Wednesday, May 3, 2006

Cute little baby animals - more than meets the eye!

By John Linehan/Special To The Tab

A visit to either the Franklin Park Zoo or Stone Zoo this summer will reveal lots of cute new faces. It has been an unusually productive year at Zoo New England's institutions. The "oohs" and "ahs" are audible while mothers shepherd their offspring and teach them the requisite skills for their lives ahead. It's easy to see that these mothers revel in their maternal roles and responsibilities.

There was a time, not long ago, when even good zoos produced offspring merely for the sake of attracting visitors. As good zoos evolved, under more enlightened leadership, the realities came into focus. Unchecked reproduction of some animals and non-reproduction by others was rapidly depleting genetic diversity and in other cases leading to over-production. Surplus animals sometimes ended-up in bad situations.

This has changed dramatically. With the aid of computer modeling programs, improved animal husbandry techniques and a wildlife conservation focus, accredited zoos across the country now manage much of their animal collections as if there were no ownership. Individual animals are paired for breeding based upon their genetic background. Animal transfers between zoos are planned and carried out with well-organized master plans designed to ensure the conservation of species. As we have established husbandry techniques for successful reproduction, we have also developed a wide variety of contraceptive techniques. Each species is different physically and behaviorally. Zoo veterinarians and keepers are continuously challenged by the diversity of species' biologies. The goal of the programs is to maintain the maximum genetic variability in each of these species and then to maintain stable populations that are in balance with the space and other resources of the zoos. Today, zoos are net wildlife producers, not consumers. While some of these efforts result in reintroduction programs, most are aimed at maintaining self-sustaining captive populations and safeguarding wild population.

Our growing Mexican wolf pups at Stone Zoo are part of a successful program to re-establish this species in Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico. We have red crowned cranes at Franklin Park Zoo, which now have offspring reintroduced and migrating in Asia. There are many others, such as gorillas, giraffe, jaguar, zebra. The existence of these animals supports wild populations through education and partnerships with other zoos and conservation organizations. The organization and cooperation required to plan and enact these complex programs is carried out mainly by zoo staff volunteering their time to make the programs work. Their tireless efforts are coordinated through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and facilitated by a small group of population biologists.

 John Linehan is President and CEO of Zoo New England, the non-profit organization which manages our two state-owned zoos, Franklin Park Zoo in Dorchester and Stone Zoo in Stoneham. He serves on several committees of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

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

Read More...

Something's fishy

By Michelle Portman/Special To The Tab

You might want to get a membership to the New England Aquarium. There are fish there that chances are you'll never see in the wild. Not because they thrive in habitats far away, in exotic places and tropical climes, but because people have fished them to death. Another place you might be able to see these fish is served on a plate garnished with spices, herbs and lemon juice at dozens of popular restaurants. How is it that the fish we love to dine on are dead in the water (seas), yet always available for the right price at our neighborhood eatery?

It is clear that for at least the past decade, fisheries, especially those in New England, have been plagued by tragedy and controversy. Many commercial fish populations, such as cod, flounder and Atlantic salmon, have been culled to such an extent that it is questionable whether they will ever recovery.

Government has tried to step in with policies and regulations aimed at stabilizing and recovering fisheries. Ten years ago, the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), was signed into law. It resulted in a myriad of measures to regulate fishing activities- quotas by species, size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal fishing ground closures, etc. Yet these measures are controversial because of their effects on fishermen, the fishing industry and overall marine biodiversity.

A recent national report on ocean policy, funded by the Pew Trust, takes issue with policies promulgated by regional Fisheries Management Councils (8 in number). Too often, council decisions have emphasized short-term commodity production, i.e., focusing on maximizing catch, revenues and employment rather than sustaining natural systems that support wild fish populations and healthy ecosystems. Overall, they rely on scientific uncertainty to justify risk-prone management decisions rather than apply a precautionary approach. Particularly problematic are the adoption of short-sighted single species management techniques that neglect long-term goals for fisheries and ecosystems.

With all the threats to fish - loss of habitat, overfishing, declining ocean water quality and ineffective regulation - how is it that we are finding plenty of fish on the menu of our favorite restaurants? For the most part the answer is: aquaculture.

There are many different modes of aquaculture - for shell fish, for freshwater fish and seafood - making it difficult to generalize regarding its impacts. For most off-shore cultivation, thousands of fish live their short lives in crowded cages sunk below the surface in deep ocean waters. Negative effects involve the concentration of their waste products that causes eutrophication (nutrient overload) in surrounding waters. Also the density at which the fish are kept make them more susceptible to disease and parasites. (To sea lice, for example, a fish farm is an all-you-can-eat buffet.) Pesticides and antibiotics given to the fish soon find their way into the environment with deleterious impacts on marine water quality and habitat.

These substances don't make "farmed fish" any more healthy for the human consumer either. A recent news article on farmed fish in the UK, called Scottish farmed salmon "the most contaminated product on the supermarket shelves".

Another problem is that of escapees. Farm-hatched fish can escape into the wild and dilute the gene pool of healthier, "smarter" wild specimens, potentially impacting the capability of some species to spawn properly, to grow to adulthood and to be resistant to certain parasites and disease.

This past April, the U.S. Senate heard testimony on offshore aquaculture. A bill backed by the Bush administration is being debated that would expand, support and regulate large-scale fish farming in American coastal waters. Supporters argue fish farms would enhance fish production and reduce seasonal variations in availability. Opponents worry they would add cut-rate competition against existing ocean fishers, flooding the market with low-quality, low-price fish.

These debates leave the average fish-lover wondering whether off-shore and deep-sea cages are a sensible alternative to wisely managing our culling of wild ocean fish. Arguably, the solution lies with the consumer. People can refrain from eating species that are threatened. They can create a demand for certain products raised or fished sustainably. Many folks want to do the right thing when buying or ordering fish, but don't know how. Certainly, the different ways fish are raised and/or caught makes things confusing.

A full discussion of the most environmentally-friendly fish to consume is beyond the scope of this article, but why re-invent the wheel? When I buy fish at the market or order in a restaurant, I consult my Seafood Watch guide. This is a little folding card that I carry in my wallet. It is published by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Regional and national pocket-sized guides can be downloaded from their Internet site: www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp. There is plenty of information on this site about how to be a wise fish consumer and plenty more on what's happening to fisheries and fish.

Remember, despite what we see on our menus, all is not well with our regional and global fisheries. For the sake of fish, and our appetites, precaution is advised.

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

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

Read More...

Learning to live with less water

By Kate Bowditch/ Special To The Tab

With the beauty of spring bursting into bloom, you may not have noticed, but Massachusetts is in a serious dry spell. With almost no spring rain, and no winter snowpack to provide spring melt, we are well out of our normal seasonal water cycle. According to the National Weather Service, this year we had the driest March on record in many parts of New England, and river flows in the Charles are as low as they have ever been at this time of year.

The most visible and immediate impacts of spring drought are in the river, where the usual spring flush is simply not happening. Fish and other aquatic species that rely on spring's high, fast flows are instead struggling in flow levels that are normal in July. Wetlands that are normally full of water in March and April are already drying out. For people who enjoy spring kayaking and fishing on the Charles, the low flows have had an obvious and dramatic impact, especially in the free-flowing sections of the river.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

Low flow, spring 2006, Cheesecake Brook

<![endif]-->Hopefully, this spring drought will not last through the summer, and the stressed river, wetlands and urban forest will rebound. But climate change and development patterns are putting more and more stress on the water-based environment, and we will have to adapt our habits, practices and expectations accordingly. We need a built environment that protects resources, and is flexible enough to withstand change. Over time, that means reducing our reliance on traditional engineering such as curb and gutter, pipes and concrete channels, and embracing softer, greener infrastructure. Nature provides some of the best models for coping with changing weather and climate conditions, and we need to emulate as many of those models as possible.

The Charles River Watershed Association advocates for "keeping water local," and provides suggestions for managing water on sites of all sizes and uses, whether a parking lot, an industrial facility, or a single family home. The basic concept is to design a site so it works as if it were undeveloped. By approximating nature's own design and function we will protect not only the natural environment but our built environment as well.

Homes, and the local environment generally, can be made more resilient and better able to cope with less water. Think of each property as one small patch of land that needs to sustain itself with its own resources, and you will begin to see possibilities. Try to recharge most rainwater into the ground; direct runoff over vegetated areas to slow and clean the flows; allow water to pool and collect in low wet areas that are planted with wetland species; save rooftop runoff in a cistern or barrel system to use for outdoor watering needs; use native plants that are suited to a fluctuating climate and do not need to be watered.

A landscape that keeps rainfall on-site is good for our rivers, ponds and wetlands. It is beneficial to property owners and to communities when landscapes are designed to withstand dry periods as well as heavy rains, and with reduced need for fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. There are many good sources of landscaping information, such as the fact sheets available on the EPA website: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts. Some people might consider improving or creating wetlands on their property, as suggested in a recent webcast series sponsored by the Izaak Walton League of America http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/iwla2006.asp

Kate Bowditch, Senior Environmental Scientist and Project Manager at Charles River Watershed Association, is a hydrologist. She earned her MA in Geography/Water Resources Management from BU.

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

Read More...

A deadly poison in your yard?

By Gilbert Woolley/Special To The Tab

If you've been reading these pages recently, you've heard a lot about toxins; mercury in dental amalgam, tires loaded with heavy metals and toxins in pesticides and herbicides. These are all genuine toxins, but they don't have an immediate effect. There is one toxic present in many yards in Newton that does have immediate and also long-term effects. That toxic is arsenic, the spouse poisoner's favorite. If you have a deck, or anything made from wood in your yard that was built before 2004, it is almost certain to have been built with "Pressure Treated Lumber" which, until 2004 meant wood treated with CCA: Copper Chromated Arsenic. We are not talking about parts per million. A typical deck contains several ounces of arsenic, enough to kill the neighborhood. Even a playhouse contains enough arsenic to kill the family. The Pressure Treated Lumber now in the stores should be free from toxics.

When adding a deck to our house some 15 years ago on a hot summer's day, I developed a nasty rash on my face. I discovered that this was caused by the arsenic in the dust from sawing and sanding the CCA-treated wood sticking to my sweaty face. At that time I had no idea what Pressure Treated meant and the lumber store gave no warnings. Irritation of the skin is one immediate effect of arsenic, and inhaling dust can cause burning of the throat and lungs.

After rain, the CCA still bleeds out of our deck and is identifiable by a pale green deposit on the surface. The green is from the copper, but more arsenic than copper bleeds out. This arsenic can be absorbed through the skin and by children by sucking contaminated fingers. Children must be trained to wash their hands before eating after possible contact with CCA-treated wood. Animals kept in cages made from CCA-treated wood have become very sick. The most important warning is never to burn CCA-treated wood, indoors or outdoors. Some of the arsenic is released as a vapor, and the effects of inhaling arsenic over a period are very serious. The vapor also deposits a film of arsenic on the ground and on vegetation. The remainder of the arsenic is concentrated in the ash, and a teaspoon of ash is a fatal dose for an adult. Exposure to arsenic over time is suspected as causing cancer, particularly in young children.

The harmful effects of CCA are so undisputed that the Bush administration, usually skeptical about environmental and health hazards, signed on to an agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the lumber industry to stop shipment of CCA-treated lumber to retailers after Dec. 31, 2003. This agreement prevents additional CCA wood from entering the market place, but does nothing to address the millions of cubic feet of lumber already in the environment.

The US EPA recommends that CCA-treated wood which can be contacted by people should be coated every year with an oil-based varnish, such as polyurethane. Any time you see a green deposit on the surface of the varnish, it's time to repaint. Wear waterproof gloves whenever you may be in contact with CCA.

As decks and other pressure-treated lumber structures reach end of life, they will pass into the waste stream. There is no perfect solution to how to prevent the arsenic from passing into the atmosphere, groundwater and drinking water, but the worst possible scenario is that municipalities like Newton, that rely on incineration to dispose of wood, will ship the CCA-treated wood to an incinerator. People living downwind of the incinerator will be subject to large doses of arsenic and the ash will be highly toxic.

Until there is a practical method of extracting CCA from the wood, a properly lined landfill is the least harmful method of disposal, but the landfill should not be upgrade from a drinking water well and the adjacent groundwater must be monitored. Arsenic is said to become attached to soil particles so that any release to the environment should be slow.

At present, most jurisdictions in the U.S., including Massachusetts, do not classify CCA-treated lumber as hazardous and it can be disposed of in unlined landfills. Unless corrected, this is going to result in serious health problems in the future. The long-term problem is that millions of pounds of arsenic have been used to treat wood and if not controlled much of this will eventually be released into the environment. (The amount of arsenic used is known because there are records of arsenic imports and almost all is used in CCA-treated wood.)

NOTE. A major reason why action to limit use of CCA-treated wood was so long delayed and why so little attention is paid to the health hazards is that many doctors do not recognize the symptoms of low-level exposure to arsenic.

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...

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...

Taming the winter moth

By Joseph S. Elkinton/Special To The Tab

My laboratory at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has embarked on an effort to control the winter moth, Operopthera brumata, a major new threat to our forests and shade trees. The winter moth is native to Europe and has recently invaded eastern Massachusetts and caused widespread defoliation of many kinds of deciduous trees, including all species of oak and maple. In addition, it represents a threat to blueberry and apple crops. Severe tree defoliation has occurred at sites near Cape Ann and throughout the South Shore and Cape Cod. It has probably been established in eastern Massachusetts for about a decade, but no one knows how it got here or exactly where it was first established. Until 2003, it was thought to be a native species, the fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria. Close examination of the adult females in December 2003 proved that it was neither fall cankerworm nor the Bruce spanworm, Operopthera bruceata,a native species that is very closely related to the winter moth. All three species are in the inch-worm family of moths that feed in early spring and then drop to ground in late May where they form earthen cocoons in the soil or forest litter. The adult winter moths emerge in November or December. The females have no wings. They climb the trunks of trees and produce a pheromone that attracts the winged males. After mating they lay eggs in bark crevices, which then hatch the following spring. Many people in eastern Massachusetts have been startled by the large numbers of male winter moths they have seen flying in early evening at Christmas time. This phenomenon accounts for the name winter moth.

We believe we have an excellent chance to use natural controls to prevent future defoliation by winter moth and to convert it to a non-pest status similar to that of the hundreds of native caterpillar species that exist in our forests without ever causing outbreaks. Invasions of winter moth have occurred at other sites in North America, namely Nova Scotia in the 1950s and in the Pacific Northwest in the 1970s. In each case, a decade-long outbreak has been successfully and permanently controlled by the introduction of a parasitic fly called Cyzenis albicans, from Europe, where it is one of the naturally occurring parasites of winter moth. In Nova Scotia, they first released C. albicansin 1954. High levels of parasitism did not occur until 1961, but after that winter moth retreated to low density where it has remained ever since.

One of the most attractive features about C. albicansis that it specializes on winter moth and does not attack any other species with the possible exception of Bruce spanworm. That means that C. albicanswill not have any unintended effects on other species and when it suppresses winter moth densities, it will suppress its own density as well. People will be unaware that this fly is present in their back yards just as they are unaware of the many native species of parasitic flies and wasps that attack native insects in their yards.

In April 2005, we received about 5,000 winter moth pupae shipped to us from Victoria BC by colleagues in the Canadian Forest Service. Many of these pupae were infested with C. albicans, and from this batch we obtained 832 adult flies of which about half were females. On May 4, 2005, we released 225 C. albicansat a site in Wompatuck State Park in Hingham, where we have collected data on parasitism of winter moth since 2004. The remaining flies were held in the laboratory to produce eggs for production of more flies for next year. Based on similar work in Nova Scotia, we do not expect to see much, if any, parasitism for several years, because the eggs laid by a few hundred released flies are dispersed among the millions of winter moths at this site.

We believe that our efforts to control winter moth by introducing C. albicansare almost guaranteed to work because the approach has already worked before at two other locations in North America. If so we will achieve permanent solution to the winter moth outbreak that will require no further expenditures once we get C. albicans established. However, in order for the introduction to work within a reasonable time frame (e.g. five years) we must invest sufficient funds to be able to release several thousand C. albicansfrom as many sites as possible each year. Otherwise it could be a decade or more before the parasitoid population catches up with the already huge winter moth population. Last year we estimated that there were approximately a quarter million winter moth eggs being laid in each tree. With several million trees infested, the estimated size of the winter moth population in eastern Massachusetts is several trillion!! It will take some years for a few thousand C. albicansto multiply sufficiently to catch up. As with any biological control project, we must release a sufficient number of parasitoids at each site in order to assure that the next generation of parasitoids are abundant enough to find mates. Luckily the Massachusetts state legislature is considering a bill to provide the necessary funding for this initiative.

Joseph S. Elkinton is Professor of Entomology in the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, elkinton@ent.umass.edu, 413-545-4816.

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

Read More...

Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Artificial turf: Solution or problem?

By Gilbert Woolley/ Special To The Tab

 

Astroturf, the original brand of artificial turf, was used for the first time in 1968 in the

Houston Astrodome baseball stadium. Many indoor and some outdoor fields were

covered in Astroturf, but the surface was well described by a critic as "carpet on

concrete" and it fell out of favor.

 

In the early 21st century several brands of artificial turf have overcome some of

limitations of Astroturf and other early products.

 

Construction varies in detail, but the newer products try to produce a playing surface

that is close to that of natural turf. This is achieved by adding around an inch and a

half of a resilient material, sometimes mixed with sand, around the synthetic "grass

blades," which can be made of nylon, polyethylene or polypropylene (which in turn can

be made from recycled plastic. The resilient material is, typically, ground up waste

rubber from worn out tires, or in one case, the soles of athletic shoes.

It has been estimated that an average soccer or football field of artificial turf uses

45,000 recycled tires that might otherwise take up space in a landfill or an illegal waste

site. About 250 million scrap tires are generated in the US every year. Today 80

percent are ground up and recycled: 30 percent mixed with asphalt for highways; 30

percent mixed with plastics for molded products which do not need to have a good

appearance; and 15 percent are used for athletic surfaces, including artificial turf.

Artificial turf is low maintenance, and requires no herbicides, pesticides, or watering,

and no need for reseeding. The most important advantage, with respect to the

management of the field, is that it can be played on every day, winter and summer. It

doesn't get bald patches and doesn't get muddy when it rains.

 

Disadvantages are that, in summer, artificial turf gets much hotter than natural turf, but

this problem is not so critical in Massachusetts as some places. Also, dealing with

animal droppings and human "body fluids" is more difficult. On natural turf, there is

natural "treatment" from bacteria in the soil, but on artificial turf solids must be

frequently removed and the surface sanitized. The "sanitizer" must be harmless to the

skin of players.

 

The improved artificial turf has been widely accepted in the US but In Europe the

response has been mixed. FIFA, the international organization governing soccer has

approved Field Turf, one of the newer brands, for all games, except for World Cup

tournaments. (The English governing body for soccer approves it for practice but not

for league games while the Scottish Premier League banned artificial turf for

competition matches in 2005.)

 

The trade association of natural turf providers claims that ground up tires are

hazardous and supports this claim by pointing out that tires are banned from many

landfills. But, in fact, the reasons tires are banned from landfills is that they are a

breeding ground for mosquitoes, create a risk for serious fires that are hard to

extinguish, and that tires are unstable in landfills.

 

Of course, just because turf is "natural" does not mean it is environmentally harmless.

Large amounts of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides are sometimes used to keep a

field in first class shape. Newton practices Integrated Pest Management, which

reduces the use of these products significantly, but maintaining the fields may still

require the use of materials that we would prefer to keep out of storm drains.

If gas or diesel powered machines are used for mowing, or to spread fertilizer, that

has environmental impact, as does the use of large quantities of water, usually

drinking quality, to keep the grass healthy.

 

It is most likely that, at end of life, the artificial turf may be too heavily soiled to be

economically recycled and will need to be disposed of in a landfill. This is where the

bulk of the material, the rubber, would have gone if not used for turf. But it is now in a

form much preferred by landfills to intact tires. The rubber will not be broken down by

microorganisms in the landfill or dissolved by water and will be there almost "forever",

like most of the inorganic materials that go into landfills today.

The existing playing field at Newton South High School, where there is interest in

using artificial turf, is large and not perfectly level.

 

It has bare spots, especially around the basketball court. It does become muddy in wet

weather. It is liberally covered with goose droppings. The geese use the area for

feeding. They dig in their beaks to extract worms and grubs. If the grass were

replaced by artificial turf, the geese would soon learn that there was nothing to eat in

the area.

 

This writer's opinion is that there are no heavy "environmental" issues involved, and

that the decision to use, or not use, artificial turf should be based on cost over (say) a

ten-year period. Suppliers claim a much longer life. It may be economical to use

artificial turf only in areas of heavy use like the basketball diamond.

 

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...

Hurricane man blows into town

By Lois Levin/ Special To The Tab

Those who braved the cold on Feb. 27 to hear MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel's
Environmental Speaker Series lecture at the Newton Library were captivated by his
clear presentation of complex scientific data from his climate modeling research.
Dr Emanuel's data shows that the intensity of
hurricanes in the Atlantic has grown dramatically -
doubled - in the past 30 years. This is due largely to
human activity. We have released enormous amounts
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by burning
oil and coal to create energy to power factories, heat
our homes and run our automobiles. We have
warmed the oceans, including the areas where
powerful storms are formed, and this translates
directly into more powerful hurricanes, with serious
consequences for coastal areas.
New England is highly vulnerable to hurricanes, which
have occurred at a remarkably steady rate for
centuries, averaging one every five years. As these
storms continue to grow more intense, they place us
at increasingly greater risk. Therefore, while we work
to address global warming, we must also empower
public agencies to plan for and cope with these
storms, which expose us to great physical danger and
financial risk. Insurance companies are already
refusing to provide coverage for storm damage in
many coastal areas.
The lecture, sponsored by the Green Decade Coaltion, will be aired on NewTV later
this spring.

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

Read More...

Frozen by uncertainty

By Eric Olson/ Special To The Tab

Global warming is upon us. Even the oil companies tell us so. BP, formerly known as
British Petroleum but now officially just "BP" (after spreading the rumor they wanted to
stand for "Beyond Petroleum") is running full-page ads in major newspapers
encouraging people to take the time to calculate their carbon footprint. The only
reason anyone would take the time is if they first believed there was some problem
with their carbon footprint, i.e., specifically carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas
formed whenever a fossil fuel is burned. Climate scientists have been fretting for a
couple of decades now that our species' emissions of billions of tons of CO2 per year
could warm up the planet, and both their models and their observations point clearly
now in that direction. So it is a great relief to see at least some of the major
beneficiaries of our carbon-intensive economy are finally encouraging consumers to
take note.

Let's say you do use the BP calculator or others like it to calculate your footprint. You
provide information on your household heating and air conditioning, your electricity
consumption, your mileage and miles driven, add in a plane trip or two, and don't
forget the hot water heater. What did you get? Between 15 and 20 tons per year? Are
you surprised that I guessed so close? It's not hard. Energy geeks all know that the
typical American house generates just over 13 tons annually, and we just add in 5 to
10 additional tons for transportation. Plane travel is especially costly by this measure.
Now what? This is the question of the decade. There is a great deal of uncertainty
about what if anything we can do on a personal level. Consider first the climate itself:
This is an unpredictable beast and has changed over the millennia all on its own.
There is a slim chance that it will either autocorrect (maybe more clouds will form and
will block the sun) or an act of God will save us at least temporarily (ash from large
volcanic eruptions also block the sun). A second rescue could come from our own
ingenuity: Surely we will come up with something - a cheap fuel from our own
garbage, cold fusion, vastly superior yet cheaper solar panels, etc. A third option is to
turn to the government and shout, "Make everyone suffer equally! Only then will I
accept sacrifice." Finally we could just be resigned to our fate. After all, maybe a
warmer world won't be so bad, really. We could just ride it out and send food to the
people suffering the worst consequences.

A hard-nosed economist, confronted with such uncertainty, might argue for a "wait but
watch closely" approach. If you act too soon, goes this reasoning, you may regret it
when some better option comes along. This sounds sensible, as does so much of
what economists say, but in light of the stakes involved (many species threatened with
extinction, 17% of the land area of Bangladesh to be lost with just a 1-meter rise in
sea level, hurricane intensity in the Atlantic up sharply over the past 30 years), a better
description of this response is "frozen by uncertainty". The deer-in-the-headlights
image comes to mind.

A middle ground is to do SOMETHING, even if it's small. Like get yourself down to
Swartz Hardware in Nonantum and check out their amazingly low prices on compact
fluorescent bulbs (full disclosure: I have no financial interest in that store). This could
be your Step One. Did you know that a single one of these twisty bulbs saves you
over $50 over its seven-year lifetime? Even if they still cost $10 they would be worth it,
but their cost is just a couple of bucks now, and the light quality has improved over
that of earlier versions.

As for Step Two, how about that $50 I just saved you, two lines back? Use that money
to support new renewable, clean electricity generation in New England. There's an
astonishing way to do this, and it gets your money multiplying all over the place.
Here's how it works: The government has already imposed a tiny clean power charge
on our utility bills. Look closely at your NStar bill and you'll see it. This money flows to
an entity called the Renewable Energy Trust Fund, which is charged with encouraging
new clean power (solar, wind, etc.) for the state. If you contribute $50 to support clean
power, the Trust fund will release an equivalent amount back to the City of Newton,
and the City has committed to spending this money on educational solar panel
displays on our public schools. (Oak Hill Middle School will be the first recipient, slated
for this summer.) Then the Trust releases a second $50 match, to support energy
efficiency projects in low-income housing in the state, wherever the need is greatest.
Finally, since this is a donation, you get a tax deduction for it, 100 percent of it. So you
can support new clean power, help put solar panels on a school, make a low-income
family a bit warmer next winter, get a tax deduction, and lo, it's free money to begin
with, because you bought the bulb at Swartz. Would you like to buy a second bulb?
To get going on this and join the growing throng of people voting with their pocket
books for renewable power, call the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance at 617-524-
3950 ext. 129, and ask to speak with Janna Cohen-Rosenthal. You may want to do
those other things - wait and watch closely, shout at the government, etc. - but the first
step is to crack through your own frozen uncertainty and support clean energy. One
lightbulb and one phone call at a time.

Eric J Olson, PhD, is Chairman of the Newton Citizens' Commission on Energy. He
teaches in the Sustainable International Development program, Heller School of
Social Policy & Management, Brandeis University.
This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

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...

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Learning Lessons From the Wind

Book Review by Eric J. Olson, PhD/ Special To The Tab

Book Review
Divine Wind, The Science and History of Hurricanes, by Kerry Emanuel, copyright 2005, Osford University Press.

If there is one must-learn phrase in Kerry Emanuel’s magnificent book it is this: hurricane amnesia. This is not what victims of hurricanes suffer after being struck by flying debris, this is the more widespread drift and denial that our seacoast culture slips into soon after the storm surge has receded and the insurance adjusters have written their reports. We stand witness to the tragedy of New Orleans--for now. We point fingers at the government--for now. We speculate on the role of global warming in all this, as if insanely powerful hurricanes were some new phenomenon on the scene. All of this diverts our attention from the real tough question, which is what should New Orleans become? And what about Florida, that vast low-lying peninsula with one of the higher growth rates of any state in the US? Do we really want to put so many families and dreams and treasure in harm’s way over and over again? This is the essence of hurricane amnesia: when a nation has such a profound attachment to place and growth and warm sandy beaches that we must forget just so we can move on. Addicts have their relatives as enablers, and we have…Uncle Sam’s flood insurance program?

Thankfully, Kerry Emanuel has written an antidote to hurricane amnesia, and in spite of his recent fame as herald of global warming (more on that below), his book also serves as a rebuttal to the notion that Katrina is retribution for the fact we’ve heated up the globe. What we get from Divine Wind is a very different image of these storms – one that we could relish if we would just pull our cities back from our subtropical coasts and watch the sea and the sun and swirling tropical air perform their ancient dance. People travel the world over to see a full eclipse of the sun or improve their look at a passing comet, why not be spectators (via satellite and pilotless planes) of the hurricane?

Here’s a pity of our modern age: we so dread these mighty winds we can’t enjoy them more. Dr. Emanuel shows the way, he is a storm-meister, a wind fanatic, a reveler in the power and the glory and the beauty of the hurricane. Read him -- you will be won over. Fond of literature? Interspersed throughout are poems, ballads, excerpts from The Tempest, snippets of great storm prose. Enjoy paintings? He has tracked down the world’s best storm-wracked work and here they are, rendered in superb color. Relish a good disaster tale? Every third or so chapter tells the story of one of the truly Great Storms of the past several centuries. Or perhaps you’re an engineer, or appreciate fine science writing? Dr. Emanuel the MIT professor patiently explains in words, with just a touch of algebra, how a hurricane is the closest thing nature offers to the ideal heat engine first described by Carnot. He even turns chaos theory into a human-interest story by telling the tale of its serendipitous discovery.
So great hurricanes have always been with us, and by building in their path we’re just asking for trouble. But there is something new, so new it’s scarcely mentioned in the book: humans are decisively fanning the flames that feed these storms. Dr. Emanuel was launched to fame this year on the basis of his August report in the prestigious journal Nature showing that hurricane intensity and duration are both increasing, in lock step with the warming of the oceans. Coming out just two weeks before Katrina, the report naturally led to a media surge on his office throughout the fall. That was when I first heard of him, interviewed on NPR, then again this January profiled in the NY Times. Sadly, the splendor of his book is lost in the intense focus on the conclusions of his Nature paper. But denial about climate change is perhaps even deeper than denial about hurricanes. Just maybe Kerry Emanuel will help us come to terms with both. We need more centrist scientists to come forward, now that the data are in. Here, listen: “There is no doubt that in the last 20 years, the earth has been warming up. And it's warming up much too fast to ascribe to any natural process we know about”. (Kerry Emanuel, NY Times, 10 January, 2006).

Hurricanes have indeed always been with us, they have always been born from hot tropical seas, and they have often slammed into land. But thanks to Dr. Emanuel we can all learn more about their savage beauty. And now he has shown us there is something new about them, that hurricane power in the Atlantic has more than doubled in the past 30 years. He and his colleagues are still working out how things could have gotten so much worse so fast, but Dr. Emanuel regretfully concludes that we humans are partly to blame. We warmed the seas, and that has changed the hurricane. Let’s not forget.

Eric Olson, PhD, Adjunct Professor of Ecology in the Sustainable International Development Program at the Heller School, Brandeis University, is Chair of the Energy Committee of the Green Decade Coalition.

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

Read More...

Keeping stormwater out of the Charles

By Anna Eleria / Special To The Tab

 

Stormwater pollution, also referred to as non-point source pollution, is one of the most significant sources of pollution of the Charles River today. CRWA is taking the lead in reducing it with a new volunteer program called the Charles River “Find It and Fix It”

Stormwater Program.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

Dave Kaplan, CRWA scientist, doing a Charles River shoreline survey in Newton

<![endif]-->For the next two and a half years with funding from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, the “Find It and Fix It” Program will recruit and train volunteers to assist in inspecting the river through visual surveying and water quality monitoring in order to identify areas in need of repair.  Their reports will direct CRWA scientists to areas with pressing problems and help pinpoint the areas needing further study or initiate immediate calls for action so that municipalities and landowners can fix the problems.

CRWA volunteers from Newton and other watershed communities will be conducting “shoreline surveys” or visual monitoring along a 45-mile river corridor from Farm Road in Sherborn to New Charles River Dam in Boston.  This spring, river surveyors will assess the river’

s baseline physical conditions and identify current or potential problems in the river, along its banks, and within the riverfront area.  Volunteers will survey by canoeing or walking a half to two-mile stretch of river looking for areas of environmental degradation, erosion, and non-point source pollution.  They will note the characteristics of the water, such as color, odor, and flow, in-stream and shoreline vegetation, nearby land use, and fisheries and wildlife habitat conditions.  They will photograph their survey area, and they will map and characterize stormwater pipes discharging to the river.

Finding every source of pollution is a big job.  The visual survey information will provide the basis for CRWA’

s next steps in dealing with stormwater pollution.  After compiling and reviewing this essential baseline data of river conditions, our staff will identify and prioritize the areas of most concern and determine the next steps for addressing problem areas, which may include water quality monitoring by CRWA. 

The water quality monitoring will allow us to focus on wet weather problems and specific sources of pollution, including stormwater pipes and other source-specific sampling locations areas, using a new set of ears, noses and eyes to pinpoint problems.  Pollutants of most concern in the urbanized Charles River watershed include- but are not limited to- bacteria and viruses from combined sewage, waterfowl waste and pet waste, sediment and sand from winter de-icing applications and erosion, gasoline and oil and grease from vehicles, fuel dispensing stations and vehicle maintenance stations, and nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from fertilizers, detergents and wastewater. 

The ‘fix it’

step of the program involves sharing the results of our shoreline survey and water quality monitoring work with municipalities and other responsible parties and working closely with them to develop specific remediation measures, such as removing illicit connections to stormwater pipes, reducing use of pollutant products or equipment that generate pollutants, implementing stormwater best management practices, educating the public about stormwater impacts to the river and recommending measures to reduce them.

CRWA’

s extensive monitoring efforts, including the volunteer monthly monitoring program, habitat assessments and fish studies, have shown that stormwater pollution causes degradation of water quality, wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreational uses and aesthetic beauty.  With help from a network of more than 70 volunteers, we monitor the health of the river on a monthly basis at 37 sites along the 80-mile long river. 

Our data indicate that the river’

s water quality is generally very good over its entire length when no rain falls prior to sampling. However, during and after a rain event, water quality conditions in the river degrade and the river violates the state bacterial standards for swimming and boating.  The problem is acute in Newton and other middle and lower watershed communities where urbanization and development invariably mean more impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings, streets, parking lots, driveways, etc.).  This causes rainwater to flow over paved surfaces, instead of recharging into the ground, picking up manmade pollutants before flowing into storm drains that discharge into the Charles River and other bodies of water.

“The Find It and Fix It”

program will get us one step closer to achieving our goal of a swimmable-fishable river.

Prospective volunteers should contact Pallavi Mande pmande@crwa.org, (781) 788-0007 x 232 or see www.charlesriver.org/projects/METwMyRWA/METFF.html. For tips on what you can do to keep the river clean, see www.crwa.org/projects/stormwater/bleedsmallbrochure%20FINAL.pdf

Anna Eleria, MS, CRWA Engineer, manages the “Find It and Fix It”

Program and the Charles River Targeted Watershed Initiative Projects

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

Read More...

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...

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...