Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine

Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.

Home About This Month's Articles Calendar of Events Classified Listings
Educational Programs Sacred Journeys & Retreats Holistic Resource Directory
Article Archives Wisdom Marketplace Web Partner Links
Advertising Information

EarthTalk®

by E - The Environmental Magazine

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that only a handful of outdated coal-burning power plants generate a sizable amount of the mercury pollution generated in the United States? If so, is anything being done to clean these sites up or shut them down? -- Frank Pearson, Wichita, KS

Our nation’s coal-fired power plants are increasingly being retrofitted with technologies to mitigate the output of various forms of pollution. But a number of bad apples do continue to cause more than their fair share of mercury emissions. This past March the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a leading non-profit, released a report showing that the top 25 emitters of mercury, a potent neurotoxin and a nasty by-product of coal-fired electricity generation, contribute only eight percent of the U.S. electric supply. At the same time, these power plants, which have failed to install readily available pollution controls already widely in use by other plants, account for nearly a third of all mercury emissions by the American electricity sector overall.

The report, “Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives,” factors in emissions of mercury at power plants across the country in 2009. According to EDF, 20 of the top 25 mercury emitters are located within 50-100 miles of some of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation, including Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis and Austin. EDF found that Texas produces the most pollution from coal-fired electricity generation of all the U.S. states. Besides listing the worst mercury polluters, the report also details recent cases of mercury contamination and fish consumption advisories across the country, as well as reported new installations of mercury controls and recently enacted state regulations driving their implementation.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of more stringent rules regarding emissions of mercury and other air polluters such as arsenic, dioxin and acid gases from individual power plants. EDF hopes that the report will bolster public support for the federal government to crack down on any plants that continue to buck the trend towards greener operations.

“There are widely available, cost-effective and tested technologies to reduce mercury pollution from power plants by more than 90 percent,” reports EDF. Currently only 17 U.S. states regulate mercury air emissions, but the upcoming EPA rule will force plants even in unregulated states to clean up their acts.

Mercury pollution is an ongoing problem around the world. Exposure to mercury in the environment has been linked to a variety of reproductive, cardiovascular and other human health problems. Airborne mercury from electricity plants usually finds its way into waterways and eventually the ocean where it is taken up by successively larger marine life as it works its way up the food chain. The top ocean predators such as tuna and swordfish contain relatively large amounts of mercury in their fatty tissue as a result of eating smaller fish which have in turn eaten even smaller forms of marine life.

Consumers can limit their mercury intake by minimizing our consumption of these larger fish (including albacore canned tuna), but the problem will linger long into the future even if we start to reign in mercury pollution domestically, especially because the cleaner technologies being implemented here may take decades to find their way to power plants in poor and developing countries.

CONTACT: EDF’s “Mercury Alert” Report, www.edf.org/top25.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What was the nature of the agreement just forged between green groups and the U.S. government for wolf protection in the Northern Rockies? -- Peggy Marshall, Boise, ID

This past March, a coalition of 10 conservation groups finally reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Interior regarding gray wolf recovery and management in the Northern Rockies. The courtroom battle had raged since the Bush administration had announced in January 2009 its decision to take gray wolves—66 of which were reintroduced to the region in 1995 after their forebears were wiped out by hunters and ranchers a century earlier—off of the Endangered Species List.

Today upwards of 1,600 gray wolves roam the six-state region, exceeding wildlife biologists’ expectations by a factor of five. The groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, sued the Interior Department, contended that taking away federal protections and allowing hunting of the wolves would be no way to encourage their rebound. The effort succeeded and kept the delisting from becoming a reality.

Ranchers have been especially vocal in opposing protection for the wolves, which they say are to blame for increased livestock predation as well as the decline in the region’s elk herds in recent years.

The conservationists’ primary concern had been that certain states where the wolves now range (thanks to reintroduction efforts) did not have large enough wolf populations or sufficient statewide protections to ensure their rebound would continue. Under the new agreement, gray wolves will be delisted in those states that have established suitable protection plans (Idaho and Montana)—so limited hunting will be allowed there—while federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections will remain in place in the other states (Washington, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming) where gray wolf populations are still in jeopardy.

As part of the new deal, the Department of the Interior will conduct rigorous scientific monitoring of wolf populations across the region and solicit an independent scientific review by an expert advisory board after three years to reassess the situation.

Washington, Oregon and Utah only have small populations of gray wolves. Wyoming, however, where the animals are thriving, is a different story. Wildlife biologists were concerned about delisting the animals there as state officials had sought a “predator zone”—where wolves could be shot on sight—covering almost 90 percent of the state. As a result of this concern, gray wolves will remain listed under the ESA in Wyoming, although U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service officials are working with state wildlife biologists to develop a more responsible plan that would allow delisting there as well at some future date.

“The settlement offers a workable solution to the increasingly polarized debate over wolves,” reported the conservation groups in a joint memo, adding that they hope the agreement marks the “beginning of a new era of wolf conservation.” Other groups signing onto the agreement included Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Oregon Wild and Wildlands Network.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains,” www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I thought “farm raised” was the way to go when buying fish, to avoid mercury contamination. But are there other concerns about farm raised that make some fish a poor choice for good health? What are the safest fish to buy and which should be avoided? And what about those frozen blocks of fish I get at Trader Joe’s? Are they safe to eat? -- Tim Jeffries, Springfield, MA

Mercury is a neurotoxin that settles into the ocean in large concentrations after we spew it out of industrial smokestacks when burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. It is then taken up by smaller sea life such as plankton and then spread up through the food chain as larger fish eat smaller ones. We humans then eat the mercury-laced seafood—wild salmon, tuna, swordfish and other fish—and breathe it in our air. Repeated exposure to mercury pollution can cause brain, kidney and developmental problems for people.

Farm-raised fish may have somewhat less exposure to mercury than their wild free-foraging cousins because they are usually fed a controlled diet, often consisting of more grains and soy, a cheaper and more abundant source of calories, than fishmeal. But they can still absorb mercury, since most fish farms are themselves located in the ocean, just close to or abutting the shoreline.

Farmed fish can also absorb PCBs and dioxins, as the near-shore waters they occupy are the first stop for run-off from land-based sources of pollution. And the fact that their primary feed source comes from conventionally grown terrestrial crops means that their diets can include trace amounts of pesticides and herbicides as well. Also, most farmed fish are exposed to dose after dose of antibiotics to keep diseases and pests at bay in their crowded underwater pens, much in the way “factory farmed” land animals are drugged to help them cope with cramped, unsanitary conditions. In fact, studies have shown that farm-raised fish have more toxins overall than their wild-caught cousins, though exceptions of course do exist.

The best way to know which fish are safe and which are not is to download a region-specific seafood buying guide from the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program. These guides aid the decision-making process when shopping for seafood in a store or ordering it at a restaurant by dividing the fish available in that part of the country into three categories: Best Choices, Good Alternatives and Avoid.

And bring your Seafood Watch guide to Trader Joe’s as well—at least for now. In 2010, after months of lobbying by Greenpeace and a growing number of concerned shoppers, Trader Joe’s agreed to offer only “sustainable” seafood in its stores by the end of 2012. To its credit, they already removed endangered Chilean Sea Bass from shelves in 2005, followed by Orange Roughy in 2009 and Red Snapper in 2010.

In the spirit of its recent pledge, however, Trader Joe’s is now working with third-party, science-based organizations to establish definitions and parameters for addressing customer concerns about overfishing, destructive catch or production methods, and the importance of marine reserves. Until 2013 at Trader Joe’s—and indefinitely at other stores that haven’t made specific commitments regarding the sustainability of their seafood—make sure to check that labels disclose the type of fish for sale and its source in regard to wild or farm-raised, and then check that info against the Seafood Watch list.

CONTACTS: Seafood Watch, www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx; Trader Joe’s “Note to Our Customers about Trader Joe's Seafood,” www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates.asp.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I heard that some reusable bags contain lead. Is this a major health concern? Can’t these bags be made to avoid such contamination? -- Donald Young, Cincinnati, OH

It’s true that some reusable shopping bags for sale in U.S. stores have been shown to contain lead, a neurotoxin linked to developmental, brain and kidney problems. The non-profit Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found that about 10 percent of the reusable bags it tested last year contained at least minute levels of lead, with Disney’s “Toy Story” and “Cars” plastic reusable shopping bags topping the charts with excessive levels to the tune of 15 times the federal limit for lead in children’s products.

Tests by other groups confirm CEH’s findings. A November 2010 report by the Tampa Tribune newspaper found elevated levels of lead in reusable bags purchased at Winn-Dixie, Publix, Walmart and Target stores—and prompted an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) into whether or not reusable shopping bags could be leaching lead into food items that people later eat. And earlier this year, the Center for Consumer Freedom, a trade group that opposes bans on plastic bags, reported that some 21 different polypropylene reusable bags sold at Safeway, Walgreen’s, Bloom and other stores had lead content above 100 parts per million—the highest level that many states allow in consumer packaging.

While the stores in question have pulled any such questionable bags from their shelves and in some cases stopped patronizing offending suppliers, consumers should take matters into their own hands with regard to selecting safer reusable shopping bags. While plastic reusable shopping bags are a step in the right direction compared to disposable plastic or paper bags, they are still derived from petroleum, even if partly recycled, and may contain other contaminants, especially if they feature ornate designs or patterns. The safest bet, according to CEH, would be cloth bags: Not only are they usually free of lead or any other potentially hazardous substances, but they also last for years and are easy to wash. One quality, reliable source for cloth bags is the Ossining, New York-based Eco Bags, from which you can order conveniently online and pay no shipping costs on any order of $100 or more.

Regarding washing to reduce or eliminate contaminants, public health experts worry that reusable shopping bags could become a breeding ground for impurities that lead to food poisoning, and recommend washing them every few uses at least to ward off contamination. A 2008 Environmental and Plastics Industry Council of Canada study found mold and bacterial levels in reusable bags 300 percent greater than Canadian health standards allow. And a 2010 joint University of Arizona and Limo Loma University study found that 97 percent of users did not wash their reusable shopping bags—which can harbor bacteria from repeated exposure to meats and vegetables. Half of the 84 bags studied contained coliform, a bacterium found in fecal matter, while 12 percent tested positive for E. coli.

The moral of the story is to make sure your reusable shopping bags can go through the clothes washer—and then wash them a few times a month. This way you will steer clear of contaminating the food you and your family eat with trace amounts of lead, and as such you will sleep easier each and every night.

CONTACTS: CEH, www.ceh.org; Arizona/Limo Loma Study, www.uanews.org/pdfs/GerbaWilliamsSinclair_BagContamination.pdf; Eco Bags, www.ecobags.com.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Coastal areas here in the U.S. have taken a real beating in recent years due to natural disasters that many would argue are due to changing climate. What’s being done to safeguard these communities for when, say, the next Katrina hits? -- Helen Kelman, Troy, NY

Coastal regions in the U.S. are more popular—and more heavily populated—than ever. But even before the effects of global warming started to kick in, reports the non-profit World Resources Institute, more than half of the coastal ecosystems of the world—including the vast majority of America’s coastlines—were reeling from threats including habitat destruction, sewage outflows, industrial pollution and the impacts of non-native species introductions.

Recently, though, a string of unprecedented natural disasters, including hurricanes like Katrina and tsunamis like that which devastated Japan, has made many people re-think the wisdom of moving to the coast. And the federal government has begun to advocate that coastal communities adopt tougher building codes and zoning ordinances, but there is little public officials can do to deter people from being drawn in by the lure of the coast—even as ice caps melt, sea levels rise and storms brew fiercer and fiercer.

Critics say the federal government should be doing more to protect coastal areas which, besides being attractive to home buyers, are among the richest storehouses of biodiversity we have. But traditionally, such responsibilities have fallen to local and regional officials. In the case of New Orleans following 2005’s disastrous hurricane season, the Louisiana state legislature formed the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) to protect, conserve, restore and enhance coastal wetlands, barrier shorelines and reefs so as to protect the city from the impacts of future hurricanes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now working with Louisiana authorities to implement CPRA’s master plan. Of course, restoring wetlands and other natural buffers that have been decimated by a half century of development and overpopulation is no small task. It’s unfortunate that such plans only come to pass after a disaster of huge magnitude takes place, instead of beforehand.

In response to such concerns, green groups, consumer advocates, taxpayer associations, insurance companies and other organizations have come together as Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy (also known as SmarterSafer.org). Coalition members, which include the Sierra Club, Liberty Mutual Group, Americans for Tax Reform, the United Services Automobile Association and others, have aligned behind shared goals of restoring coastal wetlands and increasing protection for barrier islands while influencing local officials to make smarter decisions about where to allow development in light of the expected effects of climate change and other problems.

The coalition applauds the vision and work of CPRA in Louisiana, and would like to see such planning take place in other U.S. coastal regions as well. Furthermore, it is critical of the federal government for pumping funds into the National Flood Insurance Program, which it says only spreads the costs of natural disasters around instead of taking measures that would prevent damage in the first place. Such approaches, the coalition argues, “provide a perverse incentive to encourage development in risky coastal areas” and “expose taxpayers, including those who do not live in at-risk coastal areas, to significant financial costs.”

CONTACTS: CPRA, www.lacpra.org; Smartersafer.org, www.smartersafer.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Radioactive rain recently fell in Massachusetts, likely due to Japan’s nuclear mess. Given the threats of radiation, wouldn’t it be madness now to continue with nuclear power? How can President Obama include nukes as part of a “clean energy” agenda?

-- Bill Mason, Hartford, CT

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, countries around the world that were growing more bullish on nuclear power are now reconsidering their future energy investments. Germany has shut down seven of its oldest nuclear reactors and is conducting safety studies on the remaining facilities; those that don’t make the grade could be closed permanently. Meanwhile, in earthquake-prone Chile some 2,000 demonstrators marched through the capital to protest their government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. And China, the world’s fastest growing nuclear energy developer, has suspended the approval process on 50 nuclear power plants already on the drawing board, and begun inspections on 13 existing plants.

But despite calls to shutter the U.S. nuclear program, President Obama remains committed to the industry despite his stated opposition to it pre-election. In December 2007, Obama told reporters at a campaign stop in Iowa: “Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe...I don’t think that’s the best option,” adding that he was much more keen on solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

According to investigative journalist Karl Grossman, Obama changed his tune on nuclear as soon as he took office, “talking about ‘safe, clean nuclear power’ and push[ing] for multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies for the construction of new nuclear plants.” Right away, Grossman says, Obama brought in nuclear advocate Steven Chu as energy secretary, and two White House aides that had been “deeply involved with…the utility operating more nuclear power plants than any other in the U.S., Exelon.”

Undeterred by the Japanese nuclear disaster, Obama pledged just two weeks following the initial explosions at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility that nuclear power should be revived in the U.S., as it provides “electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.” He added that he requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the safety of existing facilities. “We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of [nuclear] plants,” Obama added.

But just because nuclear energy isn’t a fossil fuel doesn’t make it green, given the ongoing risk of radioactivity. Also, reports the non-profit Beyond Nuclear, “Nuclear power is counterproductive to efforts to address climate change effectively and in time…funding diverted to new nuclear power plants deprives real climate change solutions, like solar, wind and geothermal energy, of essential resources.”

Indeed, if policymakers were able to divert the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the U.S. nuclear industry every year to solar, wind and geothermal developers, there is no telling how quickly we could innovate our way to sustainable non-polluting energy independence and put the specter of nuclear power that much further in our rearview mirror. But it looks like as long as Obama remains in office, nuclear will remain a big part of our near term energy future, damn the torpedoes.

CONTACTS: Karl Grossman, karlgrossman.blogspot.com; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Beyond Nuclear, www.beyondnuclear.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are the major issues with protecting migratory birds that groups like the Nature Conservancy are working on? -- Lorinda Bennet, Alnuquerque, NM

Migratory birds, like other animals, need suitable habitat and food sources to survive. But unlike other animals which stay primarily in one place, migratory birds depend on the availability of food and habitat all along their migration paths, which for some are thousands of miles long. Changing environmental conditions along routes can hinder birds’ ability to survive their often arduous long distance journeys.

Some 1,800 of the world’s 10,000 bird species migrate long distances every year. Typically birds fly to the far north in the summer to feed and return south for the winter to breed, but many variations and exceptions exist. The long-distance record holders are Sooty Shearwaters, which migrate 9,000 miles between nesting sites in the Falkland Islands and feeding sites in the North Atlantic Ocean off of Norway.

Chief among environmental threats to migratory birds is habitat destruction. Human development of wetlands areas leaves many birds without suitable habitat for stopovers and even wintering sites. Global warming only twists the knife by making usual stopover sites even less hospitable. Biologists see that widespread climate change is already starting to have a negative effect on the timing of migration cycles and breeding patterns, leading to population declines in species already considered threatened. Hunting is another threat to birds which pass over countries without the resources or will to enforce protections. Obstructions such as power lines, wind farms and offshore oil rigs also negatively affect migratory birds.

A large number of international treaties and domestic laws provide protection for migratory birds. For example, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 affirms the U.S. government’s commitment to international conventions protecting migratory birds (and their eggs and nests) passing through Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia at some point during their annual travels. Upwards of 1,000 different bird species, as listed on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Migratory Bird Program website, are protected under this Act. A similar treaty called the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement seeks to protect migratory birds along another of the world’s major migratory bird flyways.

While governments only do so much to protect migratory birds, private non-profits are working hard—and devoting millions of dollars—to try to take up the slack. One of the leaders in this battle is the Nature Conservancy, which employs hundreds of ornithologists and planners who identify networks of habitats needed by bird species throughout North America, Latin America and the Caribbean and then work to protect these crucial areas for current and future generations of migratory birds.

Conservancy projects focus on important ecosystems, from the grasslands of the Great Plains to the pine oak forests of Central America and points beyond, identifying and protecting a network of high-quality stopover habitats around the Gulf of Mexico as well as along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. and Canada—and studying how climate change and other environmental factors affect bird migration throughout the Western hemisphere.

CONTACTS: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Migratory Bird Program, www.fws.gov/migratorybirds; Nature Conservancy’s Migratory Birds Program, my.nature.org/birds.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Isn’t spray sunscreen a health and environmental nightmare when it seems that more of the sunscreen ends up going up my nose than on the kid at the beach next to me?

-- Lillian Robertson, Methuen, MA

Spray cans of sunscreen may no longer contain chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFCs, which were phased out in the 1990s for causing holes in the stratospheric ozone layer), but many contain other chemicals that are no good for our health or the environment. Researchers have found that the chemicals and/or minerals in the vast majority of commercially available sunscreens—even the rub-in creamy or oily varieties—can cause health problems just from ordinary use; inhaling them only magnifies the risks.

And just what are the risks? According to the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), there are two major types of sunscreens available in the U.S. “Chemical” sunscreens, the more common kind, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s endocrine system, as their active ingredients (e.g., octylmethylcinnamate, oxybenzone, avobenzone, benzophone, mexoryl, PABA or PARSOL 1789) mimic the body’s natural hormones and as such can essentially confuse the body’s systems. Quite a risk to take, considering that the chemical varieties don’t even work for very long once applied.

Meanwhile, “mineral” sunscreens are considered somewhat safer, as their active ingredients are natural elements such as zinc or titanium. But “micronized” or “nano-scale” particles of these minerals can get below the skin surface and cause allergic reactions and other problems for some people. EWG recommends sticking with “mineral” sunscreens whenever possible but, more important, taking other precautions to avoid prolonged sun exposure altogether. “At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing, and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream,” the group reports.

As for spray varieties, EWG recommends avoiding them entirely: “These ingredients are not meant to be inhaled into the lungs.” With so little known about the effects of sunscreen chemicals on the body when rubbed into the skin, we may never know how much worse the effects may be when they are inhaled. But suffice it to say: When your neighbor at the beach is spraying down Junior, it’s in your best interest to turn away and cover your nose and mouth.

The root of the problem, according to EWG, is failure on the part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), despite repeated requests from public health and consumer advocates, to implement sunscreen safety standards, some of which were proposed by government scientists more than three decades ago.

EWG only considers a small percentage of the sunscreens on the market—none of which come packaged in spray cans—safe for human use. Some of the top rated varieties come from manufacturers including All Terrain, Aubrey Organics, Badger, Blue Lizard, California Baby, La Roche-Posay, Purple Prairie Botanicals, thinksport, and UV Natural. None of the mainstream drug store variety brands appear on EWG’s recommended list. The full list is available on the sunscreens section of EWG’s Skin Deep website. With summer now upon us, stock up on good sunscreen before it’s too late.

CONTACT: Skin Deep, www.ewg.org/skindeep.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by E - The Environmental Magazine