Tag: level

Great Lakes Call for Help

  • Some feel the Great Lakes are being ignored by Congress (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)

The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:

Transcript

The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:

Washington D.C. is a long way from the Great Lakes. Most members of
Congress don’t live near the lakes. And many don’t understand just how big
they are.

Don Scavia used to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in Washington.

“I’ve spent 15 years inside the Beltway and I just know that the Great Lakes just don’t
have the same sense of urgency and importance inside the Beltway as some other places like the Chesapeake Bay and others have. Senators and
Congressmen don’t have boats on it like they do on the Chesapeake. I think
it’s a matter of if you haven’t been here, if you haven’t seen them, you
really don’t get it.”

These days, Don Scavia is a scientist at the University of Michigan. He’s a
co-author of a report on global warming and the Great Lakes. He says we
need to help the Great Lakes adapt to the changes that are already happening
because of global warming.

“The restoration strategy is put in place specifically to increase the
resiliency of the Lakes, increase the buffering capacity of the Lakes, to allow them
to adapt to this near-term climate change.”

Just about everyone around the Great Lakes has noticed that water levels are
dropping. Recreational boats can get stuck. Big cargo ships can’t get into
harbors. And they have to carry lighter loads when lake levels drop. That
means more trips, and, eventually, higher prices for all of us. And
climate change might make it worse.

On top of that, the Great Lakes are struggling with fisheries collapsing,
invasive species damaging the ecosystem, and pollution that’s never been
cleaned up.

Jeff Skelding is with the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition.

“When Great Lakes effort began, we had a lot on our plate to deal with and
then we looked at the science of global warming and its impacts on the Great
Lakes it kinda froze us in our tracks. Now we’ve got global warming to
contend with.”

So, what do the advocates want from Congress?

There’s a $20-billion price tag on Great Lakes restoration.

Bits and pieces of it have gone before Congress. And there’s been some
progress on money for things like restoring wetlands. But for the most
part, most of the time, the Great Lakes just haven’t been a priority in
Washington.

Rahm Emanuel is a Congressman from Illinois. He holds a leadership position
among the House Democrats. He says he hopes the money will be approved by
Congress sometime soon.

“I don’t want another study, I don’t want to pay for another analysis, I’m
over studied, over analysis-ed. We know what it takes to fix it, we know
what the pollutants are, now we’ve got to put our money where our mouth is.”

Politically, the time might not get any better for Great Lakes advocates.
There’s a Census coming up and new Congressional district lines will be
drawn. The Great Lakes region will lose representation in the US House.
That means the Great Lakes states will lose clout in Congress.

So, the region’s members of Congress need to get a Great Lakes restoration
package to the next President before that happens. Great Lakes advocates
are hoping the next President – whether it’s McCain, Obama or Clinton – will
give the Great Lakes more attention, and money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

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

Dental Offices Adding to Mercury Problem

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

Dental offices are producing higher levels than
expected of a toxic form of mercury. Rebecca Williams
reports on the findings of a new study:

Transcript

Dental offices are producing higher levels than
expected of a toxic form of mercury. Rebecca Williams
reports on the findings of a new study:

When dentists remove fillings, most of the mercury in the fillings is
trapped in a filter in the spit drains. But some of it does get through.

Mercury in its simplest form is not as toxic as what’s called methyl
mercury. That forms when mercury is exposed to certain bacteria. Methyl
mercury is very toxic even in small amounts.

Researchers at the University of Illinois say they found much higher levels
of methyl mercury in wastewater from dental offices than they expected. In
fact – they say they were the highest levels of methyl mercury ever reported
in an environmental water sample. And that toxic mercury is eventually
released into the environment.

The findings were published online in the journal Environmental Science and
Technology.

To put this all in perspective – the authors say the amount of mercury
coming from dental offices is really, really tiny compared to mercury coming
from coal-fired power plants.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

New Power Plants to Dry Up Water Supplies?

  • The Kaskaskia River has been low lately because of lack of rain. But nearby power plants also draw a lot of water from the river... making residents who depend on the river nervous. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


(sound of boat motor starting up)


A bearded guy by the name of Smitty is helping fisherman heave off from his riverside marina. On this sweltering afternoon, the marina’s hosting a big fishing tournament. The tournament’s bringing in lots of business, but Smitty’s got a problem. The area’s been hard up for rain recently, and the water’s pretty shallow.


“It makes quite a bit of difference. A lot of the access areas, the small river channels that lead into here aren’t accessible when the water gets low. It’d affect our business, mean a lot less people being able to use it.”


Smitty wonders whether there’s something else keeping this river, the Kaskaskia, shallow. Lately, he’s been asking whether a coal-fired power plant has been using too much river water. The Baldwin power plant, just east of the St. Louis metro area, is owned by Dynegy – a big power company.


Baldwin cools its generators with water from the Kaskaskia. Now another company, Peabody, is building its own power plant nearby. And that new plant will need river water to cool its generators, too.


Several environmental groups and local activists oppose the project. They say the Kaskaskia doesn’t have enough water for a new power plant. They say wildlife, boaters, and city drinking supplies already use the Kaskaskia. The Peabody Company says the plant won’t endanger the river’s water levels. The company will use the latest technology to conserve water.


But, even with hi-tech equipment, Peabody wanted to pump about 30 million gallons each day from the Kaskaskia. State regulators said no, and restricted the plant to 13 million gallons a day. That’s still about as much water as a town of 85,000 people uses, and only 10 percent of the water is ever returned to the river, the rest just evaporates.


Kathy Andria is with a local Sierra Club chapter. She says the project’s water needs are surprising, and worrisome.


“They have water battles out in the West. We haven’t had it before here, but this is really showing what’s in the future for us.”


Andria’s fears could apply not just to this river, but everywhere. The power industry’s already the biggest user of water in the United States, but it’s likely to need even more water soon. In the next few decades, electric companies plan to build at least 100 power plants that will need lots of water.


Right now, no one’s sure what will happen when they start drawing water from lakes, rivers and underground wells. In the meantime, the power industry is looking at ways to better use water.


Robert Goldstein is with the Electrical Power Research Institute, an industry research group. He says the industry’s improving systems that use no water at all, but those are very expensive. In the meantime, though, demands on water continue to rise. And Goldstein says the industry is aware that it has to compete for water.


“It’s not a question of how much water is there. It’s a question of how much water is there, versus what all the various stakeholders want to do with that water, what their aggregate demand is.”


He says even in regions that seem to have a lot of water, communities need to look closely at their future water needs. Goldstein says everyone, not just the power industry, will need to plan water use better.


People outside the industry are also watching how much water power plants use. Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski is finishing a federal study on the subject. He worries about situations where several power plants draw from the same river or other water source at the same time.


“If you locate another plant, more water will be diverted from the system and at some point it will pre-empt other uses in the future from that same source.”


He says many areas could see more of these kinds of fights over water. Until we know more about demands for water, Dziegielewski says the industry should be as efficient as possible.


“As we go into the future, there is a need to control or reduce the amount of fresh water that is used for electricity generation.”


Environmentalists say that’s the least that can be done. They’re asking why coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants have been allowed to use so much water already. But not all power sources do.


Wind power and other alternatives use little, if any, water. A U.S. Department of Energy report recently made that point.


But given the political clout of the fossil fuel industry, it’s still easier and cheaper to generate power that needs lots of water.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

State Tests People for Mercury Levels

  • While people are now aware of the health benefits of eating fish rich in omega 3 fatty acids like salmon, a study has shown that the risk of high mercury levels and heart disease might counteract those benefits. (Photo by Bartlomiej Stroinski)

Researchers in one state in the region are trying to
find out how much mercury load their residents are carrying.
So far, 300 samples have been collected for the study. And
the researchers have found that one-quarter of Wisconsin men participating in the study have high levels of mercury. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

Researchers in one state in the region are trying to find out how much mercury load
their residents are carrying. So far, 300 samples have been collected for the study.
And the researchers have found that one-quarter of Wisconsin men participating in the
study have high levels of mercury. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


The EPA says the safe level for mercury is one part per million. In the ongoing Wisconsin
study, one in four men and one in eight women have more than that in their bodies. The
study subjects volunteered for the study, so officials say they may not represent the
population overall.


Eating fish contaminated with mercury has long been thought to cause developmental
problems in young children. But now there’s research from Europe showing it can also
contribute to heart disease in adult men.


Lynda Knobeloch is a toxicologist with the Wisconsin Department of Health.


“There have been several studies that show that people who eat fish have less heart
disease because of omega 3 fatty acids, but the European study was able to sort out the
good effects of omega 3s from the bad effects of methyl mercury, and see that the mercury
actually can overwhelm the beneficial effects of omega 3s and actually cause heart disease.”


Wisconsin is requiring its utilities to reduce mercury emissions by 75% over ten years.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Smog Reduction Plan in Motion

Great Lakes states are slowly complying with new EPA rules designed to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl explains:

Transcript

Great Lakes states are slowly complying with new EPA rules designed to reduce smog. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


The US EPA is requiring states to reduce emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, a main component in smog and ground level ozone. Coal-fired power plants and industrial boilers are the main producers of the pollutants. John Summerhays is an environmental scientist with the EPA’s Midwest Office. He says the reduction is an attempt to improve public health:


“The smog and ozone can cause a variety of health effects that are principally hard on the lungs. It can contribute to various lung diseases, so this is a big step forward for public health protection.”


Illinois and Indiana recently had their emission reduction plans approved by the Federal Government. Pennsylvania and New York have also been approved. Ohio and Michigan still have yet to submit reduction plans. The deadline for implementing the measures is 2004. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

New Push for Shoreline Regulation

Great Lakes regulators are worried people will start building closer to
the lakes because the water levels are lower. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports…. they want local governments to
restrict building homes where the owners might regret it later: