosed with an antibiotic-resistant infection each year. Doctors and patients are desperate to find an alternative treatment for these infections. Karen Kelly reports on the possibility of a new approach using a common household ingredient:

(sound of teapot and pouring)

A lot of us like to pour a cup of tea with honey when we’re feeling achy and stuffed up.

But researcher Talal Alandejani wondered if honey might be good for more than just soothing a sore throat.

He’s an ear, nose and throat doctor at the University of Ottawa in Canada.
He knew honey had been used on the skin for centuries to kill bacteria in wounds.
And he wondered if there might be a way to use it with his patients.

He treats people with chronic sinus infections that are resistant to antibiotics.

“I thought, what if I could use it in the sinus where we use antibiotics, but we still can’t get rid of the infection. It’s a natural product, it has less side effects and it’s less expensive.”

So, Alandejani chose four different types of honey:
clover and buckwheat honeys, which are common in North America,
Manuka honey, which is grown in New Zealand and sold mostly in health food stores,
and sidr honey from Yemen, which is hard for Americans to find.

He then grew bacteria in petri dishes.
Some were free-floating – the kind killed by antibiotics.
The others are called biofilms – they have a coating that resists medications, and they’re the cause of chronic sinus infections and other diseases.

Alandejani squirted the bacteria with antibiotics in one dish, and honey in the other.

The manuka and sidr honey -along with the medications – killed the free-floating bacteria.
The biofilms, though, were a different story.
The antibiotics didn’t kill them, but the honey did.

In fact, the two foreign honeys killed about 90% of the pseudomonas and 60 to 70% of MRSA bacteria. Both can cause deadly infections.

Alandejani presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Oto-laryn-gology, Head and Neck Surgery.

And he was swamped with questions from doctors and sinus patients eager to try it.

“Even the patients in our clinics want us to treat them right now, before even doing the trials or the animal studies. And they’re willing to take the harm of it, if there is any, because their disease is not treated until now.”

Alandejani says the challenge is that the honey has to come in contact with the bacteria – so it would have to be diluted and injected into the sinuses.

Dr. Murray Grossan is an ear, nose, and throat doctor in Santa Monica.
He says the treatment looks promising.

“They do use honey for stomach problems, stomach ulcers and so on, so it probably would be pretty safe to put into the sinus. But unfortunately, we have to go through all sorts of protocol there.”


In the meantime, stores in Alandejani’s hometown of Ottawa have had an increase in sales of manuka honey after the study was reported.

It’s not cheap – manuka honey can cost as much as $50 a jar.

Alandejani says he used the regular manuka honey, nothing especially strong.
And he can’t vouch for it’s effectiveness if you just eat it.

But he’s now trying it on sinuses in animal studies.

And soon, his patients with chronic sinusitus will have their chance to try it as well.

For The Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

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

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