The back of a female patient with a doctor who is using a stethoscope to listen to her lungs. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
Public health advocates say governments and
individuals should take more precautions as global
warming continues. Chuck Quirmbach has more:
Transcript
Public health advocates say governments and
individuals should take more precautions as global
warming continues. Chuck Quirmbach has more:
Most scientists say a warmer climate will bring some good things for public health, like
longer food growing seasons in parts of the world. But Dr. Georges Benjamin also
believes the forecasts of what bad things might happen.
“We know that climate change certainly could increase air pollution, leading to increases
in things like asthma, allergy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease”
Benjamin heads the American Public Health Association. The group is issuing a
blueprint for health professionals and the public to combat climate change.
The effort includes calls for government to provide more shelter and health monitoring
during heatwaves, and recommendations for people to be more careful during high
temperatures and heavy rainfalls. The group will also urge Congress to consider health
issues when it debates legislation to curb global warming.
A government watchdog group says the Environmental
Protection Agency might be limiting the public’s access to
information. Rebecca Williams reports that could hurt future
research on health and safety:
Transcript
A government watchdog group says the Environmental
Protection Agency might be limiting the public’s access to
information. Rebecca Williams reports that could hurt future
research on health and safety:
The EPA has been closing several of its research libraries. The agency
started doing that two years ago to save money. The libraries have
information on chemical safety, Superfund sites, and all kinds of other
health and safety data.
The Government Accountability Office says the EPA cut corners… and acted
too quickly.
The GAO reports the EPA closed the libraries without consulting outside
experts.
The report says the EPA closed its Chemical Library without notifying EPA
staff or the public. EPA scientists used the library to review industry
requests before new chemicals could be put on the market.
Congress has directed the EPA to re-open the libraries. The EPA hasn’t
reopened them yet. But the agency says it’s reviewing its library plans.
A bill before the U-S House of Representatives would stop state and local governments from passing their own restrictions on chemicals. We have more from the GLRC’s Rick Pluta:
Transcript
A bill before the US House of Representatives would stop state and local
governments from passing their own restrictions on chemicals. We have more
from the GLRC’s Rick Pluta:
California recently passed a law that would ban the use of a fire retardant that’s been
linked to neurological disorders, and other states are looking at passing regulations that
are stricter than federal rules governing fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.
Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan says all of those could be sidelined
by the bill before Congress:
“In other words, it is a wall not only against existing law, but it is a wall against the states enacting additional laws which would make it safe for people.”
He says the bill would also require environmental regulators to perform a cost-benefit
analysis as part of their decisions, when the health of the public should be their top
concern.
Supporters say the United States needs a single standard governing pesticides and
chemicals to comply with an international treaty.
An Illinois Congressman says all cities should follow
Chicago’s example and end sewage system overflows into the
Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
An Illinois Congressman say all cities should follow Chicago’s
example and end sewage system overflows into the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s
Tracy Samilton reports:
Many cities in the Great Lakes watershed have aging sewage systems that
can’t cope with heavy rains. That can result in untreated sewage being
dumped into the Great Lakes.
Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk says Milwaukee dumps a billion gallons of
untreated sewage into Lake Michigan every year. But he says cities in Indiana
and Michigan have also dumped sewage into the Lake. Kirk has co-authored a bill
that would give all cities in a Great Lakes watershed twenty years to fix problems.
After that, they’d would face fines of 100 thousand dollars a day per incident.
“The dumping of raw fecal matter into the lake, the alarming rise in beach closings…
20 years from now, that should all be part of our past and not our future.”
In the meantime, the bill would also require cities to let the public know
when they dump sewage into the Great Lakes.
An environmental watchdog group is criticizing President Bush’s proposal to slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s library system. The GLRC’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
An environmental watchdog group is criticizing President Bush’s
proposal to slash funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency’s library system. The GLRC’s Sarah Hulett reports:
The proposed budget would cut two million of the two-and-a-half
million dollars that pays for EPA’s libraries and reading rooms.
Internal EPA memos suggest the cuts could close EPA’s main
library and some of its regional libraries, and shut down the
system’s electronic catalog.
Jeff Ruch is with Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility. He says the proposed cuts threaten an invaluable
resource the serves government scientists and the public.
“And so for reports on particular sites – like for example:
contaminated sites or Superfund sites – they’re the only place in
the world where you can get some of the detailed investigations
that have been done.”
An EPA spokeswoman says the agency plans to make its physical
collections more widely available online, but it’s not clear how the
agency will pay for digitizing the documents.
Shoreline property owners are asking the nation’s highest court to reverse a ruling that says the public has the right to walk along the beaches of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:
Transcript
Shoreline property owners are asking the nation’s highest court to
reverse a ruling that says the public has the right to walk along the
beaches of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick
Pluta reports:
The property owners are challenging a Michigan Supreme Court
decision. The state court held that the public owns the Great Lakes
beaches from the water to the high water mark. The case was filed by a
woman who was seeking the right to walk along the shoreline of Lake
Huron.
David Powers is an attorney with the property owners group Save Our
Shoreline. He says the Michigan decision rolled back property owners’
rights…
“And so, if the state has taken private property in violation of the
Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court should be very concerned about
that.”
The other side in the case says the Great Lakes shoreline is such a unique
resource that no one person should be allowed to claim exclusive rights
to it.
There’s no word on when the Supreme Court might make a decision on
taking the case. Lakeshore property rights are being litigated in other
Great Lakes states and whatever the Supreme Court decides to do could
have an effect on those cases.
Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the
government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The
rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Environmental Protection Agency’s own staff scientists and the
independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both found the
EPA needed to issue more restrictive rules regarding fine particulate
matter, that’s soot emitted from sources such as diesel trucks and coal-
burning power plants.
After reviewing 2000 studies linking particulate matter to asthma, heart
attacks, and early death for people with heart and lung disease, the
scientists concluded that standards set by the Clinton administration in
1997 did not go far enough to help reduce health risks. Despite that, the
Bush EPA appointees basically plan to keep restrictions where they are.
The power plant industry indicates further restrictions would be a
financial burden to it, and provide only marginal public health benefits.
Environmentalists say the Bush administration’s proposed rules ignore
mountains of medical research showing this kind of air pollution causes
serious health problems.
Some bottling companies, such as Besco, sell water, but keep it in the Great Lakes basin. Some others bottle it and ship it out of the region in great quantities. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Experts say one of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is water withdrawal. Water is taken from the Great Lakes for agriculture, industry, and public drinking supplies. Lester Graham reports there are many ways that water is used and shipped out of the Great Lakes basin, but few are more controversial than bottled water:
Transcript
Experts say one of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is water
withdrawal. Water is taken from the Great Lakes for agriculture,
industry, and public drinking supplies. Lester Graham reports there are
many ways that water is used and shipped out of the Great Lakes basin,
but few are more controversial than bottled water:
(Sound of bottling plant)
I’m watching big clear-blue water bottles, the kind you see on water coolers, are
bouncing along on a conveyer to be washed and then filled with water.
Chuck Swartzle is the President of Besco Water Treatment…
“Uh, we treat it – it’s well water – we treat it, purify it with reverse
osmosis, sanitize it, filter it and bottle it.”
Besco also bottles water in smaller containers, the kind you might buy at
the convenience store.
All of Besco’s customers are within the Great Lakes basin, so the water
will eventually make its way back to the lakes, but some bottlers
distribute water far outside the basin.
One of Pepsico’s Aquafina bottled water plants gets its water from the
Detroit River, which connects the upper Great Lakes to the lower lakes.
Aquafina’s bottled water is distributed inside and outside the basin. That
means Great Lakes water is being trucked away. It’s a net loss of water to the
basin.
That’s not anything new. Water from the Great Lakes basin in the form
of beer from Milwaukee or milk from Minnesota or any of the other
products you can think of that are mostly water are shipped far and wide
and have been for a long time, but some environmentalists say trucking bottled water
away is different. They argue it’s a lot like a recent attempt to take tanker ships
of Lake Superior water to Asia. It’s not like a value-added product that’s made
from water, it’s just water.
Bill Lobenherz is a lobbyist for the Michigan Soft Drink Association.
He says bottled water is a value-added product, just like the many others.
“Indeed, there’s a lot more water in lumber, for example, Christmas
trees, and sometimes a lot less value added to it too. You don’t have to
do that much to cut it and ship it. Cherries, baby food and other non-
consumable products like paint. What about the water we have to put in
the automobile radiators? I really don’t know that there is a distinction
there. It seems to be more of a misplaced perception than it is any kind
of environmental reality.”
“I guess I’m having a hard time getting my head around the difference
shipping water out in a truck-load of bottles and shipping it out by
tanker. What’s the real difference there?”
“I think the difference is that there’s the fear that if it’s by tanker in those
quantities, that it could be abused. If it’s in bottles, it’s really quite
controllable, because there’s so much more value added to put it in small
bottles.”
Not everyone is buying that argument.
Dave Dempsey is the Great Lakes advisor for the environmental group Clean Water Action.
He says the most recent debates about water withdrawals started when that shipping company
planned to take about 156-million gallons a year to Asia. Dempsey says a single new bottled
water plant trucks away even more than that.
“The Nestle’ project, a single project in Michigan that has been sited and
is operating takes 168-million gallons per year. So, the volumes can be
greater in bottles than in tankers.”
But that’s still not that much water compared to other uses.
According to figures in a report by the Great Lakes Commission, the
cities and industries around the Great Lakes withdraw more than 43
billion gallons a day. Much of it is used and returned to the lakes, but
nearly two billion gallons a day is lost. It’s not returned to the lakes
because it evaporates or it’s incorporated into products. Two billion
gallons a day makes the Nestle’ bottled water plant’s 168-million gallons
a year seem minor.
But Dave Dempsey argues there’s a more sinister concern. He believes
if water is treated like any other commodity, large corporations that can
profit from it will begin to horde it, and control it.
“You will hear bottled water companies say that they’re just another user
like a farmer or a manufacturer or even a city water supply, but they’re
not because they’re asserting private ownership of a public resource and
if we essentially allow that by not putting controls on the water-for-sale
industry now, I’m afraid the Great Lakes may become the world’s largest
privately owned reservoir.”
A recent agreement between the states and provinces around the Great
Lakes allows bottled water to be shipped out in bottles as large as five-
gallons, but some environmentalists say that’s a slippery slope. They say
corporations will soon be asking why just five gallons? Why not 55-
gallon barrels? And then, tankers.
The bottling industry says the environmentalists are making a big deal
out of nothing, and would do better spending their time teaching
everyone to conserve water better instead of complaining about someone
in another state quenching their thirst with a bottle of water from the
Great Lakes.
A recent Michigan Supreme Court decision intended to solve controversy between lake shore property owners and beach walkers has stirred up yet more controversy. (Photo courtesy of the NOAA)
Many people enjoy strolling the beaches of the Great Lakes, and believe it’s as much their shoreline as anyone else’s. But there are a lot of lakefront property owners who believe that beach strolling amounts to trespassing. And in at least two states in the region, that dispute has wound up in the courts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has
more:
Transcript
Many people enjoy strolling the beaches of the Great Lakes, and believe it’s as much their shoreline as anyone else’s. But there are a lot of lakefront property owners who believe that beach strolling amounts to trespassing, and in at least two states in the region, that dispute has wound up in the courts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has more:
In Michigan, the state Supreme Court recently declared the entire 3,200 miles of Great Lakes coast is public property. But a group of lakefront property owners says the decision has created a host of problems.
They’re complaining that it appears to leave them with no recourse for dealing with people who cross the line of considerate behavior, such as loud picnickers, and careless dog-walkers. Ernie Krygier is with one of the most active property owners’ groups, Save Our Shoreline.
“There’s a lot of other instances that we’re concerned with, and it all goes back to ownership and control to the water’s edge. If you don’t own it, it’s going to be very difficult to control it.”
The Michigan property owners now want the state Supreme Court to issue a more-detailed ruling on what’s allowed and not allowed on the Great Lakes beaches. Krygier says they’re also hoping to win back at least some of the shoreline.
If not, he says, the property owners could file a lawsuit claiming the court’s action amounts to a seizure of their property, and they’re entitled to perhaps billions of dollars in compensation.
(Sound of beach)
A sign posted here on a Lake Michigan beach by a property owners’ association warns people who might wander past that they’re about to tread upon private property, but many people walk right past it anyway to enjoy a stroll on the shoreline. Jim Wright lives nearby, and says he’s walked this stretch of beach for twenty years.
“They, they put out little signs and that. But the signs, you know, are not anything official. It’s just something they got from a signmaker. And so we just kind of ignore them, and they accept them being ignored.”
The recent Michigan Supreme Court said it’s okay for Wright and everyone else to ignore the sign. The ruling said Great Lakes beaches are a unique resource, held in trust by the state for the public to use and enjoy.
The court said public access in Michigan extends from the water to the high water line. That line meanders from beach to beach, from lake to lake, and from season to season. It’s generally indicated by debris deposits, or the absence of beach grass and other vegetation, and Jim Wright says the court made the right decision.
“I’ve always felt that the whole shoreline belongs to the state and no one person, so that was a good ruling that they made and I think most people will be very happy with it.”
It’s a controversy that’s playing out in other Great Lakes states. In Ohio, officials are saying the Michigan decision supports their position that the Lake Erie coast belongs to the public. Shoreline property owners there are suing the state, asking a federal court to declare they own the beaches adjacent to their property.
Noah Hall is a Wayne State University environmental law professor who’s filed briefs on behalf of conservation organizations supporting public access to the entire Great Lakes shoreline. He says the Michigan decision will have a regional impact.
“I think that it would be completely reasonable and expected for another state to look very hard at Michigan’s reasoning and analysis in this case and probably adopt a similar line.”
He says the Michigan decision is a boost to those arguing the entire Great Lakes shoreline belongs to the public, and not to any private interest.
The Government Accountability Office is urging Congress to give the EPA help in assessing chemical safety. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Government Printing Office)
A government report reveals that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot assess the health risks of most of the chemicals in the products we use. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government report reveals that the U.S. Environmental Protection agency cannot assess the health risks of most of the chemicals in the products we use. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accounability Office, found the EPA didn’t have the authority or the funding to properly review 85% of the chemicals in use today.
Chemicals that have been in use for years have not been properly reviewed because the EPA only has access to limited information. The laws, as they are written now, protect a chemical or other company’s secrets over public knowledge of the health risks.
Independent studies have indicated many of the close to eighty thousand chemicals in use might be threats to human health. The GAO report also indicates the EPA “…lacks sufficient data to ensure that potential health and environmental risks of new chemicals are identified.”
The GAO recommends that Congress give the EPA more authority to improve its ability to assess chemical risks.
The back of a female patient with a doctor who is using a stethoscope to listen to her lungs. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
