SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (2702)9/14/2003 11:18:54 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36918
 
Aren't those wild looking?....broods of octopi....in a not so hospitable environment.....
that deep ocean stuff is just as incredible as any space exploration ideas...in fact considering they are and have been right here all along is amazing....like the giant worms surviving off super heated sulfur coming from within the earth
CC



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (2702)9/16/2003 12:24:31 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36918
 
We're poisoning ourselves and our children to keep them 'clean'.....
regular old DIRT IS GOOD FOR YOU compared to this chemical stew we've created
Even the Dust Is Toxic in Homes, Scientists Say
Many hormone-altering compounds contained in household products are found in indoor air. The findings
suggest that exposure is common.

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer

In the first comprehensive look at contaminants inside households, scientists
have found dozens of toxic chemicals in indoor air and dust, suggesting that
exposure to hormone-altering compounds is common in American homes.

The study of 120 homes in Cape Cod, Mass., discovered 67 compounds in
dust and air, dominated by chemicals found in plastics, detergents and
cosmetics such as nail polish, perfumes and hairsprays. Insecticides and flame
retardants used in foam furnishings were also commonplace.

The household sampling
is part of a decade-long
study of 2,100 women
that aims to determine
why Cape Cod has a
high prevalence of breast
cancer unexplained by
genetic factors.

Nine chemicals were
found in every house
tested — six phthalates,
found mostly in
cosmetics and hard
plastics, and three
alkylphenols, including
one used in detergents and cleaners.

The sampling, conducted by the Silent Spring Institute of Newton, Mass., and
Harvard University's School of Public Health, provides new information that
should help the government prioritize which compounds may pose a high risk.
However, because the compounds are ubiquitous in household products and
are rarely listed as ingredients, there is little that people can do to limit their exposure except to avoid
indoor pesticides.

The findings suggest that consumer products are a substantial route of exposure to chemicals that have
been shown to alter hormones in laboratory tests. But for most of them, including phthalates and
alkylphenols, little is known about what effects they have on human health or at what levels they pose a
risk.

Tests on animals and on human cells have demonstrated that some of the compounds, called endocrine
disruptors, mimic estrogen or block testosterone, which guide development of reproductive organs and
sexual characteristics, while others alter thyroid hormones, which control how the brain of a fetus
develops.

"This is a wake-up call," said Linda Birnbaum, chief of experimental toxicology at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. "These chemicals are all over, and are these things that we really
want all over? That's the question we have to address."

Tom McDonald, a scientist with California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said
that "this ambitious study demonstrates that we are exposed daily to a wide array of chemicals that
affect our hormone systems" and that it "provides new insights into the sources of exposure."

The results, published over the weekend in the online version of the journal Environmental Science &
Technology, are considered valuable because the sampling was done in residential neighborhoods, not
in areas with smokestack industries or farms where pollutants might be coming from outdoors.

"People spend most of their time indoors, and chemical concentrations build up indoors — so much so
that they typically exceed outdoor concentrations," said Ruthann Rudel, the study's lead investigator
and a senior toxicologist at the Silent Spring Institute. "A lot of [the chemicals found] seem to be
inescapable."

The researchers said there was no reason to believe that contaminants in Cape Cod homes would be
more prevalent than elsewhere in the country.

"It's very clear that these must be very common exposures," said Julia Brody, executive director of the
Silent Spring Institute, which specializes in women's environmental health issues.

The research shows that many chemicals break down slowly inside houses. For example, DDT, which
was banned 30 years ago, was found in dust in 65% of the homes, and the DDT levels were higher
than the levels of many of the pesticides still in use today.

The most prevalent pesticide found was permethrin, an active ingredient in many household insecticide
sprays.

The study did not determine whether people within the households were actually ingesting or inhaling
the chemicals from the dust and indoor air, but a previous study by the national Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention found many of the same chemicals inside the bodies of Americans.

"We're living in a soup," said Susan Teitelbaum, assistant professor of community and preventive
medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. "We're being exposed to all of these
chemicals through food, through contact with products, as well as things that settle in our home
environment. This study gives one piece of that whole exposure puzzle."

For 15 of the compounds detected, levels violating government health risk guidelines were found in
some homes. Among them was chlorpyrifos, a pesticide banned by the EPA three years ago for
residential use. But for 28 of the hormone-altering chemicals found, there are no government guidelines
for risk.

Women of child-bearing age and children are considered most at risk because exposure might obstruct
the sexual and neurological development of fetuses and young children. Some scientists suspect
endocrine disruptors may also raise the risk of hormonal diseases including testicular and breast cancer.

Many chemicals bind to dust that penetrates deep into rugs and cannot be removed by ordinary
vacuuming. The dust is particularly worrisome for small children, "who crawl around on the floor and
put everything in their mouths," said Birnbaum.

Tests show that male reproductive development is sensitive to the phthalates, which are found in
building materials, toys and plastic food containers.



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (2702)9/28/2003 4:34:53 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36918
 
The GOP.....Great Outdoor Polluters are at it once again!
GOP Seeks to Open Spill-Cleanup Funds to Polluters
By Elizabeth Shogren
Los Angeles Times

Friday 26 September 2003

The energy bill would be modified to let firms use tax money to help undo leak
damage from their underground tanks. Democrats object.

WASHINGTON - Abandoning long-running talks with Democrats, House Republicans plan to move
ahead with a proposal allowing more companies to tap federal funds to clean up spills of gasoline and
other petroleum products from underground storage tanks, members of Congress said Thursday.

The proposal has been debated for months in a House subcommittee but has not yet won approval,
with opponents saying the GOP version would allow polluters to evade financial responsibility for their
spills.

Now, the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (R-Ohio), is trying to add the measure to
the massive energy bill that already has passed the House and Senate, lawmakers and congressional
aides said. Gillmor is a member of the House-Senate conference committee revising the energy bill.

The measure would allow the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, made up of money
from a gasoline tax, to pay for cleanups if the cost would impair the operator's ability to stay in
business. It would also bar the federal government from seeking repayment from the owners for
cleanup costs.

A similar proposal approved by the Senate early this year drew complaints from Christie Whitman,
then head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who said it would violate the principle that polluters
must pay for cleanups. That principle was established by the 1980 Superfund law.

"This clause runs afoul of the long-standing 'polluter pays' principle" established by the 1980
Superfund law, Whitman said of the Senate provision in a March 7 letter to a House committee
chairman. She also said that the provision would "limit the agency's ability to recover even partial
costs" from a polluter's insurance company.

The House and Senate began work on the issue after the EPA and the General Accounting Office,
the investigatory arm of Congress, concluded that not enough has been done to repair and replace
leaky underground storage tanks, which can pollute drinking water with benzene, the gasoline additive
MTBE and other hazardous chemicals.

Lawmakers working to reconcile House and Senate versions of the energy bill have not yet agreed
to include Gillmor's proposal, said Marnie Funk, spokeswoman for the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. But several House aides and an industry lobbyist said it likely would be
included.

The EPA regulates nearly 700,000 storage tanks, most containing petroleum, on 265,000
properties throughout the country. As of a year ago, more than 427,000 leaks from those tanks had
been confirmed and more than 284,000 contaminated sites had been cleaned up over the previous
decade, according to the EPA.

Gillmor said he could not imagine why Democrats would oppose the cleanup measure.

"Let's say you have a site where whoever polluted it doesn't have the money to clean it up. If you
don't pay for [the cleanup] out of the fund, it doesn't get cleaned up, and that's not very good for the
environment," said Gillmor, who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's
subcommittee on environment and hazardous materials. "It's not getting rid of the general principle of
polluter pays."

The measure would also encourage operators to voluntarily seek training to help avoid mistakes
that result in leaks, send more of the trust fund to the states for the cleanups and establish a new
timetable for states to inspect storage tanks, the House aides and lobbyist said. It would also hold
companies liable for delivering gasoline to a tank that they know is leaking or broken, they said.

But Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-El Monte), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said that the
proposal would allow companies with means to pay to avoid accountability for polluting.

"I'm quite disappointed with the Republicans," Solis said. "They want to change the rules and say
that a big polluter doesn't have to pay back the trust fund."

Solis said she was worried that the trust fund, which now has $2 billion, would quickly be depleted.
She also complained that the measure had been drafted behind closed doors.

Solis said that the fate of the measure is especially important in California because of its problems
with MTBE contamination.

The measure would also encourage operators to seek training to help avoid mistakes that result in
leaks, send more of the trust fund to the states for the cleanups and establish a new timetable for
states to inspect storage tanks, the House aides and lobbyist said.

CC