The environmental benefits of vegetarianism

By Gabe Bronk and Arthur Su/ Special To The Tab

 

 

Vegetarianism is not only a response to the inhumane practices of factory farms; it is also a way to conserve natural resources, improve the environment and benefit human health.

The meat industry is very wasteful of natural resources. An inherent problem with eating meat is that an animal must be fed roughly ten pounds of plants to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, much more food is consumed to support the animals than would be needed if more people were vegetarians. Seventy percent of the grain grown in the US is used to feed livestock. Because of the growth of so much animal feed, half the water consumed in the U.S. is used by the meat industry, and our groundwater is being withdrawn 25% faster than it is being replenished. In the High Plains states from South Dakota to New Mexico, it is projected that the aquifer will be depleted in 60 years. Erosion and nutrient depletion caused by animal feed production and overgrazing by livestock are destroying vast areas of arable land.

 

We are currently in an oil crisis, and the meat industry is exacerbating it. Eight times as much fossil fuel energy is used in the production of animal protein as is used in plant protein production due to the fuel required to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides for animal feed, to operate farming machinery, for transportation and for irrigation. Four hundred gallons of fossil fuels are used to produce food for the average meat-eating American each year.

A meat eater requires two to four times more farmland than a vegetarian. To make room for enough farmland, the meat industry constantly destroys vital ecosystems, thus taking away the habitats of myriad species and reducing biodiversity. The vast Amazon rainforest is rapidly being destroyed to make way for ranching and growing animal feed and will be gone by the end of this century if the current rate of destruction continues. Do you want to let this happen?

The damage to the environment does not stop at animal feed production. The plants are fed to the livestock, which, after digesting the food, produce 1.37 billion tons of manure in the U.S. annually. The manure often spills out of open-air storage pits and into waterways, accelerating the growth of algae. When the algae die, their decomposition depletes the water of oxygen. This causes the deaths of millions of fish. Manure also releases ammonia into the air, which can contaminate rain, killing forests. Fumes from factory farms cause people in the area to experience respiratory problems and other ailments. Nitrates leak from manure into community drinking water, causing serious human health problems.

The meat industry contributes significantly to global warming. Methane, a greenhouse gas, is released by bacteria in the rumens of cattle and in the manure of many farm animals. Furthermore, forests and grasslands that would absorb high amounts of carbon dioxide are cleared to make way for farmland. To make matters worse, the enormous fires used to burn down these forests release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The fishing industry also contributes to environmental degradation. Many species are being fished faster than they can reproduce. 15 of the 17 major ocean fisheries are exhausted or overexploited, so many marine food webs are depleted, and ocean ecosystems are seriously damaged. Myriads of other animals are accidentally caught and killed in the nets, such as nearly 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises killed each year. Pulling bottom trawls across the seafloor devastates habitats including coral reefs.

You can help save the environment and keep yourself healthy at the same time; according to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, vegan and vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life as long as the vegetarian gets all necessary nutrition, which is easy to do. Visit www.veganhealth.org for nutrition information.

A well-planned vegetarian or vegan diet offers many health benefits. Vegetarians have lower blood cholesterol levels, lower rates hypertension and lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease due to the lower levels of saturated fat found in animal products and the higher levels of antioxidants found in fruits and vegetables. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains, all staples of a vegetarian diet, provide better nutrition and help prevent many diseases.

Spurred by this knowledge as well as by the meat industry's brutality towards animals, we became vegetarian/vegan and have examined and promoted vegetarianism as a project for our biology class at Newton North High School.

Consider the possibilities. There are many delicious and varied foods that do not contain animal products. We're not just talking lettuce and bananas; think grilled veggie burger or bean burrito. If becoming vegetarian seems like a difficult task, try reducing your consumption of meat gradually; cut out meat one day a week at first. Soon you will have a healthier diet and be saving natural resources and the environment. If you do become vegetarian, email us at vegetarianism@comcast.net to let us know that this article had the desired effect.

More information at http://www.sierraclub.com/factoryfarms www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan and Pamela Rice, 101 Reasons Why I'm a Vegetarian. Lantern Books, 2005.

Gabe Bronk and Arthur Su will be seniors at Newton North High School this fall. Members of the award-winning school science team, they are passionate about environmental protection.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force Working for Health and Safety

by John Bliss, Chair of BPTF

 

Most of us are becoming more aware of the threat from global warming and how much our reliance on the automobile contributes to it.  At the same time, we have been learning that obesity is on the rise, in part because children and adults are walking less and driving more. Newton has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force (BPTF) working to address these problems, by making walking and bicycling safer and more convenient for everyone in the city.

Recently, a national bicycling magazine gave Boston a low grade for bicycle accommodations, while commending Cambridge for its leadership in this area.  Although Newton is not known as being particularly bicycle-friendly, the city has been addressing pedestrian concerns, by publicizing the right of way of pedestrians in unprotected crosswalks and installing “count-down” pedestrian signal lights.

Newton’s population of 80,000 clusters around 13 distinctive village centers, each having a range of stores and services.  Improved conditions for bicycling and walking could enable many more residents to satisfy their shopping, commuting and recreational needs without having to use their cars.  Trips to school on foot or by bicycle would be more enjoyable and healthier for children and reduce the congestion and safety hazards now associated with the common practice of being driven to school.

BPTF has been cooperating with other Boston-area organizations to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the entire metropolitan region, while working with our own city officials to mark heavily-traveled roadways with striped shoulders for cyclists, and encouraging private companies to make it easier for customers and staff to access their locations by bicycle and on foot. 

The Task Force has updated the city’s Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Bicycle Accommodations Report (2000) and has submitted it to the Department of Public Works to help guide future road projects.  This plan helps the City set priorities for bicycle accommodations required by state law for any road project paid for by state and federal funds.  The accommodations include the four-foot wide striped shoulders on Centre Street between Mill Street and Newton Corner as well as “Share the Road” signs and painted “hybrid lane” symbols designed for congested areas that have been proposed for Walnut Street near the Newton Highlands village center. 

BPTF has worked with Boston College and Newton-Wellesley Hospital to improve bicycle and pedestrian access for students and employees, and has helped the city’s Planning Department set priorities for locating new bicycle racks (to be provided at no cost by the state) in conjunction with road projects.

Newton is one of many communities in the “inner core” area of the Boston region, and BPTF works with the MassBike Metro Boston chapter on issues of common interest.  Most recently, this group helped to prepare a report to the state Dept. of Conservation and Recreation on the deteriorated conditions of the Charles River paths that are used by hundreds of people every day.

In the coming year, BPTF will continue to monitor active road project planning, work with City officials on providing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations to the new Newton North High School, promote the adoption of safe routes to school programs, and work with city officials to improve pedestrian facilities in under-served areas and improve access to all sidewalks in the winter.

The Task Force has public meetings at 7:30 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month in the cafeteria of Newton City Hall. The October meeting is on the 24th. Come and share your concerns and ideas about bicycling and walking in Newton or contact me to be added to the email list.  More information: johnsbliss@verizon.net or (617) 244-6495.

Read More...

Summary only...

It’s Wednesday, do you know where your vegetables are?

By Lois Levin

 

Each year 76,000,000 Americans suffer food poisoning; 300,000 require hospitalization and 5,000 people die. These numbers imply much human suffering. The US food supply is highly vulnerable to contamination, even here in Metropolitan Boston.Michael Pollen, in a recent op-ed piece in the NY Times, cuts to the quick: “Today 80 percent of America’s beef is slaughtered by four companies, 75 percent of the precut salads are processed by two and 30 percent of the milk by just one company.” He adds: “Keeping local food economies healthy — and at the moment they are thriving — is a matter not of sentiment but of critical importance to the national security and the public health, as well as to reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy.”

Consider public health. Most of us felt a twinge of fear when we learned about the recent contamination of packaged spinach, and rightly so. Although we may never know the exact source of that deadly outbreak, the underlying problem is no mystery. E coli bacteria thrive in the guts and manure of feedlot cattle. Manure often finds its way onto agricultural fields and agricultural workers’ hands. This problem has escalated because of the increasing centralization and scale of US agriculture. Because the growing, packaging and distribution of agricultural produce has become highly centralized and mechanized over the years, what used to be a local problem of food-borne illness that could be contained and traced is now poised- at any moment- to generate a national disaster.

There are technological fixes for this, such as increasing radiation treatment of our food supply to eliminate bacterial agents.  There are also political fixes, such as government enforcement of strict separation of animal feedlots and produce fields. These solutions, however, exact a big price. Not so much in dollars; the large corporations involved in agribusiness are marvels of efficiency and can absorb the financial cost. The greatest price is borne by the public, because enacting these measures reinforcesthe trend of limiting consumer access to fresh, ripe and varied produce.Consider national security. In 2004 The US Health and Human Services chief, Tommy Thompson, publicly expressed amazement that “terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.”Consider energy and pollution. In Massachusetts, most of the domestic produce we eat travels on average 1500 miles (and often 3000 miles) from field to market. It is transported by vehicles that run on fossil fuels.  Consider biodiversity. Look at all those uniform bags and bunches of produce in the supermarkets. We have already lost so much of the variety that promotes disease resistance. Monocultures are not natural ecosystems; they require lots of pesticides and fertilizers.Consider local farmers.  Not only does the large-scale, highly centralized production of our food supply seriously compromise human health and biodiversity, while increasing our vulnerability to terrorism, it is also putting more and more small farmers out of business. They cannot afford- and they do not need- the costly equipment and procedures mandated by governments to ensure the safety of food grown by large, centralized producers.We consumers right here in Metropolitan Boston have choices about what we eat. Exercising those choices thoughtfully takes time and care. We can make the effort to support local farmers, to learn how and where our food is grown and about the benefits of organic food (www.nofa.org). If we don’t do this, and wejust “keep on truckin'", we'll be playing Russian roulette ‘til the cows come in.

Read More...

Summary only...

When the robin stops bobbin' along

By Lois A Levin/ Special To The Tab

 

Many of the diseases that threaten human populations today originated in wildlife, and each disease has a unique transmission pathway. The diseases include HIV/AIDS, avian influenza (including the strain currently threatening to cause a human pandemic), SARS, Nipah virus, Lyme Disease and West Nile virus.

According to biologist Peter Daszak, director of the Consortium for Conservation Medicine in NY, West Nile virus is the major vector borne disease in the US. Since arriving here in 1999, most likely on an airplane, it has infected about a million people, caused 22,000 people to fall ill and resulted in at least 826 deaths. In 2006, between 2,000 and 10,000 new cases are expected in the US.

The greatest concentration of cases has been in the East, but the disease has also shown up in Colorado and California. Our area is at risk of West Nile virus again this summer. Computer models developed to predict the risks of human infection indicate that cases of West Nile will peak from late July to mid-August, and then decline toward the end of August.

When the virus first arrived in North America in 1999, thousands of crows contracted it. Recently, it has been discovered that large numbers of robins are now dying of this disease.

This is no reason to be afraid of robins. Humans cannot contract the disease from birds, only from being bitten by a Culex pipiens mosquito. Not only are robins far more appealing to these mosquitoes than humans, it turns out that mosquitoes prefer robins to all other birds, including crows and house sparrows. The robins hopping around on our lawns are members of the "host" species, and they are protecting us from the virus, temporarily. However, when the robins start to migrate south later in the summer, the mosquitoes will continue to look for blood meals, and the risk to humans will increase significantly - seven-fold.

This is just one reason why biodiversity, which is reduced whenever wildlife habitat is lost or fragmented, is so fundamental to the maintenance of human health, and why we need to limit human encroachment on wildlife habitats. Wildlife serves as a "reservoir" for many pathogens against which humans have little or no immunity. Of course, a pathogen such as West Nile virus is a threat to wildlife, too, and entire ecosystems are affected by a die-off of significant numbers of animals. When host species become threatened or extinct or the number of potential host species is reduced, humans are deprived of the buffers against many viruses borne by vectors such as mosquitoes.

As researchers learn more about the reasons that West Nile virus is partial to robins, they will be better able to predict outbreaks and make recommendations to prevent the disease from spreading to other regions. The public needs to support this research. Understanding the links between environmental factors and human health has never been more important than it is today.

Lois A Levin, PhD is the Environment Page Editor for the Newton TAB..

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The step beyond recycling

By Eleanor Saunders//Special To The Tab

 

Three things are true about garbage today. First, the amount our cities and towns handle has more than tripled over the last fifty years, as product wastes increase dramatically and recycling recaptures only about 30 percent of what we throw away. Second, the manufacturers who feed this waste stream - packaging companies, the electronics and computer industry, textile and carpet producers to name a few - benefit from passing the financial responsibility for their discarded products onto our municipalities. Third, garbage collection and even recycling have become big business, dominated by national and multinational corporations that operate in the global marketplace and thrive on this very waste stream. Thus, rapidly increasing bills for garbage burden taxpayers, while manufacturers and waste management companies profit from the current way of doing business.

In addition, we are running out of sites for landfills. Few communities want to contend with landfill nuisance factors - odor, pests, and commercial traffic from dump trucks. Even fewer want to accept the risks associated with the hazardous leachates created when buried garbage breaks down. Despite new technologies and precautions, landfill leakages frequently occur, and the toxic metals, carcinogens, and endocrine disrupters in decomposing waste escape their safety nets. Incinerating garbage brings with it similar problems - heavy truck traffic to incinerator sites plus toxic residues concentrated in the ashy remains. And both these methods of disposal contribute to climate change by producing significant amounts of greenhouse gas, including one third of our methane emissions, a gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Daunting as all of this sounds, you may be surprised to hear that there already is a tested approach which can significantly reduce these problems. However, it is an approach that requires us, the taxpayers, to exert a substantial amount of political will against the industries that profit from and lobby for the status quo. The approach is called Extended Producer Responsibility. It recognizes that we who are downstream of production cannot do much but try to cope with the amount and types of product waste that come our way. However, upstream, at factories, a great deal can be done through innovations in product design and manufacturing. EPR and its close policy relative Product Stewardship shift at least some responsibility for waste from municipalities to manufacturers and thereby promote a reduction of environmental impacts at all stages of a product's life-cycle.

Producers are free to design their own product take-back schemes and to select whatever means of recycling and reducing hazardous materials make most financial sense to them - so long as they meet agreed upon performance standards and timetables. The experience of European Union countries, Canada, and Australia since the1990s demonstrates how effective attacking waste problems from this end can be. And a whole array of solutions ranging from strict government regulations to voluntary agreements are there to be assessed for effectiveness and implementation in the U.S.

Here is one small example of what could happen if EPR policies were in place. Nationally, about 3 - 4 billion pounds of nylon carpeting are discarded each year, costing around $100 million dollars in hauling and disposal fees. As currently manufactured, much of this carpeting cannot be recycled and also contains hazardous dyes and materials. However, a commercially viable, environmentally sound carpet material already exists. Called nylon 6, it can be manufactured in eco-efficient ways, such that at the end of its useful life, old carpeting can be broken down and re-manufactured into high quality nylon 6 material, over and over again. Waste is effectively eliminated. Today, a few U.S. and Canadian companies produce nylon 6 carpeting made without hazardous chemical dyes and with special backing and adhesives, designed to facilitate the re-manufacturing process. Nylon 6 even has the potential for applications beyond carpeting. Its properties would allow it to be used in the automobile industry and in the manufacturing of plastic housings for electronic equipment, two more product categories which severely burden our municipal waste streams. The nylon 6 story is a perfect illustration of what ecologically sound redesign can produce, if there were enough carrots and sticks to motivate more corporations to invest in it.

When EPR initiatives were initially explored here in the 1990s, industry effectively blocked their passage. Yet, ironically, many of corporations opposing EPR in the U.S. have managed to comply with these regulations in Europe, Australia, and Canada. Even European governments with conservative political agendas have embraced EPR, because it reduces taxes by lowering waste disposal costs, while adhering to the principles of the marketplace as the source of solutions for society's problems. Government may set standards and timetables, but private industry is free to determine the most cost effective ways to meet them. Furthermore, there's no reason that U.S. government couldn't subsidize efforts toward environmentally sound redesign, just as it traditionally has subsidized companies for the environmentally damaging exploitation of virgin resources like oil, gas and timber.

But what about the impact on consumer prices of redesigning and retooling to meet EPR regulations? Won't buyers end up paying? It's true that individual items may cost a little more as a result. But now we all end up paying, whether we buy a product or not, because of the escalating cost of municipal waste disposal. An EPR legislative initiative for electronic waste is currently under development in New York City, and one has been passed in Maine. If EPR makes sense to you, perhaps it's time to let government officials know that you want Massachusetts to be another state in the forefront of EPR legislation.

Eleanor Saunders, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, who practiced in Newton for many years. She now lives in The Berkshires and is a student at the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Inevitable Avian Flu

By Alissa Becker//Special To The Tab

 

When meteorologists broadcast that a noreaster is tearing towards New England, Star Markets become clogged with frenzied shoppers stocking up on peanut butter and Duct Tape. But when scientists warn that the waves of a bird flu epidemic are expected to crash on the shores of California this summer, the forecast is met with disbelief and apathy. This lack of fear is understandable. Often we spend years awaiting catastrophic events that never come to pass; Y2K, for example. However, bird flu is no empty threat.

There are many environmental factors increasing the likelihood that the avian influenza virus will spread to humans. Deforestation shrinks habitat for the animals which are the "reservoirs" for these viruses and increases opportunities for those animals to come into contact with human communities. As the numbers of domestically farmed birds increases, avian viruses that have infected farmed birds have significantly more opportunities to infect humans. The likelihood of a virus crossing over to humans is also increased by the very crowded conditions in which people and domestic fowl are found in developing countries, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and China. Some local customs, such as consuming the blood of domesticated birds, cockfighting, and the widespread sale of pet birds, further increase the potential for the virus to move into the human population. The uncontrollable migration of wild birds from areas affected by the virus provides yet another avenue for the virus to spread around the world. Taken alone, none of these factors are cause for alarm, but together they bring us closer to a pandemic.

When a bird flu pandemic develops, within a year a third of the world's population would contract the virus. Up to 90 million Americans would fall ill, with nine million Americans requiring hospitalization in critical care units for respiratory distress. Between 200,000 and two million Americans would be expected to die. Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations has stated that the only thing that could exact "a larger human death toll would be a thermonuclear war."

In some respects, the avian influenza virus and the HIV virus that causes AIDS are similar; both originated in non-human hosts. HIV began as a virus affecting species of monkeys before it mutated and became capable of infecting humans. Similarly, the avian influenza virus is normally limited to infecting birds, but on rare occasions it changes slightly so that it is able to infect humans. As both these viruses originated in animals, the human immune system lacks any exposure- and thus immunity- to them, so they can lead to human epidemics, with high mortality rates. (Other familiar, deadly diseases that originated in animals include Lyme disease, West Nile, dengue, and ebola.)

The avian influenza virus and the HIV virus are not alike in all respects. The most important distinction is that, while AIDS is an epidemic that will likely continue indefinitely, the avian flu is a pandemic that is expected to last only eighteen months. In this short period of time, however, avian flu will kill more people in its first twenty-five weeks than AIDS has killed in its first 25 years.

Most scientists agree that a pandemic is inevitable. The only thing that has kept the bird flu from spreading human-to-human is a protein on the virus' surface, which acts much like a key to open up cells for invasion. Currently the virus has a "protein key" which only unlocks birds' cells and a handful of unlucky humans' cells. To infect millions of humans and cause an epidemic, the virus needs only to change this one protein so that it fits into the "locks" of human cells. The virus could randomly mutate until it happens upon the right key, or it could acquire a protein key from the influenza virus that is already adapted to humans. With the high frequency of human-domestic fowl contact in Southeast Asia, the avian influenza virus is provided with many gene-altering encounters with the human influenza viruses.

Although the bird flu virus is currently rarely transmissible from birds to humans, once in possession of the proper protein, it will easily spread from human to human. Unlike HIV, which can only be spread through exchange of certain bodily fluids, the bird flu virus can be spread with a mere sneeze, cough, or handshake. Because symptoms take several days to develop, it is impossible for airports to screen for bird flu. People who don't know they are infected could board airplanes and spread the virus around the world in mere hours. When the virus becomes transmissible from human to human, there will be little to impede its spread.

A bird flu pandemic is inevitable, too, because avian influenza pandemics have occurred many times. In the past three hundred years, there have been ten reported avian influenza pandemics, about one every thirty years. The most lethal one occurred less than hundred years ago, in 1918. Although often overshadowed by World War I, this pandemic killed half a million Americans, more than the number of American fatalities in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined. The last bird flu pandemic occurred under 40 years ago in 1968, so the next one is slightly overdue.

The human population will always be plagued by diseases and pandemics will continue to kill millions. The seeds have been sown for another deadly avian influenza pandemic; right now, millions of avian influenza viruses are feverishly mutating and re-sequencing their genes in search of the perfect protein and waiting for this virus are myriads of unchecked entrances into the human population. We do not know exactly when this deadly virus will emerge, but we must prepare for its inevitable arrival.

For more information on avian flu visit www.fluwikie.com or read The Great Influenza by John M. Barry.

Alissa Becker is an AP Biology student in her third year at NNHS.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Read More...

Summary only...

Dogwood anthracnose: deadly disease

By Bruce Wenning/Special To The Tab

 

Flowering dogwood, Cornus florida, is a native understory tree in the eastern United States. This tree has been popular for use in home landscapes for over fifty years. Part of its popularity is that it is a slow to moderate grower and can reach a height of thirty feet and a crown width of about twenty five feet at maturity.

Flowering dogwoods are highly prized for their white or pink leaf- like bracts, which are often mistaken for the actual flowers. The flowers are much smaller and less showy than the surrounding four bracts. The bracts and flowers are emerging just about now in the landscape. At the Mass Audubon sanctuary where I work there are close to fifty scattered through out the property, and you certainly get a sense that spring is here to stay when you see these trees in bloom.

The 50 that I see every day were once part of a population of 250 that ranged in age from thirty to seventy years old. Unfortunately, by the late 1980's the majority of this larger population had died or was weakened so severely by this new fungal pathogen that they were cut down, forever changing the landscape. The pathogen is dogwood anthracnose, Discula destructiva,. It was first discovered in the New York City area in 1979. By the late 1980's it had spread to Massachusetts and to other east coast states south of New York City. Dogwood anthracnose continues to spread throughout the natural range of this native tree.

According to U Mass plant pathologist Dan Gillman, there is controversy about the origin of this disease. Some researchers think it is an invasive, exotic pathogen introduced on nursery stock, perhaps from Asia. Others think it could be a weak pathogen that mutated and became more virulent as environmental conditions favored and enhanced it. In either case, it is a disease to be reckoned with. It will continue to spread in our woodlands and forests and threaten the existence of this prized native tree.

Most anthracnose fungi attack only leaves and rarely kill their hosts. However dogwood anthracnose attacks both leaf and woody tissue. It is more destructive than the anthracnose diseases of maple, oak, sycamore, and birches, to name a few. Most of the time dogwood anthracnose kills the host slowly. It causes leaf spots, leaf and shoot blight (wilting) and twig, stem, and trunk cankers. Cankers give older trees a bumpy and contorted look, and they will eventually kill the tree. When infected flowering dogwood is subjected to environmental stresses and drought, tree death occurs even faster. Trees that have lost several branches or are in a weakened condition try to fight off the disease by developing prolific sprouting of small, clustered branches called water sprouts, which are highly susceptible to infection, which produces the cankers.

Fungal spore development causing this disease is favored by cloudy, cool, humid, and wet weather that occurs mostly in spring and early summer. Leaf spotting, and twig and stem infection usually start in the shady lower branches where the microclimate is cooler and more humid, which is beneficial for spore development. Sun and wind cause leaves and stems to dry out faster in the upper portions of the tree, thereby disabling the fungus and minimizing infection.

The disease can be managed by following these suggestions.

·      Get a soil test to determine the proper amount of organic tree fertilizer needed to maintain tree health.

·      Mulch the root zone with two to three inches of bark mulch to keep roots cool and to conserve moisture to drought, especially young trees, which are most susceptible to drought.

·      Provide at least one inch of water once a week during dry spells or drought.

·      Water only the root zone, not the leaves; excess moisture can spread the fungus.

·      The best times to prune dogwood to minimize disease infection and spread is during dry weather. Timing is key; a dry spell of 48 hours-one week is best. The tree will be able to seal off the wound within 24 hours. The other time is in late winter, because when temperatures are below forty degrees (F) the fungus advances more slowly.

·      Consult a Massachusetts Certified Arborist to confirm if you need fungicidal sprays. Fungicides will not cure dogwood, only protect it until the fungus mutates to a more virulent form. If you use fungicides, skip applications during dry weather when anthracnose spores are less infective.

For more information about dogwood anthracnose and soil testing see: www.UMassGreenInfo.org.

Bruce Wenning is the grounds manager for the Mass Audubon Society Habitat sanctuary in Belmont and serves on the Board of the Ecological Landscaping Association. www.ecolandscaping.org.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Dilution Effect

By Jill Hahn / Special To The Tab

 

Here’s a story about a blacklegged tick, a white-footed mouse, an unpleasant

bacterium, and how reducing biodiversity in our own backyards can literally make us

sick.

Lyme disease, which now accounts for about 90

percent of the vector-borne disease (spread by an

animal carrier) in the U.S., is caused by the

bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, transmitted by the

bite of an infected blacklegged tick, Ixodes

scapularis. A new-born tick does not carry the

bacterium. In order to acquire the bacterium, the

larval tick must take its blood meal from an infected

animal. And here’s where the I. scapularislarvae are

the kind of eaters you wish your children were: they

are not picky. They will feed on a wide variety of

mammalian, bird, or even reptile hosts. The larva

takes one blood meal from the host it happens to

encounter, and then molts into its next stage, called

a nymph.

Most people contract Lyme disease from the nymphal stage of the blacklegged tick,

partly because the nymph is small and hard to spot, partly because it is active in June

and July, when we’re likely to be out enjoying the woods.

What determines whether the nymphal tick that just bit you is likely to give you Lyme

disease? Dr. Richard Ostfeld, senior scientist at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies

(Millbrook, NY), conducted a series of elegant, if messy, experiments to find out. Since

a nymph can only acquire B. burgdorferi during its larval meal, Dr. Ostfeld’s first task

was to determine whether feeding on different animals resulted in differing proportions

of infected nymphs. To do this, he and his colleagues trapped individuals from every

potentially important bird and mammal species in his study site in Duchess County,

NY. This list included deer, robins and other songbirds, white-footed mice, chipmunks,

raccoons, possums, skunks, shrews, and squirrels. The animals (deer excepted) were

caged for 72 hours. Any tick larvae attached to them fell off into pans of water under

the cages. They were collected (a dirty job, because more than just ticks dropped into

those pans during the 72 hours) and tested for the presence of the Lyme disease

bacteria.

Dr. Ostfeld discovered that over 90 percent of the ticks that fed on white-footed mice

tested positive for B. burgdorferi. 40-55 percent of the ticks from shrews or chipmunks

tested positive, and the proportion of positive ticks collected from the other species

ranged from around 15 percent to less than 2 percent. So the host species a larval tick

2

Photo courtesy of Frontiers in Ecology

and the Enivronment

White-footed mouse female

and pups

fed on dramatically affected whether the resulting nymph would be able to transmit

Lyme disease.

Since different species of animal have differing abilities to pass the Lyme disease

bacterium to the tick, this suggests that increased host biodiversity might lower the

prevalence of infected ticks. Dr. Ostfeld dubbed this hypothesis the Dilution Effect.

Ecologists know that, as you fragment forest into smaller and smaller pieces, the

number of animal species found in those forested "islands" declines. If the Dilution

Effect holds true, then the proportion of infected nymphal ticks should increase as

forest area goes down and biodiversity decreases. Dr. Ostfeld and his colleagues set

out to test that prediction.

They measured the density of nymphal ticks in forest fragments of different sizes

(ranging from less than two acres to almost 19 acres) by dragging drop cloths through

the forest and counting the number of nymphs collected. When Dr. Ostfeld tested the

ticks, he discovered that, as the Dilution Effect predicted, the proportion of ticks

infected with B. bergdorferi increased as the forested area decreased.

Why would this be? In the smaller forest fragments,

many potential host species disappeared. One

species, however, whose numbers conspicuously

explode as forest area decreases is the white-footed

mouse. White-footed mice, as Dr. Ostfeld had

already shown, are incredibly efficient at infecting

ticks with Lyme disease.

What does this mean for human health? Simply put,

biodiversity protects us from Lyme disease. If you go

hiking, say, in the White Mountains of New

Hampshire, and you get bitten by a blacklegged tick

nymph, you know that tick had a wide variety of

species from which it could have taken its larval

meal, and most of those wouldn’t be likely to infect it

with the Lyme disease bacterium. On the other

hand, if you’re out on a small plot of forested land in

your suburban hometown - especially if it’s smaller than about five acres - that nymph

that bit you most likely got its last meal from a white-footed mouse, and most likely did

contract the bacterium during that meal. So your chances of contracting Lyme disease

from a tick bite are much higher in the forest fragment near your house than in the

National Forest.

If those cute little white-footed mice are the problem, why not simply get rid of them?

Attempts to eradicate rodents to a level at which they can no longer transmit disease

are notoriously unsuccessful. Attempting to rid the woods of ticks is a similarly

Sisyphean task. There is another solution: let the Dilution Effect work for us by

changing the way we manage our landscape.

Dr. Ostfeld’s work has shown that the loss of biodiversity through the fragmentation of

our native forests has real health consequences. The Dilution Effect holds true for

Lyme disease and may play a role in other vector-borne diseases as well. It’s time to

3

stop thinking of biodiversity as something that would be nice to preserve, but of no

practical value. The next time a local interest in your community wants to break up an

existing parcel of forest into smaller pieces for the sake of development, think about

the health consequences, and think twice.

Jill Hahn, a Newton Highlands resident, is a biologist, a writer, and a mom. All three

roles contribute to her passion about environmental issues. She can be reached at

jkkhahn@comcast.net.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

An IPM Primer

By Ed Cunningham/ Special To The Tab

 

March, by mayoral proclamation, is Alternatives to Pesticides Month in Newton. It’s an opportunity for us to think about the consequences of our habit of adding unnecessary toxins to our city environment, to learn about alternatives, and to do something to reduce our use of toxins in our homes, our yards, our places of worship, and our places of business. The city has been trying to do its part. Ten years ago it became the first municipality in the state to adopt an Integrated Pest Management Policy to be followed in the maintenance of city buildings, parks, and grounds.

The term Integrated Pest Management sounds abstract and technical, and, in a sense, it is. The science of IPM is sophisticated, utilizing advances in computing, operations research, systems analysis, and modeling. But in the end it is common sense: it is safer, more effective, and more economical to “outsmart” pests with non-toxic methods than it is to apply pesticides and herbicides reflexively. 

IPM is a set of practices and strategies that evolved from extensive agricultural research initiated in the early 1950s in response to pesticide misuse problems, reduced effectiveness of pesticide and herbicide treatments, and unintended consequences. Poisoning pests is not only a dangerous approach with unintended adverse affects, but long term it is less effective than IPM strategies.

The genesis of IPM is long and interesting. For at least 5000 years, a mixture of cultural, biological, and chemical methods have been used in agriculture to control crop-destroying pests. Cultural methods include the rotation of crops and manipulation of the dates when planting is done. Biological methods include using predatory ants to control caterpillars and beetles, as the Chinese did as early as 300 AD. Chemical intervention can be traced back to 2500 BC, when the Sumerians used sulphur compounds to control insects and mites. Late in the nineteenth century the use of inorganic chemicals emerged as the most popular means of pest control. By the 1890s it was found that lead arsenate provided very effective insect control, by 1930 synthetic organic compounds began being used for plant pathogen control, and in 1939 the pesticide properties of DDT were recognized. Based on the insecticidal properties of DDT and benezene hexachloride, the early 1940s were seen as the dawn of a new era of blissful insect control in agriculture, horticulture, and public health.

The first report of resistance to DDT was published in 1946, followed in the 50s and 60s by evidence of widespread pest resistance to DDT and other pesticides. Against this backdrop that systems analysis was first applied to efforts to control crop pests. Economic entomologists and agricultural economists weighed the cost of chemical treatment against the cost of crop loss. Chemicals were increasingly perceived as being expensive and ineffective, and alternative methods of control began to emerge under the moniker “integrated control.” In 1959 a group of entomologists from UC Berkley and UC Riverside published a landmark paper which documented pest resistance to pesticides, the destruction of natural enemies, the resurgence of treated species, the appearance of new pests, as well as health hazards resulting from toxic residues and the misuse of chemicals. By 1967 “integrated control” had broadened to encompass not only biological and chemical control, but also climatic factors, cultural control, plant growth analysis, and modeling. UC Berkley entomologists RF Smith and R van der Bosch introduced the term “Integrated Pest Management” to reflect the broadened scope of the science. Two years later the US National Academy of Sciences formalized the term, and within a few more years BS, MS, and PhD degrees were offered in the subject.

In the 1980s the principles and practices which had been developed for agricultural and forestry applications began to be used in urban sites such as schools, parks, hospitals, and nursing homes. The list of what was categorized as pests had grown to include rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, cockroaches, wasps, yellow jackets, mosquitoes, lice, bed bugs, bats, moths, fleas, flies, birds, ants, termites, grubs, crabgrass, poison ivy--any living thing which causes a problem when it shows up where we don’t want it to be.

IPM deals with pests by identifying the problem pest and then formulating the best plan for removing the problem. Techniques include regular cleaning, eliminating access, controlling the temperature of the environment, removing water sources, ensuring that food is properly stored, and routine monitoring. EPA and USDA (Department of Agriculture) websites provide copious information on IPM symposiums, grants, and newsletters, as well as a Pest Management Strategic Plans database, an IPM Expertise database, and links to topics such as “Current PM Research” and “Information on pesticide use.”  When necessary, careful and judicious chemical treatments are part of the IPM program, but they are only used when natural mortality agents are inadequate and the pesticides used allow natural enemies of the target pest to survive treatment.

Look for an article next month on Newton’s IPM policy, the work that has been done over the past ten years, and the work which remains.

Ed Cunningham is the Green Decade Coalition representative to the Newton IPM Advisory Committee.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

Don’t Poison Your Children and Pets

By Gilbert Woolley/ Special To The Tab

 

 

This is the time of year when the poison salesmen are at their most active.  They want to sign you up to have your lawn regularly sprayed with a liquid that contains synthetic fertilizers and also chemical poisons dangerous to children and pets.  Of course these chemicals are also harmful to adults, but children and pets typically come into more and closer contact with a lawn, and children are more sensitive to small amounts of poisons. The poisons are also tracked into the home on footwear and by pets, so that a baby playing on the carpet can come in contact with them.

The lawn care industry warns you to keep off the lawn until the grass is dry and for 24 hours after application. However, when the lawn is watered either by rain or sprinkler the dry ingredients become liquid again. Furthermore, if the ingredients are "safe" after 24 hours, then presumably they are also ineffective against insects.

The non-fertilizer ingredients of lawn care products are designed to kill insects and "undesirable" broad-leaved plants, such as dandelions. As some of the same "building blocks" of life are present in humans, mammals, insects and even plants, it is a good conservative assumption that any chemical harmful to one form of life is likely to be harmful to other forms, including pets and humans and, most critically, to humans still in the womb. Also, when you kill insect predators that eat the undesirable insects and the birds that eat the insects, you must then rely exclusively on chemicals to keep undesirable insects in check.

Half of the 32 pesticides typically used by lawn care providers are recognized as likely or potential carcinogens, and there are many documented cases of children and animals becoming ill after coming into contact with treated lawns. It has been claimed, although not yet statistically validated, that women living in suburban homes with lawns subjected to "lawn care "have a higher rate of breast cancer and perhaps other cancers.

In the United States more than seventy million pounds of pesticides and herbicides are sprayed on lawns, trees and shrubs each year, and much of this finds its way into groundwater, rivers and streams and drinking water. Lawn care products are a major source of chemical pollution in the US, but the use of these products is simply not necessary.  Organic treatments are available which do not poison your lawn or the environment, and there are many contractors who apply them, utilizing "Integrated Pest Management" (IPM). An article describing how IPM is being implemented by the City of Newton can be found in this month’s Environment page.

How important is it to have a  "perfect lawn" and does it justify the dangers to yourself, children and pets?   My lawn has never been treated with pesticides or herbicides.  It's not "perfect"; there are small patches of clover, but no dandelions. The secret is that every morning I look for dandelion flowers, which are not hard to see.  When I am in a hurry, I just pull off the flowers and put them in the trash.  If I have time, I uproot the plant with a small two-pronged tool.  At first, when there were a lot of dandelions, this required some time and effort but now, one or two dandelions a day is the most I see. If you stop them seeding they cannot reproduce.  My neighbor has dandelions, but the flying seeds rarely travel very far. Sometimes I deflower my neighbor's dandelions that are near my driveway.

If you want to have a beautiful lawn and don't want to use poisons, the first thing to do is to make sure that you have sufficient depth of healthy soil to support a healthy lawn.  The builder of my house had dumped debris on the garden and covered it with a couple of inches of soil. I replaced this muck with six inches of topsoil and compost, and seeded it.  With a sufficient depth of healthy soil you need to water much less.  In the summer of 2005 I did not have to water the lawn even once.

Toxics Action Center, www.toxicsaction.org, is leading the campaign in New England to stop the use of possible carcinogens in lawn care treatment.

 

Gilbert Woolley is a retired engineer. He has been a very active member of the Sierra Club since 1971, and he served on the Sierra Club National Toxics Committee for six years.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

Winter’s assault of rock salt

By Bruce Wenning/ Special To The Tab

 

During the winter our environment is inundated with road salt. Millions of tons of de-icing salt, commonly called rock salt (sodium chloride) is applied to roads, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, and stairs to melt ice or prevent ice formation. This is done to reduce the hazard of pedestrian slips and falls and vehicle accidents. However, it is not effective below 20 °F.

However, rock salt applied for our safety has several non-target pathways in the environment: (1) it seeps into pavement surfaces and creates a reservoir of salt for later transport for contamination, (2) it is splashed to roadside soil and vegetation by vehicles where it is concentrated in plowed and shoveled snow piles (3) it is washed away by surface runoff into soil, ground water, rivers, lakes, ponds, and streams (4) it leaches through soil into the plant root zone (5) it becomes air-borne into our atmosphere and settles on vegetation (6) it gets onto vehicles and roadway structures contributing to corrosion.

Rock salt is toxic to many perennial plant species of trees, shrubs, grasses and herbs. Salt-contaminated snow and ice eventually melt and leach into soil, killing soil microbes, which contributes to soil compaction.

Rock salt in soil breaks down into ions of sodium and chloride. The chloride ions are the more damaging; when taken up by plant roots in spring and summer they are transported to growing points such as buds and branch tips, killing them. Leaves show symptoms of salt damage by exhibiting brown colored leaf margins. This is where chloride ions were deposited and concentrated in the leaf tissue, creating localized cell death that resembles drought stress. Eventually entire leaves can “brown out” and die. Twigs and small branches can soon follow suit.

Vehicular traffic on salted roads releases pavement salt, making it airborne. Rock salt molecules travel in wind currents created by traffic flow and settle on roadside vegetation. This action, called salt spray, can cover trees as high as forty feet and an area as deep as 150 feet from the road, although the most noticeable plant damage is within thirty feet of the road. Contaminated soil and salt spray are the two most common ways plants get injured from road salt.

Repeated exposure to rock salt by salt sensitive deciduous trees will cause bud death and branch dieback, forcing dormant buds below the affected area to grow out in response. This recovery growth response of multiple stems with leaves is called “witches brooms” and it is diagnostic of salt exposure. It is easily observed on cherry and maple trees along heavily salted roadsides. Another sign of rock salt toxicity is summer and early fall defoliation.

Evergreen trees such as hemlocks and pines show brown-tipped needles well into summer. With annual exposure to salt spray from traffic or soil contamination, the needles turn completely brown, die and fall off. Evergreens and salt-sensitive deciduous plants are weakened by repeated exposure to rock salt, increasing their susceptibility to insects, diseases and fertility problems; this can lead to their premature death.

There are protective measures you can take to lessen the effects of rock salt damage to plants. First, switch to sand or use ice melting products that are safer for plants, pets, and the environment, such as potassium chloride or “pet safe” calcium chloride products, which are effective de-icing compounds to -15 °F and below. Although these products are a little more expensive than rock salt, they significantly reduce plant damage and environmental contamination. Second, plant salt-tolerant plants. Third, protect salt sensitive plants with burlap wraps, wooden coverings facing the road and by flushing the root zone in spring and summer with lots of water, although root zone washing is only effective with well-drained soil.

Pirone’s Tree Maintenance (7th ed.), Hartman, Pirone and Sall. ranks trees from “Very tolerant” (least sensitive) to “Intolerant” (most sensitive), as follows: Very tolerant:White oak, red oak, black cherry, and eastern red cedar. Tolerant:Yellow birch, black birch, paper birch, gray birch, black locust, and largetooth aspen. Moderately tolerant: Norway maple, red maple, shagbark hickory, hop-hornbeam, American elm, and linden. Intolerant: Sugar maple, white pine, hemlock, beech, red pine, and speckled alder.

For more information, see: www.UMassGreenInfo.org, www.extension.umn.edu, www.safnet.org.

Bruce Wenning is Horticulturist / Grounds Manager at the Massachusetts Audubon Society’s Habitat sanctuary, Belmont and serves on the Board of Directors for the Ecological Landscaping Association. www.ecolandscaping.org.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

What is ‘perc’?

By Gilbert Woolley/ Special To The Tab

 

You may have seen a sign in your dry cleaning store: "Perc free cleaning available" and wondered what is "perc " and why you might not want it to be used. “Perc” is short for Perchloroethylene,(C 2 Cl 4), a chlorinated solvent that goes by several other names including PCE and tetrachloroethylene and several trade names. In the forties and fifties perc replaced trichloroethylene, which had replaced carbon tetrachloride (both more hazardous than perc), and is now the solvent used by 90% of dry cleaners in the US. Perc is also widely used in industry as a degreaser. Annual usage in the US is many million of gallons of perc. Some of this undoubtedly finds its way into the groundwater and into drinking water. This cannot be good for the earth or the people living on it!

Chlorinated solvents have been shown to cause cancer in some animals and studies of workers in the US who are in daily contact with Perc vapor have found significantly higher levels of esophageal, bladder, tongue, intestinal, lung and cervical cancer. This is consistent with studies in Canada and the UK.

The US OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) warns that perc is a possible human carcinogen (04/15/05) and strictly limits exposure in the workplace. The International Agency For Research on Cancer classifies perc as a "possible human carcinogen". (1995). Perc accumulates in body fat. More immediate effects include nausea, headaches, dizzy ness and drowsiness. As a customer you wont be exposed to the same levels but it's a good idea to avoid exposure to harmful chlorinated solvents, and people who are sensitive to chemicals should beware of contact with garments cleaned by perc.

Like tobacco and alcohol, Perc is not a deadly poison, but it is harmful, and dry cleaners should be required to provide a written warning to customers, just as makers of tobacco products and alcoholic drinks are required to do. This warning should give the “possible carcinogen" status and warn chemically sensitive users about perc.

For people who are not exposed to perc in the workplace the most likely pathway into the body is through the lungs. You must have noticed the rather unpleasant odor of newly dry cleaned garments Tests show that, even after a hundred days, 40% of the perc in the garment after cleaning is still present. When you pick up a garment from the dry cleaners you should take it out of the plastic bag and hang it outdoors or in a well-ventilated area for some days to reduce the amount of perc vapor you bring into your home. This is especially important for large, heavy items, such as "comforters" and sleeping bags, and when a number of garments are packed in one bag. People who live over, or near to a dry cleaning operation may be exposed to harmful levels of perc vapor.

NIOSH (National Institute of Safety and Health) studied methods to limit perc emissions. The study confirmed that technology is available in Europe to do so. Germany has imposed regulation to mandate use of such technology. This requires a considerable capital investment, and without similar regulation in the US there is no incentive to make this investment. Government regulations prohibit the disposal of perc or water containing perc into a sewer, but these regulations are largely self-enforced. Sewage treatment does not remove perc and treated wastewater will be discharged into rivers or the ocean. Perc has been detected in drinking water at many locations in the US.

Alternatives to perc

Google "perc alternatives" to find alternatives to perc. One "perc free" option is "wet clean", the use of detergents and water instead of perc. Google "wet clean" for more information. There are fabrics that are difficult to wet clean without shrinking and some stains that are easier to remove using perc, but many garments carrying the "dry clean only" label can be safely wet cleaned. New wet clean technology has tightly-controlled temperatures for washing and drying, which makes if possible to wet clean some articles that would be difficult to wash using conventional methods. The most complete page is by the US EPA, (labeled) PDA which gives information on wet cleaning and also lists providers of non-perc cleaning by state.

Wet cleaning eliminates many of the disposal problems of perc because the wastewater can be safely discharged into the sewer. Another advantage is that "non perc" cleaners do not have to register with the EPA.

Another "perc free" method is to launder articles in liquid CO 2 (carbon dioxide), which is non-toxic but this method is not in widespread use. The dry cleaner I use in Newton advertises "perc-free cleaning available" but his system uses oil based, not water based, cleaning fluid.

How to limit exposure to perc

·      Buy as few garments as you can, which carry the "Dry Clean Only" label

·      Use a "wet cleaner" The US EPA web page lists four wet cleaners in Massachusetts, including one in Newton: Corner Cleaners, 1301 Washington St, West Newton.

·      Google "wet cleaners" to get more information

·      Ask your dry cleaner to offer "perc-free" cleaning.

·      Have garments dry-cleaned less often

·      Try careful hand washing. For guidelines go to Google: "stain removal".

 

Gilbert Woolley is a retired engineer. He has been a very active member of the Sierra Club since 1971, and he served on the Sierra Club National Toxics Committee for six years.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

 

Read More...

Summary only...

What is a pesticide?

By Lucia Dolan/ Special To The Tab

 

A pesticide is a poison. It is designed to kill an insect, weed or fungus. Unfortunately pesticides do not limit themselves to just what we wish to kill. They travel. They run off into water. They vaporize and drift. They come into our home on shoes and pets.

Pesticides can spread very quickly. "Good Morning America" recently reported on an experiment in a classroom at PS 8 in New York City.

They applied Glo-Germ, a nontoxic powder visible only under ultraviolet light, in areas where pesticides are most likely to be sprayed or to settle, such as baseboards and windowsills. Then they invited the children to play. After 20 minutes, UV light showed traces of Glo-Germ all over the children’s clothes, hands and faces.

No pesticide is safe. Federal laws prohibit pesticide manufacturers from making safety claims. The EPA, which has the authority to waive all chronic toxicity testing for consumer pesticides, does not require that pesticides be tested for effects on the immune system or on hormonal systems. Additionally, we know little about "real world" exposures - how pesticides interact with other pesticides or substances such as prescription medicines.

Several studies have shown that dogs are more likely to get cancer when their owners use pesticides. In 2004, Dr. Larry Glickman of Purdue University found that Scottish terriers were four to seven times more likely to get bladder cancer when their owners used pesticides on their lawns. The more time the dogs spent on a treated lawn, the higher their risk. Glickman is now measuring the chemicals levels in children from homes that use pesticides, and he is attempting to discover which chemicals in pesticides cause cancer, the active or the inert ingredients.

One to 3 percent of a pesticide product is "active" ingredients, chemicals designed to kill an unwanted insect, weed or fungus. The other 97 percent consists of ingredients are added to deliver the active ingredient and to make it longer lasting or more effective.

"Inert" ingredients, which are protected by trade secrecy laws, may be more dangerous than "active" ingredients. Pesticide manufacturers can conceal the identity of these ingredients from the public and even from the EPA.

Inert pesticide ingredients can be as benign as water or as toxic as benzene, toluene or xylene. Along with inert ingredients, contaminants, such as dioxin and DDT, sometimes form in pesticides as a result of the chemical production process. When pesticide products are used they interact with the environment, (soil, water, air) and can form toxic metabolites. Only a few of the 613 active pesticide ingredients have been tested for health or environmental effects. But solid knowledge of a pesticides dangers do not automatically lead to a government ban.

Methyle bromide is a neurotoxin, and its effects have been known for years. It destroys the ozone layer and has fatally poisoned farm workers in California. The U.S. government has signed an international treaty to ban methyle bromide in 2005, but it is currently negotiating an exemption to prevent "market disruption." Fifty-six farm organizations, including the largest, the American Farm Bureau, oppose the ban on methyle bromide. Farmers insist that alternatives to methyle bromide are too costly.

Too costly to whom? When the EPA decides that a pesticide’s benefits outweigh its risks, they do not factor into the equation the cost of illnesses, disabilities or environmental degradation. These costs are difficult or impossible to measure in the short term, but they are substantial and serious.

Pesticides are a quick fix, a short-term approach. Fortunately, there are alternatives to pesticides, such as Integrated Pest Management, which offer long-term solutions that focuses on correcting the cause of insect, weed or fungus problems. IPM protects drinking water, food, soil and air by minimizing, if not eliminating, pesticide use. It is an ecosystem approach that protects biodiversity.

In the coming months GreenCAP will have articles on these pages discussing safer approaches to common pest problems, weedy lawns, bees and wasps, and more. For more information visit www.beyondpesticides.org, www.pesticide.org, and www.greendecade.org.

Lucia Dolan, co-chairman of GreenCAP, is on the board of the Green Decade Coalition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Toxic confusion: a thousand points of … dirt?

By Jill Hahn / Special To The Tab

 

Do you think you ought to be able to find out what toxic chemicals are being released in your community?

So did the U.S. government after the 1984 Bhopal disaster, when chemicals released from a Union Carbide plant in India killed thousands of people. That’s when the Toxics Release Inventory program was created. The TRI program requires companies and federal facilities of a certain size to provide annual reports of their releases of toxic chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency, which then makes the information available to the public.

For example, let’s look at our own county, Middlesex County. The TRI informs us that from 1988 to 2002 (the period for which reports are available), Middlesex County scored in the top 20 percent of dirtiest counties in the U.S. for pounds released into the air of recognized carcinogens, developmental toxicants, and reproductive toxicants on the TRI list (Scorecard: the Pollution Information site, http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases). Useful information.

However, the EPA now seems to be backing away from its almost twenty-year commitment to keeping the public well-informed about toxic chemicals. It has recently proposed three changes to TRI reporting (http://www.epa.gov/tri/)):

1. Move from annual reporting to every-other-year reporting. But many facilities show huge shifts in emissions from year to year, so every-other-year reporting could be misleading.

2. Allow facilities to release 10 times as much pollution before being required to report. This provision would raise the maximum Annual Reportable Amount from 500 to 5,000 pounds.

3. Permit facilities to withhold details on low-level production of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals like mercury, lead, and dioxin. But PBT chemicals, which the EPA has identified as "chemicals of special concern," can travel long distances, remain dangerous for long periods of time, and are particularly harmful to children and developing fetuses.

Why do these changes matter? Federal and state policy makers need access to adequate information in order to make decisions that protect our health, safety, and environment. Every regulatory program at the EPA relies on the TRI for data on specific toxic chemicals released to the environment. These data need to be as accurate (able to track the year-to-year variability) and comprehensive (requiring reporting on chemicals of special concern) as possible.

The EPA, in announcing its proposed changes, only cites as its rationale for the changes the burden reporting places on industry (http://www.epa.gov/tri/). It does not offer any health justification, or show any evidence that less than 5000 pounds of toxic output annually is not harmful to the environment. Is the lightening of this reporting burden, which the EPA itself says has been made significantly less costly through improvements in reporting software, a trade-off that benefits the public?

The comment period for the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule extends until January 13, 2006. If you are interested in learning more, a good place to start is the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists, (http://ucsaction.org/campaign/11_30_05_toxic_release_inventory/explanation), or the EPA’s web site, (http://www.epa.gov/tri/).

Jill Hahn, a Newton Highlands resident, is a biologist, a writer, and a mom. All three roles contribute to her passion about environmental issues. She can be reached at jkkhahn@comcast.net.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fish is still good food

By Lois A. Levin/ Special To The Tab

 

Many species of fish that were once abundant have become scarce. In fact, there is increasing evidence that wild fish stocks are collapsing all over the world.

Fish is an extremely healthy food, despite the serious problem of mercury contamination of many fish species. (The US government has issued warnings that some types of fish are especially risky for pregnant women and children.)

How are responsible shoppers supposed to know which types of fish are harvested sustainably, so that we can all continue to enjoy this healthy food?

In our area, we are fortunate to have markets and restaurants that offer environmentally-responsible fish options. Here is the list of "best Eco-choices"from Environmental Defense's Oceans Alive Campaign:

Abalone (US farmed)

Anchovies

Arctic char (US & Canadian farmed)

Catfish (US farmed)

Caviar (US farmed)

Clams (butter, geoducks, hard, littlenecks, Manila)

Crab (Dungeness, snow from Canada, stone)

Crawfish (US)

Halibut (from Alaska)

Herring (Atlantic sea herring)

Mackerel (Atlantic)

Mahimahi/dolphinfish (US from the Atlantic)

Mussels (farmed blue, New Zealand green)

Oysters (farmed Eastern, European, Pacific)

Sablefish/black cod (from Alaska)

Salmon (wild from Alaska)

Sardines

Scallops (farmed bay)

Shrimp (Northern from Newfoundland, US farmed)

Spot prawns

Striped bass (farmed)

Sturgeon (farmed)

Tilapia (US)

For more information on these and hundreds of other fish, visit www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm. Pocket Seafood Selector (c)September 2005 Environmental Defense, New York, NY

Permission to reprint this info given to GDC's Marcia Cooper (marciac@aol.com) on Oct. 6 by Kathleen Goldstein (KGoldstein@environmentaldefense.org).

Read More...

Summary only...

Useful chemical or dangerous toxin?

By Lucia Dolan/ Special To The Tab

 

More than 80,000 new chemicals have been created and released into our environment since World War II. Many of these chemicals, such as pesticides and flame-retardants, are in our children before they are even born. Rising rates of asthma, autism and cancer beg the question: Who decides which chemicals are safe?

Under our laws chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. It took many years, many deaths and many lawyers to prove the case against tobacco. In 1951, the first study linking smoking to cancer was published. The study motivated its author, Dr. Richard Doll, to give up smoking, but few others. Smoking was so ubiquitous; no one could believe it was truly harmful. Twenty-five years later, Dr. Doll published another study, which showed 1 in 3 smokers died from their habit. In 1998, California passed the first laws restricting smoking.

The Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to ban the manufacture and import of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. The last chemical the EPA banned was asbestos in 1989. In 1991, the asbestos ban was overturned and compliance made voluntary. We know many of the chemicals we use pose a risk. The question remains: when does a chemical's risk outweigh its benefits?

In 1989, Massachusetts became the first state to tackle this question with the passage of the Toxics Use Reduction Act. Instead of innocent until proved guilty, we are attempting to follow the Precautionary Principle, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Precautionary Principle recognizes scientists often cannot fully predict the impact of toxins on our health. It calls for us to seek out the safest alternative within the limits of our knowledge. TURA seeks to reduce the use of toxins by either replacing them with safer alternatives or eliminating their need by redesigning a product's production process.

TURA was a compromise between environmental groups who wanted toxins banned and industry groups who used chemicals in their business. Our law is recognized as a success worldwide. TURA met its original goal to reduce toxic byproduct generation by 50 percent in 1998. Since 1990, toxic byproduct generation has been reduced another 58 percent and industrial toxic chemical use has dropped by 40 percent. TURA led to the creation of the Toxic Use Reduction Institute at Lowell. TURI researches and promotes safer alternatives to known toxic chemicals. One of the top toxic chemicals TURI is working to replace within our state is formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde, the embalming liquid, is a common source of indoor air pollution. It keeps more than frogs in jars looking fresh; it is used to make wrinkle-resistant clothing and draperies; it is in glues and in some paints (as a preservative). It is in prefabricated wood products all around us, flooring, tables, cabinets and chairs. These products release fumes into the air in quantities we can't smell but can detect in blood samples. Formaldehyde has been linked to both cancer and reproductive problems.

TURI is funded by industries who use toxic chemicals and by our state government. TURI's annual cost to the state is quite small, $250,000 for 2006, but often under attack in tight budget times when pennywise becomes toxic pound foolish. Fortunately, TURI receives strong support from our legislators, representatives Ruth Balser, Kay Khan, Peter Koutoujian and Sen. Cynthia Creem. Together with public support, they have helped keep TURI working towards a healthier tomorrow. For more information on safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, contact the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow at 617-338-8131 or www.healthytomorrow.org.

Lucia Dolan has a bachelor's degree in economics from Columbia and master's degree in library and info science from Berkeley. She is the mother of three young children and is district coordinator for the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow. 

Read More...

Summary only...

Fish good, Mercury bad!

By Gilbert Woolley/ Special To The Tab

 

Fish and other seafoods are excellent foods, low in fat, but rich in protein and Omega 3 fatty acids.  Nutritionists advise that eating seafood regularly is good for your health and parents should encourage their children to eat this healthy food.

A number of seafoods, however, are heavily contaminated with mercury.  Unfortunately, one of the most popular and affordable fish products, canned albacore tuna, is one of them. Mercury is a potent  “neurotoxin”(it poisons the nervous system) and is especially harmful to the developing brains and nervous systems of young children and of the fetus in the womb.  This can cause learning difficulties, delay mental development and the effects may be lifelong. To be safe, small children, pregnant women and women who may become pregnant  (mercury persists in the blood for up a year) should not eat canned albacore (white”) tuna or tuna steaks. Moderate amounts of  “light” tuna are OK.

The website of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) advises that these sensitive groups should not eat swordfish, shark, king mackerel, grouper, tilefish  and  other large “predator fish”  (fish that eat other fish)  The Advisory states that pregnant women may eat up to six ounces of albacore tuna per week. Since the effects of mercury are so serious, several non-governmental organizations say that this far too high. So, why risk the brain of your child or unborn child?  “Light” tuna has five or six times less mercury than albacore but it is still significant. 

Mercury pollution of the oceans is a worldwide problem. The US contributes to it but is not, by any means, the only offender.

Fresh water fish may also be contaminated by mercury and Massachusetts advises pregnant women not to eat freshwater fish caught in the waters of the state. This mercury comes mostly from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants, many located hundreds of miles away in Ohio and other coal mining states. Mercury is present in much of the coal mined in the US. When burned, it is released into the atmosphere in the form of vapor and carried down wind to the Northeast. Only the federal government can protect Massachusetts, but the federal government is proposing to relax standards for mercury emissions.

How much is too much?

·      A 115 pound woman who consumes two cans of albacore tuna a week has a “mercury in blood” level more than three times that recommended by the FDA.

·      A 45 pound child eating one can of albacore tuna a week would have more than four times the FDA recommended level

The “Sea Turtle Restoration Project” has a “seafood mercury calculator” on its website (http://www.gotmercury.org)

If you want to know more about mercury in tuna, do a “Google Search” on the two words “mercury” and “tuna”. You will get more information than you may have time to read.

Gilbert Woolley is a retired engineer. He has been a very active member of the Sierra Club since 1971, and he served on the Sierra Club National Toxics Committee for six years.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Summary only...

The state of red

By Michelle Portman/ Special To The Tab

 

What blooms like a flower, was found off the Massachusetts coast in great numbers in 2005 and is red all over? You probably guessed it by now: the notorious red tide. Actually, scientists prefer to call this phenomenon harmful algal bloom because algal blooms are common, discolor ocean waters and are usually not harmful. During a "red tide" event, algae, made up of microscopic, single-celled plants called phytoplankton, grow very fast or "bloom". They release noxious odors, irritating vapors and slim. Those that occurred in New England this past spring caused dangerous toxins to accumulate in shellfish. Human consumption of shellfish contaminated by these toxins can be harmful, even fatal.

The syndrome is called paralytic shellfish poisoning and can result from eating large quantities of affected shellfish. No cases of death attributed to PSP have been reported in New England, although there have been such fatalities reported elsewhere in the U.S. The Division of Marine Fisheries is responsible for monitoring for PSP; the agency's staff conducts coastline monitoring on a weekly basis from April to November. This year DMF was extremely busy. The New England region suffered the worst HAB since the first massive outbreak in 1972 that followed Hurricane Carrie.

Scientists are unsure what exactly caused the recent bloom that prompted the shutdown of shellfish harvesting throughout most Massachusetts coastal waters. The blooms begin in Maine and spread southward. Some of the more productive shellfishing areas off of Cape Cod and the South shore re-opened in the beginning of July, but damage done to the shellfishing industry was already substantial and prompted lawmakers to ask for federal disaster relief. Despite tight budgets, DMF may be required by the federal Food and Drug Administration to add more testing sites and to monitor for additional biotoxins, such as Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning and Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning, based on findings from this past season. Also, new sampling sites in Buzzards Bay, off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard are being considered.

Despite lingering questions about the local causes of HAB, scientists have established a clear connection between red tide and one of the most widespread, chronic problems in coastal ocean waters: eutrophication. Eutrophication is caused by the buildup of excess nutrients in water and it is wrecking havoc on our seas. Human activities including agriculture, waste disposal, coastal development and fossil fuel use, have greatly increased the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients that invariably end up in ocean waters via streams, rivers, groundwater, sewage outfall and even the atmosphere.

All these nutrients stimulate the growth of tiny marine plants including algae. During HAB, the growth of particularly species of algae is excessive. Although only about a hundred species of algae are toxic, increased blooms of non-toxic species cause ecological problems too. Large surplus blooms of seaweed, or macroalgae, can coat beaches thus interfering with recreational activities. Others can choke coral reefs and seagrass beds that provide habitat for fish spawning necessary for biodiversity and maintenance of commercial fisheries. The gravely endangered Northern Right Whale have been affected too when large algae blooms in Cape Cod Bay clogged surface waters making it difficult for the whales to find food.

In the U.S. and other developed countries, monitoring and fishery closures have reduced human illness from HAB however, biodiversity and ecosystem health continue to be impacted. Also, monitoring and closures have economic costs. It is hard to decide what the right public policy response should be for long-term remedies and prevention of red tide. So many activities are related to eutrophication; scientists concede that cause and effect is complex. This phenomenon again highlights the influence that our everyday activities - use of fertilizers, disposal of sewage, fuel combustion, etc., - have on the environment, economics and public health in areas miles, even nautical miles, away.

Michelle Portman is a Ph.D. candidate studying marine conservation policy at UMassBoston and she works as an environmental analyst. 

Read More...

Summary only...