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 Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: How can I have a greener, healthier laundry room? -- Billie Alexander, Topeka, KS

While there are many ways to green one’s laundry room, one place to start is with detergent. Luckily, in 2009 the federal government phased out phosphates, harsh chemicals that help break down minerals and loose food bits during the wash cycle, because their presence in waste water causes algae blooms in downstream waterways. But mainstream detergents still often contain the surfactant nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE), which researchers have identified as an endocrine-disrupting estrogen mimic, meaning exposure to it can cause reproductive and other human health problems. Bleach, a corrosive chemical known to burn skin and eyes on contact and damage lungs when inhaled—and which can react with ammonia to produce toxic gases—is also a common ingredient in detergents.

Sarah van Schagen tested and reviewed six leading eco-friendly detergents for Grist Magazine. To qualify for consideration, each needed to be “free and clear” of dyes and perfumes and also “concentrated” in order to save water, packaging and extra carbon emissions from transport. The contestants included detergents from Earth Friendly Products, Biokleen, Mountain Green, Planet, Seventh Generation, and All. Each did a respectable job getting clothes clean and smelling fresh, with most performing just as well as mainstream brands. Seventh Generation Free & Clear was the overall winner for its combination of eco-friendly ingredients, good stain fighting, pleasant but not “perfumey” scent and low price.

Another way to green the laundry room is to lose the fabric softener. Mainstream varieties, whether dryer sheets or liquid, contain harmful chemicals like benzyl acetate (linked to pancreatic cancer), benzyl alcohol (an upper respiratory tract irritant), ethanol (linked to central nervous system disorders), limonene (a known carcinogen) and chloroform (a neurotoxin and carcinogen). Many dryer sheets also contain tallow, a processed form of beef or mutton fat.

“You can avoid these health risks, the animal fat and the waste simply by using vinegar to soften your clothing,” reports Josh Peterson of The Discovery Network’s Planet Green. “Add 3/4 cups of vinegar to your final rinse cycle and your clothes will come out soft.” And since vinegar “is ludicrously inexpensive when compared to fabric softener,” consumers can save money and the planet at the same time.

Of course, swapping out that old water-hogging, energy-gulping washing machine for a new model that meets federal EnergySTAR standards will save lots of electricity and water. EnergySTAR certified washing machines use about 20 percent less energy and 35 percent less water than regular washers, and also have greater capacity so it takes fewer loads to clean the same amount of laundry. Their sophisticated wash systems flip or spin clothes through a stream of water and rinse them with repeated high pressure spraying instead of soaking them in a full tub of water. Likewise, replacing an older clothes dryer with a newer EnergySTAR model will help reduce your household’s electricity consumption. And if you live in a place with a mild and often sunny climate, ditch the dryer altogether and hang your clothes to dry outside.

CONTACTS: Biokleen, www.biokleenhome.com; Earth Friendly Products ECOS, www.ecos.com; Mountain Green, www.mountaingreen.biz; Planet Inc., www.planetinc.com; Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com; All Laundry, www.all-laundry.com; Grist Magazine, www.grist.org; Planet Green, planetgreen.discovery.com; EnergySTAR, www.energystar.gov.

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: Has recycling lived up to its promise to reduce waste and pollution, save energy and provide jobs in our ailing economy? -- Ian Atkinson, New York, NY

Americans still don’t recycle as much as they could. Nonetheless, the practice is already considered a huge success given that it keeps about a third of the solid waste we generate out of our quickly filling landfills and saves natural resources while generating much-needed revenue for struggling municipal governments. Recycling also helps us keep our carbon footprints down: According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recycling one ton of aluminum cans conserves more than 1,665 gallons of gasoline.

Of course that doesn’t mean the progression from virtually no recycling just 40 years ago to today’s U.S. average of 33.8 percent has always been smooth. Some types of materials, especially mixed plastics, have proven difficult and/or expensive to recycle, causing skeptics to question the overall value proposition. But well managed recycling systems that focus on profitable resources like glass, paper and metals have been a big success. And why wouldn’t they be, when recycling uses as little as five percent of the energy required for virgin production of materials such as aluminum?

Sara Brown of Presidio Graduate School reports that, while recycling has gained significant momentum during the last two decades, it has still not yet realized its potential. “Unfortunately, recycling pick-up services are not cheap and it is viewed as a redundant service; extra trucks mean extra cost. On top of that, single stream recycling requires investment in technology to sort the loads efficiently,” she says. “Trash, on the other hand, is far more indiscriminate because everything just goes to one place, the landfill.”

Brown says that the availability of curbside recycling programs varies throughout the country, as does their success. For example, New York City was a pioneer in recycling, but when the city became strapped for cash, recycling rates fell precipitously to just 15 percent and have not recovered. “New York City officials claim it is more expensive to recycle than to send trash to landfills and incinerators for disposal, and that they have to weigh those costs against environmental goals.”

On the other end of the spectrum is San Francisco, which has been steadily increasing its recycling and composting and is now up to over 77 percent. Even more incredibly, the city is aiming for zero waste by 2020. Brown lauds San Francisco for structuring its recycling program to promote the desired behavior. “Curbside fees are charged on a ‘pay as you throw’ basis for trash, while recycling and compost are free, creating a financial incentive for following the law and sorting your waste.” Brown adds that programs like San Francisco’s prove that recycling can be economically viable besides being good for the planet.

Brown acknowledges we’ve come a long way with recycling but that there is still great potential to do more. A November 2011 report entitled “More Jobs, Less Pollution” by a coalition of groups including the BlueGreen Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Recycling Works! advocates that the U.S. government mandate diverting 75 percent of our waste coast-to-coast by 2030. The result would be 1.5 million new jobs as well as significant pollution reduction and savings in water and other resources.

CONTACTS: More Jobs, Less Pollution Report, docs.nrdc.org/globalwarming/files/glo_11111401a.pdf; Presidio Graduate School, www.presidioedu.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is “perchlorate” in our drinking water supply and why is it controversial?

-- David Sparrow, Chico, CA

Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical used in the production of rocket fuel, missiles, fireworks, flares and explosives. It is also sometimes present in bleach and in some fertilizers. Its widespread release into the environment is primarily associated with defense contracting, military operations and aerospace programs.

Perchlorate can be widespread in ground water, soils and plants, and makes its way up the food chain accordingly—even into organically grown foods. To wit, A 2005 Journal of Environmental Science and Technology study using ion chromatography to find contaminants in agricultural products found quantifiable levels of perchlorate in 16 percent of conventionally produced lettuces and other leafy greens and in 32 percent of otherwise similar but organically produced samples. Today, traces of perchlorate are found in the bloodstreams of just about every human on the planet.

Perchlorate in the environment is a health concern because it can disrupt the thyroid’s ability to produce hormones needed for normal growth and development. Besides its potential to cause endocrine system and reproductive problems, perchlorate is considered a “likely human carcinogen” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some 11 million Americans live in areas where concentrations of perchlorate in public drinking water supplies are significantly higher than what is considered safe.

Per the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA is currently working on setting national standards for how much perchlorate can be allowed in drinking water without putting people at risk. As part of the process, the agency is studying the available science on the health effects of perchlorate exposure and evaluating laboratory methods for measuring, treating and removing perchlorate in drinking water. The EPA will publish a proposed rule on the matter for public review at some point in 2013.

“We are happy that the EPA is moving ahead with a drinking water standard...but we are concerned that it won’t be strict enough,” reports Renee Sharp of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). The group would like to see the U.S. adopt “a truly health-protective drinking water standard lower than 1 ppb [parts per billion]” for perchlorate. Insiders don’t believe federal policymakers will go that low, however, since the EPA says it cannot detect perchlorate below 2 ppb. But EWG point out that Massachusetts is already testing for it with a 1 ppb cut-off, per the mandate of its statewide standard set back in 2006.

The only other state to have a drinking water standard for perchlorate is California, which set 6 ppb or less as an allowable concentration back in 2004. But that state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently proposed lowering the standard to 1 ppb based on new data regarding environmental exposure, possible effects of perchlorate and consideration of infants as a susceptible population.

If the EPA develops a tough new standard, almost every state will need to readjust its water monitoring systems to take into account how much perchlorate is making its way to our taps and into the foods we eat—a no doubt costly process but one that will greatly benefit both current and future generations.

CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org; EPA Perchlorate Info, http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/unregulated/perchlorate.cfm.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I heard about a group called the Women’s Earth Alliance that works on environmental projects in many parts of the world. What kinds of projects? -- Judy Stack, Barre, VT

The Women’s Earth Alliance (WEA) supports community groups around the world that work at the intersection of women’s rights and the environment. A project of the Berkeley, California-based David Brower Center, WEA partners with local women-led community groups engaged in finding solutions to vexing environmental problems. WEA helps women secure their rights and safety and remove barriers to full participation in society by supporting them in addressing the environmental issues impacting their lives. By bringing women’s leadership to these critical environmental issues, WEA helps bring vital voices, perspectives and participation to addressing the greatest and most basic challenges of our time.

The idea for WEA emerged from a 2006 meeting in Mexico City where 30 women leaders from 26 countries gathered to address how women can do more to address today’s environmental challenges. WEA offers training and resources around issues of water, land, food and climate change, operating on the guiding principle that “when women thrive, communities, the environment and future generations thrive.”

Of utmost importance to WEA is securing women’s access to basic resources (food, land and water) so they can enjoy economic, social and political security. Since women in many societies are responsible for the management of food and water, the group reports, they can “experience both the unequal burden of work to secure and prepare the family’s food and water as well as the vulnerability which results from traditional gender roles at home and gender discrimination in society.” Women also tend to be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, says WEA: “Women in underserved communities find themselves on the front lines of climate impacts, often witnessing their water sources and traditional land bases shift or disappear because of a dangerous mix of changing temperatures and structural inequalities.”

Currently WEA focuses on three geographic areas: India, North America and Africa. Its India Program supports small and emerging women’s groups that are promoting food sovereignty, traditional knowledge and advocating for the rights of women farmers. The group’s trainings, advocacy and movement building have enabled thousands of poor Indian women to become environmental leaders in their communities.

In North America, WEA links pro bono legal, policy and business advocates across the continent with Indigenous women leading environmental campaigns. “Through rapid response advocacy, long-term policy working groups, trainings and delegations, WEA’s innovative advocacy partnerships protect sacred sites, promote energy justice, and ensure environmental health on Indigenous lands,” the group reports.

And in Africa, WEA partnered with Crabgrass, a California-based human rights group, to create the Global Women’s Water Initiative (GWWI) that provides training to help people implement water related strategies to improve their communities’ health, self reliance and resilience to climate change. With GWWI, WEA and Crabgrass are building a cadre of advanced female trainers skilled in applying holistic solutions with appropriate technology to environmental problems regarding water, sanitation and hygiene.

CONTACTS: WEA, www.womensearthalliance.org; Crabgrass, www.crabgrassusa.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are the “Growing Green Awards”? -- Allen Sherwood, Denver, CO

The Growing Green Awards is a program of the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that recognizes and gives exposure to individuals across the United States who have demonstrated original leadership in the field of sustainable food. Each year NRDC gives out the awards to those making extraordinary contributions advancing ecologically-integrated farming practices, climate stewardship, water stewardship, farmland preservation, and social responsibility “from farm to fork.”

NRDC gives out the awards in four categories: Business Leader, Food Producer, Food Justice Leader and Young Food Leader. The Food Producer award recipient wins $10,000, while the Food Justice Leader and Young Food Leader each get $2,500. (There is no cash prize for the Business Leader.) An independent panel of renowned sustainable food leaders chooses the winners. Judges for the 2013 awards include owner and chef Michael Anthony of New York City’s renowned Gramercy Tavern, Nell Newman of Newman’s Own Organics, nutritionist Marion Nestle and organic farmer and rancher Gabe Brown.

Before becoming a judge for the 2013 awards, Brown won the 2012 Food Producer award in recognition of his practices at his ranch in North Dakota, which integrates grass-fed cattle grazing with no-till cropping and is thus able to eschew synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides altogether. The 2012 Business Leader award went to Organic Valley CEO George Siemon for his efforts over the last 25 years securing fair pay for organic farmers, building market demand for organic foods and playing a critical role in developing national organic standards for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Organic certification.

Meanwhile, Lucas Benitez and Greg Asbed of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a human rights group focusing on improving conditions and pay for agricultural labor, took home the 2012 Food Justice Leaders award for their work organizing and supporting some 5,000 farm workers in Florida. And last but not least, Andrea Northup won the 2012 Young Food Leader award for her work with the DC Farm to School Network which links regional farmers with local schools in order to transform cafeteria lunch menus. And her work as the principal architect of the ‘farm-to-school’ provisions in the landmark “Healthy Schools Act” is having ripples effects across the country.

Although the deadline has passed for nominating candidates for 2013, nominees the judges will be evaluating will likely represent a variety of fields including food production, food service, retail or restaurants, academia, journalism, policy advocacy and government. As the award was created to bolster responsible and sustainable food production in the U.S., only nominees operating on American soil are considered. The criteria for picking the winners include: innovation in promoting ecologically-integrated food systems, including minimizing inputs of energy, water, antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals; reducing pollution and global warming gas emissions; use of on-farm polyculture; increasing natural resilience; and stewardship of biodiversity, pollinators, open space and land resources. Judges will also consider nominees’ potential to achieve wide scale adoption, implementation or behavioral change, and whether their work advances health, safety and economic viability for farmers, food system workers and communities. NRDC will unveil the new award winners at a Spring 2013 benefit event in San Francisco.

CONTACTS: Growing Green Awards, www.nrdc.org/health/growinggreen.asp.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Which are the greenest American cities, and why? -- D. Hansen, Wichita, KS

Which American city is the greenest depends on who you ask. Every year dozens of publications and websites release their own assessments of which cities have the most environmentally conscious citizenry, the highest percentage of recycling or the lowest carbon footprint per capita. Portland, Oregon, Seattle and San Francisco are often top contenders, but some of the other leading choices may be a surprise.

The Daily Beast based a recent round-up of greenest U.S. cities on data collected by market research firm Experian Simmons, which has been tracking the greening of the nation for half a century. Researchers polled thousands of Americans to find out what percentage in different geographic regions think and act in an eco-conscious way versus what percentage do not, as well as what percentage make a conscious effort to recycle. The company also tracked the number of public transit trips per capita and the percentage of households that use solar heating by region. Honolulu, most likely by virtue of the fact that one percent of homes there utilize solar power, came out on top. New York, with more than double the amount of public transit ridership per capita than any other U.S. city, is #2, followed by San Francisco, Seattle and Boston.

Meanwhile, the website Ecosalon looked at similar types of data and drew different conclusions, finding San Francisco to be the greenest. Ecosalon was especially impressed by San Franciscans routinely voting for aggressive green programs (like banning plastic grocery bags and financing renewable energy sources for public facilities) and by the fact that the city diverts 70 percent of its waste, thanks to mandatory recycling and composting. To top it off, nearly half of all San Franciscans bike, walk or take public transit every day—and the city is on track to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels this year. Ecosalon ranks Portland, Oregon second, followed by Seattle, Chicago and New York.

In another ranking, Canadian research company Corporate Knights granted Portland, San Francisco and Seattle a three-way tie for America’s greenest city. Denver ranked #4 while Albuquerque, Charlotte (NC) and Oakland tied at fifth. “Unlike other city-sustainability rankings, this ranking focuses on the effort cities are making rather than on their results, which could take years to achieve,” reported Kent Portney, a Tufts University researcher who participated in the project. “In other words, this ranking is aspirational in nature.” He says that each city was awarded a point for undertaking one of 38 programs or policies listed by Corporate Knights, in categories such as smart growth, land-use planning, pollution prevention, etc.

And in yet another recent round-up, Mother Nature Network (MNN) declared Portland, Oregon—where 200 miles of dedicated bike lanes and legions of supporters of local and sustainable food sources rule—the nation’s greenest city. San Francisco, Boston, Oakland and Eugene (OR) round out MNN’s top five.

Regardless of which city is “greenest,” all U.S. cities are greening up every day because planners now realize the economic advantages of using less energy, recycling more and keeping air and water clean. We can all help by supporting municipal energy savings, recycling and composting programs and community enhancement efforts. Who knows: If you keep it up, maybe your city will top one of next year’s lists.

CONTACTS: The Daily Beast, www.thedailybeast.com; Ecosalon, www.ecosalon.com; Corporate Knights, www.corporateknights.com; Mother Nature Network, www.mnn.com.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: It might seem obvious, but what would be the primary benefits of public transit as an alternative to the private automobile if our country were to make a major commitment to it?

-- James Millerton, Armstrong, PA

The benefits of making a major commitment to building up and efficiently managing a larger and more comprehensive public transit network are many.

According to the National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates (NAPTA), an organization that represents grassroots transit coalitions, organizations and advocates, expanded public transit, coordinated with greener development and other “operational efficiencies,” can reduce our carbon footprint by some 24 percent, which is significant given that carbon dioxide (CO2) output from the transportation sector as a whole account for 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. After all, buses and trains burn much less fuel per rider than a car with a single rider in it. Switching to public transit for a typical 20-mile round trip commute would decrease a commuter’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by some 4,800 pounds a year, which is equal to about a 10 percent reduction in a two-car household’s carbon footprint.

Another group, the American Public Transit Association (APTA), reports that current use of public transit in the U.S. already saves 37 million metric tons of CO2 annually, equivalent to the emissions resulting from electricity generation to power some five million typical American homes.

A massive shift to public transit would also be good for our pocketbooks. According to NAPTA, U.S. car owners can save as much as $112 billion a year in gasoline and other vehicle costs. “Public transportation offers an immediate alternative for individuals seeking to reduce their energy use and carbon footprints,” reports NAPTA. “Taking public transportation far exceeds the combined benefits of using energy-efficient light bulbs, adjusting thermostats, weatherizing one's home, and replacing a refrigerator.”

As to reducing oil use, NAPTA says public transit already saves Americans the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually, or some 900,000 automobile fill-ups every day. And the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) reports that individuals who live in areas served by public transportation save more than 300 million gallons of fuel a year. Meanwhile individuals can save upwards of $9,000 a year by taking public transportation instead of driving and by living with one less car.

An improved quality of life is yet another benefit of more public transit. In some ways public transit can be considered a life saver: It produces 95 percent less carbon monoxide and nearly 50 percent less nitrogen oxide—both key triggers for asthma and other respiratory and cardiovascular health problems—per passenger-mile than driving a private vehicle. Also, transit users tend to be healthier than car commuters because they walk more, which increases their fitness levels. Public transit use also means fewer cars on the road, thus reduced travel times—and less stress and road rage accordingly—for everyone. TTI reports that Americans living in areas served by public transportation save themselves almost 800 million hours in travel time every year.

CONTACTS: NAPTA, www.publictransportation.org; APTA, www.apta.com; TTI, tti.tamu.edu.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that children are sicker today than they were a generation ago and that pesticides have played a major role? -- Maria Jenkins, Clewiston, FL

It’s impossible to say with certainty that our modern reliance on pesticides is directly causing more of our children to get sick more often, but lots of new research points in that direction. An October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) entitled “A Generation in Jeopardy” examines dozens of recent studies and concludes that the influx of pesticides in our society is taking a heavy toll on our kids’ health and intelligence.

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago,” reports the group. “From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise.” PANNA’s assessment of the latest science “leaves little room for doubt: pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.”

Pesticides are all around us today. We are exposed to them via the foods we eat and the air we breathe. As a result, we all carry trace amounts of them in our bloodstreams. Children’s bodies, since they are still developing, are particularly susceptible to health problems from pesticide exposure. Kids routinely come in contact with pesticides inside their homes and schools and out in their backyards, schoolyards and parks. Even family pets, many of which wear pesticide-laden flea collars and powders, can be a source of pesticide exposure for children. According to PANNA, even extremely low levels of pesticide exposure can cause significant health problems, particularly during pregnancy and early childhood. New research links pesticide exposure to harm to the structure and functioning of the brain and nervous system.

“Pesticides may harm a developing child by blocking the absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth,” reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Another way pesticides may cause harm is if a child's excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully remove pesticides.” Exposure to pesticides during certain critical developmental periods can permanently alter a growing child’s biological systems. The result, warns PANNA, is an increase in birth defects and early puberty and noticeable increases in asthma, obesity, diabetes and some cancers.

What’s appalling is that we have known about these dangers for decades yet have done little about it. “Nearly 20 years ago, scientists at the National Research Council called for swift action to protect young and growing bodies from pesticides,” says PANNA. “Yet today, U.S. children continue to be exposed to pesticides that are known to be harmful in places they live, learn and play.” For its part, the EPA does evaluate children’s exposure to pesticide residues in common foods and evaluates new and existing pesticides to assess risks, creating guidelines and regulations accordingly. But many would like to see the EPA take a stronger stand against the widespread use of pesticides across the U.S.

There are several ways individuals can minimize pesticide exposures for themselves and their loved ones. Buy organic food whenever possible. Avoid chemical sprays and bug traps inside and out of the home. And steer clear of farms and other agricultural lands that regularly get sprayed with pesticides.

CONTACTS: PANNA, www.panna.org; EPA, www.epa.gov.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss