We've known for a long time that bisphenol-A (BPA) is bad for us. Study after study shows the ill-effects of this widely-used industrial chemical on our bodies--and in particular, on developing babies' bodies. The list is pretty sobering: BPA’s been linked to breast cancer in women, brain damage in children, obesity, heart disease, diabetes...

Two new studies add to the litany:

One study suggests that BPA, may cause sexual dysfunction in men. Another study, reported in Science News, links BPA exposures in early pregnancy to more aggressive behavior in 2-year old girls and more anxious and withdrawn 2-year old boys.

How do we get exposed to BPA? It's most often been associated with plastics. BPA is an endocrine disrupter that can mimic human hormones and it's found in a variety of plastic products including baby bottles, plastic containers, dental sealants and the lining of cans used for food and beverages. All that is alarming enough (baby bottles, for God's sake!!) An unlikely new culprit for BPA exposure may be cash register and credit card receipts!

We gave up our Nalgene bottles, we stocked up on BPA-free baby bottles, we avoid canned foods. But how do we avoid cash register receipts!?

First, more about the new studies:

A five-year study, conducted by Kaiser Permanente and funded by the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, followed 634 factory workers in China and found that those working in BPA manufacturing facilities had four times the risk of erectile dysfunction and seven times the risk of ejaculation difficulty as those in a control group where no BPA was present.Previous studies have found that BPA interferes with male sexual function in mice and rats, but this was the first study to look specifically at the effect on humans.

The other new study, of 249 women and their babies, beginning early in their pregnancies, has linked prenatal exposure to BPA with subtle (but scary), gender-specific alterations in behavior among 2-year-olds. "Girls whose mothers had encountered the most BPA early in pregnancy tended to become somewhat more aggressive than normal. Boys became more anxious and withdrawn." There's no way to know whether these behaviors will persist, but test rodents' BPA-caused aggression and hyperactivity does, leaving researchers to believe the effects might be lasting.

More than 99 percent of the women tested positive for BPA. The higher the BPA levels during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, the more likely her child was to show atypical behavior later. (After 16 weeks, the link went away).

The amount of BPA used in the United States is equivalent to six pounds per person per year. Infants fed with liquid formula are among the most exposed, and those fed formula from polycarbonate bottles can consume up to 13 micrograms of bisphenol-A per kg of body weight per day. (Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.)

The Consumer Reports magazine published a analysis of BPA content in some canned foods and beverages, where in specific cases the content of a single can of food could exceed the current FDA Cumulative Exposure Daily Intake. (The canned organic foods we tested did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. We even found the chemical in some products in cans that were labeled "BPA-free.")

Consumer groups recommend that people wishing to lower their exposure to bisphenol A avoid canned food and polycarbonate plastic containers. The National Toxicology Panel recommends avoiding microwaving food in plastic containers, putting plastics in the dishwasher, or using harsh detergents, to avoid leaching.

But what about paper products like receipts? They're everywhere!

Apparently, BPA isn't found in every receipt paper on the market, but the ones that have it look exactly the same as those that don't. And the amount receipts carry isn’t trivial.

According to chemist John C. Warner who co-founded the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, an organization that works with industry to develop safer products and production processes, “When people talk about polycarbonate bottles, they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [leaching out]. The average cash register receipt that's out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA.” By free, he means that it’s not bound into a polymer, like the BPA in plastics, so it’s just the individual molecules "loose and ready for uptake."

Warner hasn't published his findings or run a full-fledged study. His angle is to work from the inside, finding viable industry substitutions for toxics. But he is pretty sure that BPA from receipts can be easily transferred from our hands to our food and into our mouths. It's likely that we can also absorb it through our skin.

So, what do we do? There are efforts underway to implement bans on BPA. Some jurisdictions have successfully done so—including Connecticut, Minnesota, and several cities and counties around the country. Opposition from chemical companies and Wal-Mart blocked the Safe Baby Bottle Act of 2009 from becoming law this year in Washington State—a reasonable law that would have prevented use of BPA in baby bottles--the last place they belong. Canada banned BPA in all baby bottles in 2008. An attempt at federal legislation to eliminate BPA in the United States, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act, will likely come up for consideration in 2010. It's hard to see why we wouldn't fight for these measures and just how policy makers can get away with further delay.

At the very least, I'd like to know where BPA lurks. Why can't we demand proper labeling of any and all products that contain BPA at their point of sale—or in the case of receipts, at the cash register?

At least pregnant women like me would know to wash their hands after picking up a BPA-laced receipt—instead of reusing it for my grocery list like I usually do or filling my wallet with a pile of old ones and carrying them around for weeks. And we’d all know to keep such paper out of hands of kids.

It's my usual refrain, but it might take an army of fed up parents to push any kind of serious BPA legislation through. Yet again, it's our bodies and our kids' long-term mental and physical health vs. harmful industry practices. I'm new to the mom thing, but I'd think that any reasonable person would agree that the decisions we make as a community should put our bodies and our kids first.

Images courtesy: BadrNaseem and functoruser, Flickr.com.

This post originally appeared at Sightline's Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

What is the greenest way to dispose of pet waste? Scoop and flush, or bag and throw in the trash?

Jenifer M.
Vienna

A. Dearest Jenifer,

Flush or toss?The greenest way to dispose of pet waste is to dispose of your pet, I suppose. No pet, no waste! But barring that revolutionary scheme, a few other options present themselves.

You have not said what kind of pet you have, but judging by your reference to scooping, I am going to assume it is a cat. The time-tested advice for felines is to bag and throw away the soiled litter, including poo. If you are on a municipal sewer line, you may be able to flush the feces, but you should check with your town; if you have a septic tank, it's not advised. By the way, when you choose kitty litter, don't buy a brand that contains clay -- you might want to consult our product tester for the best non-clay options.

If you are scooping the waste of a dog or other animal, the same truth applies: bagging is best. It's gross to think about all that pet waste rotting in landfills, but it's a teeny bit less gross than imagining it seeping into our waterways or contaminating our gardens with its pathogens. (Some people compost pet waste, but it must be done very, very carefully -- here are some tips.)

Of course, we hear occasionally about efforts to turn pet poop into power -- I fur-vently hope "they" keep working on this idea, and I'm also very glad that is not my line of work.

Ferretly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I hear a lot about clean coal technology. Is it true that we can use coal in a "clean" way? I don't believe it. Can you please explain this?

Anand
Manhattan

A. Dearest Anand,

You know the expression "go with your gut"? Methinks you should. You don't believe coal can be used in a clean way, and you are right.

It is accurate, however, to say that coal can be used in a cleaner way than it traditionally has. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and others point out that, since coal is abundant, relatively cheap, and unlikely to disappear from our energy mix any time soon, we should find cleaner ways of feeding our addiction. These include turning coal into a gas before burning it, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions. Here's a fun and colorful clean-coal overview from the BBC.

Will these "cleaner" methods prevent coal from harming our health and polluting our air and water? Will they stop coal companies from blowing the tops off of mountains? Will they keep miners from being trapped and killed underground? Not likely. There's a reason my fellow Grist writer David Roberts calls coal the "enemy of the human race." It is an outmoded, dangerous source of power. We should all lobby our utilities and our representatives to give us better, safer, healthier options.

I wrote a bit more about the clean-coal conundrum last year; you can find my answer here. I also recommend you swing on over to the Department of Energy to get a sense of their plans, and visit iLoveMountains.org for a real, human understanding of where coal actually comes from.

Sequesterly,
Umbra

Q. Hi Umbra,

I am a college student and I'm really involved in and passionate about making my university more sustainable. One of the issues that I am trying to address is our current disposal of mattresses. Every year, my university "disposes" of 1,200 mattresses by incinerating them for energy (people think this is awesome and sustainable -- I wish I was kidding). So, I have been spending endless nights researching a safer alternative for this herd of mattresses. I can't recycle them because it's too damn expensive (about $20,000/yr). I can't donate them because they are ripped and flat -- who wants a holey pancake mattress? I can't Freecycle them because bedbugs are a huge issue in my area and I don't think I can find 1,200 people who want college student mattresses (think about what you did on your mattress back in the day...). So I am asking, I am BEGGING, you for help!

Mattress Maiden
Boston, Mass.

A. Dearest MM,

What I did on my mattress back in the day ... let's see, I slept on it. I read a lot of Aldo Leopold. I sorted my collection of fallen leaves by size and hue. What do you do on your mattress?

Never mind. The real question is, why is it so hard to dispose of mattresses in this country? I'm afraid, dear MM, you have outlined exactly the problem: Mattresses can rarely be donated, especially as bedbug concerns (real or imagined) increase. They take up too much space in landfills, so much in fact that some municipalities will no longer accept them. And though recycling programs are cropping up, they are few, far between, and can be fiscally frustrating.

Still, I think recycling is the best bet. Interestingly, Massachusetts is home to one of the nation's few mattress recyclers, and another outfit is venturing into New England soon. It's amazing what happens to your mattress: the wood is chipped for energy, the steel springs recycled, the cotton and foam used for insulation or other textile needs. I'm not sure which of the many fine Beantown schools you attend, but I see that Tufts and MIT both recycle mattresses. Those schools are dealing with a much smaller quantity than you mention, but you might contact them to find out how they've sprung over any obstacles. (You might also see if your school is retiring too many mattresses too soon.)

Another possible resource: Some schools rely on the help of the Institutional Recycling Network -- you might contact them as well, if you haven't already.

Above all else, it seems to me that the burning of these mattresses is a misguided plan. For one thing, mattresses are treated with chemicals to make them resistant to fire -- so once they are coaxed to go up in smoke, they likely release all sorts of nasty fumes. That's way more squirm-inducing than thinking about the damages that might have resulted from certain collegiate activities.

Stain removerly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Pollution from coal is not only unhealthy for the environment -- it also hurts the human body and contributes to four of the five leading causes of death in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic respiratory disease.

So concludes a new assessment of coal's health effects from Physicians for Social Responsibility. Titled "Coal's Assault on Human Health," the report examines the cumulative harm that coal pollution inflicts on the respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems. It also considers coal's contribution to global warming and the health implications of that.

"Detrimental health effects are associated with every aspect of coal's life cycle, including mining, hauling, preparation at the power plant, combustion, and the disposal of post-combustion wastes," the introduction states.

The report examines that entire life cycle, from the high fatal injury rate and chronic health problems suffered by coal miners, to the dust and water pollution that mining inflicts on nearby communities, to how the health-damaging chemicals used in washing coal make their way into water supplies. It also accounts for the enormous amount of pollution emitted by the trucks and trains that haul coal, and the threat presented by the more than 500 coal ash dumps sites across the United States.

It finds that the burning phase of coal's life-cycle takes the greatest toll of all on human health:

Coal combustion releases a combination of toxic chemicals into the environment and contributes significantly to global warming. Coal combustion releases sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides, mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. Coal combustion contributes to smog through the release of oxides of nitrogen, which react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to produce ground-level ozone, the primary ingredient in smog.

The report's findings have important implications for the public health future of the United States in general -- and the South in particular. According to the Sierra Club's database on proposed new coal plants, there are a total of 55 active coal plant projects underway in the U.S., and almost half of those -- 27 in all -- are slated for Southern states*:

* 2 in Arkansas (Hempstead and Plum Point II);
* 1 in Florida (Seminole);
* 2 in Georgia (Longleaf and Washington County Power Station);
* 8 in Kentucky (Black Stallion, Cash Creek, Coal Synthetics, Estill County Energy Partners, NewGas Energy Center, Smith, Spurlock, Trimble);
* 2 in Louisiana (Big Cajun I and Big Cajun II Unit 4);
* 1 in Mississippi (Mississippi Power Kemper IGCC);
* 1 in North Carolina (Cliffside);
* 7 in Texas (Coleto Creek, Diamond Alternative Energy, Las Brisas, Limestone III, Sandy Creek, Tenaska and White Stallion);
* 2 in Virginia (Dominion and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative); and
* 1 in West Virginia (TransGas Development's Coal-to-Liquid Plant).

These plants should not be built, according to PSR. In fact, the report's policy recommendations call for no new construction of coal-fired power plants so as to avoid increasing health-endangering emissions of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants.

The report also calls for cutting carbon dioxide emissions "as deeply and as swiftly as possible" through legislation establishing hard caps on global warming pollution and through the Clean Air Act. And it urges the U.S. to develop its capacity to generate electricity from clean, safe and renewable sources so existing coal-fired plants can be phased out without a net loss of jobs or compromising the nation's energy supply.

"These steps compromise a medically defensible energy policy: one that takes into account the public health impacts of coal while meeting our need for energy," PSR concludes.

* Facing South counts among the Southern states AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA and WV.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South.)

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Q. Dear Umbra,

Municipal and individual composting operations are gaining steam nationwide. Some obvious benefits include space-saving in landfills, and cheaper and (hopefully) "greener" fertilizer. While I am an avid supporter of composting, I am curious if municipalities with composting facilities could see decreased decomposition rates in their landfills. Do yard and plant scraps even play an integral role in landfill decomposition? Thank you.

Todd
Vancouver

A. Dearest Todd,

Give thanks -- then compost!Since this is Thanksgiving week here in the U.S., a time when we are at our most gluttonous, composting is a timely issue. In fact, I'm putting together a video with tips for getting started -- keep an eye out for it.

In the meantime, your question is an interesting one. Are yard and food scraps the key to quicker decomposition in landfills? The answer is no. In fact, such organic waste is the bane of a landfill operator's existence; it takes up a quarter of the space and is a major source of methane, a greenhouse gas that's twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Paper is also a problem: it's another major source of methane, and accounts for about a third of our municipal solid waste.

This is why composting and recycling are so important. Here in the U.S., we are better about "recovering" paper and yard waste than food waste: In 2007, according to the EPA, we recycled 54 percent of our paper and composted 62 percent of yard waste. When it comes to food waste, however, we compost only about 2-3 percent. In fact, we flat-out throw away more than 25 percent of the food we buy. Pigs.

Composting, as you say, frees up space and creates a nice rich fertilizer. Because it reduces methane, it's also a tool in the climate fight. In short, it's a win all around, and we'd be turkeys not to participate.

Caruncly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

We typically try to minimize the impact of our buying decisions. We carefully considered buying some Thai mats, handcrafted by a family the shopkeeper knows. Then she told us that all textiles and furniture, whether organic or not, are all fumigated with methyl bromide before entering the States. It seems no one is talking about this issue -- is it a problem? Are my mats messed up? What about all the cool hemp clothing, is it all contaminated?

(m)Ethyl M.
San Francisco, Calif.

A. Dearest (m)Ethyl,

This here is one of those good news, bad news situations. The good news is, methyl bromide has been banned under the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that seeks to stop the destruction of the ozone layer. The bad news is, the U.S. keeps getting exemptions that allow it to continue spraying the stuff, though it uses far less than in the past.

Methyl bromide, used primarily as a soil fumigant and on food imports, is toxic and will, as the EPA delicately puts it, "affect not only the target pests it is used against, but non-target organisms as well." That's us! The greatest danger, the agency says, is at the fumigation site itself. After that, the stuff wafts up and gets busy eating ozone.

I cannot say for sure whether your Thai mats and hemp pants have been sprayed with methyl bromide or one of the "safer" alternatives, because imports are subject to a labyrinth of federal regulations that depends upon where they come from, what they're made of, and whether the inspector got a good night's sleep. Sometimes a visual inspection is enough, and finished products are often treated less suspiciously than raw materials. I can tell you that the good people at the Pesticide Action Network are doing consistent, thorough, obsessive work on this topic, and you should definitely check them out.

Phytosanitarily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am planning to reuse my boyfriend's old melamine chest of drawers for our baby's nursery. But since it's a bit low, I would like to build an additional module on top of it to make a changing table of the correct height. My in-laws are currently remodeling their kitchen and have dozens of cabinets I could reuse to build the changing table top. Now I know melamine and particleboard are evil, but is older melamine OK? If their kitchen cabinets are 20 years old, can we assume they have already off-gassed most or all of the formaldehyde they had to off-gas? It makes no sense to throw it all out in the garbage!

Raphaëlle
Montréal

A. Dearest Raphaëlle,

Congratulations on your impending arrival and your commitment to reuse. I can tell already that you are going to raise a wise child.

You're right that melamine, which combines with formaldehyde to make the plastic resin we know, is -- well, tricky, if not outright evil. For a long time it was hailed as the key to a sort of miracle plastic, even an eco-friendly-ish choice, and then it got into our pet food and our baby formula and some of our Halloween candy and it started to seem dangerous and creepy. And then we realized that, like any plastic, melamine could leach chemicals when heated -- in the microwave, for instance. More creepy.

Having said all that, however, I think your particular reuse is a fine idea. We know that you and your boyfriend and your baby are not going to heat or eat the chest of drawers. You are relieving your in-laws, and your landfill, of at least some of the waste from their kitchen-remodeling project. And you are being crafty! Any offgassing should have happened long ago -- it is generally most intense in the first year, and dwindles from there. I say go forth and modul-ify -- and let me know how it goes.

Awwwwly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've taken to washing my hair less and less often to keep it from drying out. Since I've switched to the "no-'poo" method (baking soda followed by a vinegar rinse) it stays cleaner longer. However, I still take a shower (brief and lukewarm) most days. To keep my curly hair from becoming totally frizzy in the humidity of the shower, I typically cover it with a shower cap. My current cap is wearing out and I'm going to need a new one soon -- but your simple rule of "no vinyl and that's final!" keeps resounding in my head. Every shower cap I've seen is made of vinyl, except for those cheap plastic ones in hotel rooms. What's a girl to do?

Curly Girl
Pittsburgh, Penn.

A. Dearest Curly Girl,

Or a nice felt hat always does the trick.Have you ever noticed that the hair is always greener on the other side of the fence? I know straight-haired gals who would kill to have your tress-related troubles, and I imagine there are days when you wouldn't mind a mane that's a bit more manageable.

I commend you on your shift away from conventional beauty products, which are so often toxic, and on your commitment to a vinyl-free lifestyle. How cockle-warming to see my message sinking in!

I've done a bit of scouring on your behalf, and I think I've found a couple of possible solutions, though they may be difficult to track down. You're certainly right that vinyl is the most common, but I also came across caps made from other, marginally better materials, including nylon and polypropylene. But here is my big discovery: cotton and silk! It seems counterintuitive, but according to reliable sources, these are lovely materials for shower caps. You can buy cute patterned varieties from various places online, with a little looking. Of course, cotton and silk have their own eco-impacts -- so, dearest readers, one of you should create an organic-cotton shower-cap business, stat.

I suppose your other option might be to ... wear a plastic grocery bag over your hair, securing it with clips or a headband? An ingenious reuse for a pesky object.

Tangly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I started a green team at my office and one of our initiatives is reducing energy consumption. The team had recommended turning off the computers at night and when not in use. Seems logical, right? Well, the IT department denied our efforts and recommends keeping computers on 24/7. I'm horrified! The rationale is that turning on and off your computer changes the internal temperature of the equipment and adds to the wear and tear. I need some data to back up our green claim that it is better and safe to shut down the computers. Can you please help?

Nervously awaiting,
Jennifer

A. Dearest Jennifer,

Little-known fact: I actually keep my computer turned off 24 hours a day. I just peek at my inbox over my editor's shoulder, scribble my answers on recycled paper, and make her type them in. Saves boatloads of energy.

Congratulations on the formation of your green team, and condolences on the fact that you have already been strongarmed. I suspect it will not be the last time, as earnest eco-efforts are not always welcomed by those whose habits and patterns they affect.

There are two answers to your question, as far as I see it: a factual one and a philosophical one. The factual answer is, reputable sources including the U.S. Department of Energy say it is A-OK to turn your computer off at night, and that the various "wear and tear" arguments are no longer accurate. (Here is a fact sheet from the Oregon DEQ that, while a bit dated, cites many useful resources you might peruse.) The philosophical answer is, don't ever, ever, ever alienate your IT department. Even for the sake of saving the planet.

I think there may be some middle ground here: more and more computers have a "hibernate" function, which is similar to a sleep function but even, well, sleepier. Talk to your IT people to find out if there's a way to send all the computers happily into hibernation at the end of the day. Yes, they will still use a bit of energy, but far less than if they were left in full on mode, humming along. Other key things to do: turn off your monitor whenever you won't be using it for 15 to 20 minutes. And remember that a screen saver is not an energy-saver; in fact, most screen savers are energy hogs.

Now go buy the IT guys some cookies, and keep up the good work.

RAMly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am so utterly sick of getting junk mail, is there anything we can do to stop it? In the age of the internet spam, is it really so impossible to just outlaw it? I can swallow deleting junkmail, but I can't swallow how much of it has to be tossed.

Carey S.
Missoula, Mont.

A. Dearest Carey,

In a sense, old-fashioned junk mail is less offensive than spam. After all, when was the last time an envelope arrived at your house promising to enlarge your manhood or sell you cheap Rolex watches?

On the other hand, the sheer mass of junk mail is offensive indeed: each of us in the U.S. receives about 560 pieces a year, according to Co-op America, and all that "direct mail" (that's the nice name for it) adds up to the equivalent of more than 100 million trees. While the bad economy has led to a steep decline in junk mail sent this year, "they" predict a comeback; real mail is still considered more effective for advertising than e-mail, which is too easy to delete.

The good news is, there are steps you can take to slow the stream of junk mail to your home. First of all, avoid entering contests, filling out warranties, and giving your address on forms -- if you must do so, write "do not rent or sell my information" alongside. Go to the Direct Marketing Assocation site to register your preferences, or use a service such as 41pounds.org (which charges $41 for five years of mail stoppage, but promises a more thorough excavation than DMA). To reduce the catalogues that come (and 'tis the season, 'tisn't it?), visit Catalog Choice or contact merchandisers directly. To be removed from the list for credit card offers, call 888-5-OPTOUT. And if you're a business, see this list of tips for junk-mail reduction from our friends here in King County, Washington.

As for outlawing junk mail entirely, it seems unlikely to happen. And various efforts to create a federal "Do Not Mail" list along the lines of the "Do Not Call" list haven't led to much (except for a suspicious industry-led imitation). If you're feeling feisty, and you believe in online petitions, you can sign this petition urging Congress to take action. Otherwise, take the steps above -- and recycle, recycle, recycle.

Papercutly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Seventh GenerationAt first blush, one’s enthusiasm for the Million Baby Crawl would seem to depend largely upon three things: 1) enthusiasm for babies, real and animated; 2) a penchant for baby-related puns (we’re going to rattle Congress!); and 3) interest in frittering away time on the interwebs.

But that does a disservice to the intention behind this effort, which is to rally support for reform of the nation’s chemical policies. You don’t have to have babies—or even wuv them!—to want the feds to better regulate the toxics that find their way into our homes and bodies.

The facts are out there, and they are not cuddly-wuddly:

Scary stuff, and you can read much more about it, as well as the push for reform, on the Environmental Working Group site.

Erin Brockovich lends her star power to the launch of the Million Baby Crawl.So the Crawl has commenced. A creative spin on the traditional online petition, it finds legendary green-products manufacturer Seventh Generation partnering with consumer-rights advocate Erin Brockovich, eco-pediatrician Alan Greene, and a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Visitors can “create a crawler” (again, you don’t have to have a baby, or ever have had a baby, or ever have thought about having a baby, to participate) or “find a crawler” by zip code or name. The goal, say organizers, is to deliver (ha! deliver!) the signatures to Congress in January—so far they’re at 12,160 and counting.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am worried that your hotness may be contributing to global warming. I'm not sure what can be done to fix this.

O Zone

A. Dearest O,

You are making me blush. But I am using your letter as a springboard to report some exciting news: In an effort to make my operations more energy-efficient, I am combining my previous twice-weekly column into one weekly, multi-question column. Experts say the shift will result in 26 fewer milligrams of carbon emitted each week. I'll also be popping up in other places on Grist during the week now, and asking you dearest readers for more input. So keep the questions, suggestions, and blush-inducing compliments coming -- we'll lick this climate thing yet.

Efficiently,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

What is the most effective thing each of us can do over the next six weeks to help stop global warming?

Ned T.
Columbia, Md.

A. Dearest Ned,

I assume your six-week timeframe is pinned on the Copenhagen climate conference, to which we are all looking with bright eyes and big hopes. My advice for the interim is two-pronged: first, pledge to make one change in your own life that will reduce your energy use. Because I'm getting in the holiday spirit, I'll even say changing one light bulb counts, though I'd like to see you take some bigger steps as well. Second, but only because I couldn't blurt both ideas at once: Contact your representatives and senators. Tell them you support the passage of strong climate legislation, and tell them Obama would be insane not to go to Copenhagen. Tell them if they don't do something about climate change immediately, you are going to distribute photographs of them in compromising positions. We all know you don't possess any such photographs, but that sort of threat will always send a shiver down a politician's spine. When it comes to the climate crisis, we are no longer above such maneuvers.

Shiveringly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do you have any recommendations on how to make the annual corporate 'gift basket' sustainable, yet memorable?

Erin K.
Portland, Ore.

A. Dearest Erin,

Want not, waste not.Good for you for thinking about how to make this consumption-y tradition more sustainable. The obvious choice, of course, would be to forgo the gift basket entirely. Can you get away with that at your company? Why not send your supporters and customers a gift certificate for a nice meal, instead, or donate to a worthy non-profit organization in their name. It seems to me that, in an age when 83 percent of people report receiving gifts they don't want, the corporate gift basket has run its course. However, if you absolutely must dole out tangible items, see if you can draw any inspiration from our list of creative green gift basket ideas. If all else fails and a more traditional basket is required, make sure you are thoughtful about choosing local, sustainable products. You live in a land of good cheese, beer, and wine, so it shouldn't be hard.

Scroogily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Can I recycle my receipts? I'm worried that the type of paper they're printed on will contaminate the regular paper I'm recycling.

BadRabbit
Richmond, Va.

A. Dearest Bad,

What a good question as we approach Holiday Shopping Madness. I can say with nearly 100 percent confidence that you cannot recycle your receipts -- at least, those printed on thermal paper, which is the sort of shiny, sheeny paper that faxes used to arrive on. (Remember faxes?) However, as with all such "can I recycle this or that" questions, I'll advise you to doublecheck with your municipality. Two more things on the receipt front, one creepy, one promising. The creepy one is that some receipts are coated with BPA, the estrogen-mimicking chemical found in baby bottles and can linings. At present, the best advice for avoiding this form of BPA exposure seems to be to decline receipts when you can, and wash your hands after handling them when you can't. Now for the more promising news: I've been hearing about a business model in which you, the customer, can associate your debit card with an e-mail account and request digital receipts, so instead of ending up with a pocket full of non-recyclable thermal paper, you end up with an inbox full instead. Many people seem to be trying this notion, but I have not located one good, central resource that's figured out how to get it up and running -- readers, any insights?

Totally,
Umbra

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

The Localization of Agriculture

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Dear Lou,

I heard a rumor that honey is toxic when placed in hot water. Is that true? Doesn't the whole world drink honey in hot tea? Also wondering about the harvesting of honey -- is it harmful to the bees and their sustainability?

Honey Lover from Vermont

Dearest Honey Lover from Vermont,

I didn't find any convincing studies on the toxicity of honey in water, but I did find this most interesting quote through an Internet search on the topic:

Who knew honey could be so versatile?

For a more credible answer to your question, I rang up Ross Conrad, a fellow Vermonter and author of Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture. He said the suggestion that honey becomes toxic in hot water is really not accurate.

"The idea is that heat destroys enzymes. And basically any time you are going to heat honey the enzymes are going to get destroyed and as a result dilute a lot of the medicinal value of the honey. Raw and unfiltered honey has incredible antibacterial and antifungal properties. It's very, very healing in many ways."

That said, there's no evidence that heat-treated honey is actually toxic.

As for whether the whole world drinks honey in hot tea, I have no idea, but it's certainly my favorite sore throat soother: mix honey with lemon, herbal tea and a couple jiggers of whisky and you'll soon swallow with ease. (If you want a "basty," recipe you're on your own).

Speaking of the whole world, you've probably heard that our honeybees are disappearing. Forget Halloween, this is scary, because without them humankind is in for a big basty. Honeybees act as pollinators for many agricultural crops and are necessary for all of us to have something to eat. But due to colony collapse disorder, our striped friends are dying. There are many factors that lead to colony collapse disorder, but pesticides and industrial chemicals are thought to be key players. Unsustainable beekeeping practices can also play a role, and this is where your final question comes in.

If honey harvesting isn't done correctly, it can harm bees. Beekeeping, says Conrad, is like any other form of farming -- some ways are more sustainable than others.

"People who are managing their bees in a natural, organic fashion are only going to take the excess honey that the bees collect," he told me. Short of taking all of their honey and making survival impossible, there are other bad things beekeepers can do. "A non-sustainable way [to keep bees] would be to take too much and try to feed them back sugar or corn syrup." One can only imagine what kind of effect HFCS or other substances might have on bees.

In addition to poor harvesting methods, there are other honey production practices to worry about. Some beekeepers treat their bees against mites with toxic chemicals and antibiotics on a regular basis. This adds to the pesticide load bees are already carrying. Last year, researchers were shocked by the pesticide levels found in hives.

While you'd think buying organic honey might be the answer, truly organic honey is a rare find. Conrad told me that while it's not so difficult to manage hives organically, making organic honey is hard because bees can fly to non-organic places and pick up pesticides.

"The hard part is finding a location that is going to be four or five miles from any crops that are sprayed or grown with artificial fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, fungicides or any of that," he said. "That means five miles in any direction."

For more information about organic honey, check out this rather skeptical article.

To find a beekeeper who is using best practices, buy your honey locally at a farmers market or a farm stand. Talk to your local beekeepers about how they manage their hives.

"Or get your own bees. That would be ideal. We need more beekeepers," says Conrad.

If you want to spread a little kindness to bees, Conrad advises avoiding chemicals in your daily life as much as possible and grabbing your garden gloves. By removing the monoculture known as your lawn and making a nice habitat for wildflowers, you'll provide fodder for lots of natural pollinators, not just bees.

For more information about supporting bees, check out this sweet, funny video of Grist's own Umbra Fisk taking it to the streets for bees.

In sum: Cool your cuppa chamomile before adding honey; find a local beekeeper; and, finally, make life nice for some bees. Because with friends like us, they don't need enemas.

Er, enemies.

Lou

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Hi Umbra,

Do you have any suggestions for an environmentally friendly Halloween treat, and something that parents won't worry about?

Thanks,
Kim W.
Ann Arbor, Mich.

A. Dearest Kim,

Or there's the ever-popular "hot mama Earth" costume.Grist TVWe've said lots about Halloween over the years, but there's always more to say. Which is why I dug your letter out of the e-mail archives to suit my needs. Will my ghoulish charm convince you to overlook that haunting maneuver? This year, I've found a new list of non-food items for trick-or-treaters, and I'm ready for the 2009 Climate Change Costume Closet.

I have made alterna-candy suggestions before, and now I've discovered the Green Halloween non-food treat list, which includes basic but brilliant ideas such as acorns, Band-Aids, polished rocks, and whistles (and also strange things such as recycled glass tiles). We also have a handy how-to guide to greening the rest of the holiday, and of course costume suggestions by moi.

This year's costume suggestions focus less on witty and sexy (yep, that CFL costume got us all some action) in order to reflect the seriousness of the climate situation and, perhaps more important, remind people that there is a climate situation. In all fairness, I do feel that the Health Care Debate offers richer costume possibilities than the Climate Debate. But Tea Party activists and a rabid Fox are good costumes that can lead to conversations about either hot political topic.

Here are my as usual brilliant ideas (some supplied by friends and family), sure to offer all of us a brief chance for informative conversation with a baffled co-Halloweener. You know, like a more-likely-to-occur elevator pitch.

High Albedo: A shiny, shiny costume, which could integrate silver lame, a silver umbrella, silver boots, a space blanket, or all white items along the same lines. When they ask what you are, you say something along the lines of, "I'm albedo, you know, highly reflective like the melting ice caps." You may want to research and rehearse your response to make it less awful than that.

Kerry-Boxer: Just you and a friend dressed up like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer -- or you dressed up like John Kerry wearing boxing gloves -- armed with talking points about why your Senate Climate bill is important. This costume will work best if -- well, if you can look like the two of them, first of all, but also if you are able to inhabit your role and take on a politician's earnest enthusiasm. Then, you'll be able to trap your questioner with a barrage of helpful information about the vital importance of an effective climate bill. Say their name repeatedly and touch them on the upper arm several times in a comradely way.

Waxman-Markey: Kerry-Boxer for the advanced costumer. Does anyone know what these two guys look like?

Homeless Polar Bear: Sad, but true.

Fundraising Maldivian: Dressed in summery clothing, with a sign and a jar, asking for donations toward resettlement since your home is about to be underwater. If Halloween weather does not prohibit being damp, be damp.

Wind Turbine: Body is pole, turbine is atop head. ‘Nuf said.

The Atmosphere: Probably best as a group costume in which each member chooses an atmospheric component, with most going as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. Do not be scientifically correct in proportioning the number of carbon equivalent costumes. When individual members of the atmosphere are questioned, say something like, "I'm methane, part of the atmosphere [point to other group members]. I'm small but influential, and I can really mess those guys up." If the questioner looks askance or seems doubtful, start muttering about extreme weather events coming to the party soon.

Cap and Trade: I can't quite figure this one out, other than a vague and unsatisfying idea involving swapping piles of hats. The person who does pull it off in a clever way deserves some kind of award. Keep us posted.

Happy Halloween, everyone!

Affectionately,
Umbra

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

My daughter's Girl Scout troop wants to start an anti-idling campaign at her school. We need help justifying why a car should be turned off for more than 30 seconds. Although they have found that it saves gas and wear and tear on the engine and other parts, very few people believe that 30 seconds is long enough. Most believe that their starter, in particular, will need to be replaced, thereby reducing the gas savings. Can you point us to definitive information about idling and when and why to turn off your engine? Thanks.

Kew100
Brentwood, Tenn.

A. Dearest Kew,

Stop idling (and stop worrying about your starter).madame.furie via flickrIsn't a car made to last through tens of thousands of stops and starts? You don't find these same pro-idling people assiduously avoiding frequent car trips in order to lengthen the overall life of their car. I'm missing some piece of the logic train wherein the engine knows that the driver maybe could have chosen to leave it running, and it takes revenge by breaking down sooner.

In my own personal car experience, the failure of starters is more closely linked to car manufacturer than to age or anti-idling. But personal experience is not definitive information, so instead I am going to point you to bossy federal agencies and a helpful nationwide anti-idling campaign.

First, let us reflect on why we are anti-idling. Idling a passenger car is almost always unnecessary, it wastes gas, and it produces myriad air pollutants (as detailed in one of my previous columns). Schoolchildren's mouths are closer to both engine and tailpipe (by virtue of their height, not because they are licking engines), so these polluting emissions enter their sensitive young bodies with ease. Larger diesel engines, such as would be found in a school bus or delivery truck, have the same issues, only diesel fuel is dirtier than gasoline. Most idling emissions research has been done on these diesel engines, and there are idling regulations now in many states (some include all engines, not just diesel). Tennessee does not appear to have anti-idling regulations.

One helpful resource for you might be Earth Day Network's No Idling Campaign. It's based on a Georgia No Idling campaign, is aimed at schoolchildren, and includes toolkits, data collection charts, and lesson plans. In terms of the "definitive information": Here is a serious refutation of the starter damage myth from the California Energy Commission; some data and resources on school bus idling from the EPA (including curriculum materials); and a short EPA sheet that references the 30-second rule. Another way to look at it is that no reputable source recommends idling.

If you commence your campaign and still have trouble with families worried about the imminent failure of their car, it might be effective to find a reputable local mechanic or car dealer who will vouch for the durability of the starter. The federal government is simply not persuasive enough in some situations -- too far away, too easily linked to a disliked leader. A community expert might be just the person you need. Best of luck.

Alternatorly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I have an old and dying Cash for Clunker-eligible SUV with well over 210,000 miles on it ... My problem is I find the VOC offgassing of new cars intolerable. Is there any way to offgas a new car before I drive it so that I am not inhaling that not so healthy "new-car" smell?

Alli K.
Spokane, Wash.

A. Dearest Alli,

Take a deep breath ... outside the car.Either you or I or both of us are a little behind the times, as the Cash for Clunkers program ran out of money and ended on August 24. A new program called the Dealership Funded Cash for Clunkers Program is trying to pick up where the federal program left off. But the dealership funded program has no mileage requirements, and the used cars will not be destroyed. It seems more like a "let's keep this car sales thing going" project than a mileage improvement program. (The mascot is either a frog or Gollum -- you decide.)

If and when you do buy a new car instead of a used one, you will need to deal with some amount of offgassing fumes. Car interiors are constructed from metals, plastics, adhesives, cloth, and sometimes leather. A few tests have indicated that the new car smell in some part consists of unpleasant and unhealthy chemicals wandering out of these interior materials, including toluene and xylenes. Then, of course, there are the ones that have no odor and simply give us a special feeling inside, like phthalates. The dust settling on our dashboard also contains dubious matter.

Hence it is probably best if we all give new cars a daily airing for the first few months. Keep your windows down when you drive, and leave them open a crack when your car is parked, if that's practical. When you use the vents, choose fresh air rather than recirculated. Other suggestions beyond good ventilation include using solar reflectors and avoiding parking in the sun, since exposure to UV rays hastens the breakdown of these chemicals. (Of course, if hastening is your goal, I suppose you could park in the sun intentionally, bake your car, then leave your windows open and not drive for the six months or so it takes for new-car fumes to dissipate -- but this seems a bit deranged.) Some people also swear by using charcoal to absorb the odor.

The easiest solution would be to buy a used car whose fumes were inhaled by a previous owner, or to own no car -- you could make every day car-free day! If you do buy new, you might investigate companies that have made a commitment to using fewer toxic chemicals in their auto interiors. Volvo has made a name for itself in this area. Honda is also a leader. To find more information on the interior threats of your car of choice, visit HealthyStuff.org -- but please, please remember that the most important factor in your car purchase should be fuel efficiency.

Derangedly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

From Rachel Carson's Silent Spring to current headlines in the news, there's long been mounting evidence that we're being poisoned by everyday items in our lives. I was crushed by the revelation that my trusty Nalgene bottle was leaching bisphenol A into my Brita-filtered water. The first time I had to purchase my own housecleaning supplies, I found myself torn between a well-marketed fear of germs and a wholly legitimate fear of toxic compounds. Like it or not, the unnatural creations of the chemical industry are everywhere.

The facts of our chemical-laden reality are at once alarming and overwhelming. Philip and Alice Shabecoff's Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on Our Children casts environmental contamination in the context of kids, connecting the dots between the toxification of the young and a slew of once rare, now devastatingly commonplace childhood diseases. The authors -- Philip Shabecoff, formerly chief environmental correspondent for The New York Times, and his wife Alice, freelance journalist and former executive director of the National Consumers League -- report that childhood cancer rates have risen about 67 percent in the last half century. The Shabecoffs not only explain the science behind this number, but tell the stories of families personally affected by it. At points, it makes for grim reading.

But wait, there's hope! Though we're exposed daily to a smorgasbord of cancer-causing agents and other poisonous concoctions, the good news is there are alternatives out there, and they're getting more attention as the dangers of toxic chemicals become better known.

The Shabecoffs acknowledge that their book deals with a depressing subject--but that's why they wrote it. Change can happen, they say, but it's up to us to make sure it does.

-----

Q. Have you seen, in the year since Poisoned Profits was published, that your message is reaching your intended audience?

A. Alice: We've found a pretty warm response among parents -- blogs and websites and letters directly to us. We've gotten a bunch of totally heartbreaking stories, as well as people who call us or write us and ask us to help them deal with bad things that happen in their community. We had very good response from the scientific and health professionals, their journals.

Q. Have you witnessed a change in the way the public and policymakers view toxics?

A. Philip: One very major thing that has happened since then is we have a president who seems to understand these issues, and a Congress that is now not against the government protecting children, or anybody else. We have people appointed to key government positions, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, who do not see themselves as the servants of the corporations but the servants of the people. I think that's the most significant thing that's happened.

Alice: I add Michelle Obama into that, the step that she took in doing an organic garden. It was a symbolic step; at least she understands that children can be harmed by what's in their food.

And then around the margins there have been [other] stories, especially about bisphenol A. In a way that's annoying because if you focus on one little chemical, it almost means you're not looking at the whole picture. But let's look at it in a good light and say at least they're beginning to see that some chemicals can do harm, and at least people are beginning to understand the concept that it could change the way the genes work.

Q. Michelle Obama got a negative reaction from agribusiness after planting her organic garden. What's your take on that?

A. Philip: I think it's par for the course. I think industry likes to protect its turf and its profits, and because it's not sufficiently regulated, it can get away with doing things that harm our kids and the rest of us. I think the whole corporate culture has to change somehow if we're going to solve our basic environmental problems and protect our children. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening yet.

Q. Who bears the most responsibility to bring about change in a toxic landscape?

A. Philip: Ultimately, the American people are responsible. They are responsible in the way they conduct their daily lives, and especially their economic lives, like buying this terrible stuff that's out there, by not educating themselves enough about what's going on.

But then, of course, individuals alone cannot solve these problems, we cannot consume our way out of a toxic environment. The only entity that is powerful enough to stand up to these mega-corporations is government, and the government has to do the job at some point. I think that the Obama administration wants to do something, but whether it will be able to or not is another question. Opposition by conservative politicians who don't want any interference with the private sector, who regard absolute free market as kind of a religion, are trying to block him. And they're also trying to block him just so he'll fail, so they can return to power.

Alice and Philip Shabecoff

Alice: I agree with Philip, that the ultimate responsibility lies in the public, on the shoulders of the parents. We are a democracy and a free enterprise system; it's up to people to make their wills known.

Philip: In the marketplace, and in the voting booth.

Alice: You don't want to let the corporations off the hook. As we showed in the book, they know what they are doing, and they continue to do it, lawsuit after lawsuit, and story after story. But the only people who can really change them is the buying public.

Q. Is the current, more mainstream interest in organics and natural products just a passing trend, or do you believe that people are waking up to the reality of toxics?

A. Alice: I think it's a true trend, which will grow. I don't know the magnitude of it and how far it will spread. Is this something that only the college-educated people will take on, or is this something that will spread across the whole country to every level of economics and education? When you start to think about how people are interested in recycling and so on, that too is a harbinger of what we would love to see in terms of environmental health issues.

Q. Why has it been so difficult to draw attention to these issues?

A. Alice: It seems too overwhelming, and yet that was one of the messages [we want to get across]--it isn't overwhelming. There are steps you can take in your own home and with your neighbors that will eventually change the picture. But there are people who just don't want to face the music.

Philip: But we wrote about children because people can't just throw up their hands about their children or their grandchildren. You may downplay it yourself in terms of your own health, but you want to do everything you can for your kids. Or at least that's the way it should be.

Q. What's the best way to spread the word and educate those around us?

A. Alice: I thought that we could make some inroads through parent groups. There are so many parent groups around the country--small networks of mothers, sometimes fathers, who have coalesced around various illnesses. The parents of the kids with autism are the most visible, but they exist for all of the illnesses that we talked about in the book. One way that we might be able to get some motion going, despite education, despite whether you're small town or big city, is to work through these parent groups.

I've come across many parents who, when it comes to their children's illness, they have educated themselves and they are fighting mad. If we could work through those networks of parent groups--and in fact, that's what I'd like to try in the coming year--maybe we could make some changes in the community, the neighborhood level. And that's one good step in the right direction.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Michael Mann updates the world on the latest climate science

Evolution of Evolution

This story was written by Danielle Ivory.

There is some evidence that Congress -- and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are rethinking their policies on a commonly used weed-killer after disclosures that the EPA failed to notify the public about high levels of the herbicide in drinking water.

As the Investigative Fund revealed last week, the herbicide atrazine has been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states. The chemical has been studied for its potential link to breast cancer, prostate cancer, and birth defects, and the EPA considers it to be a potential endocrine disruptor. It is banned in the European Union.

The Natural Resources Defense Council published a report on atrazine levels last week, and the New York Times weighed in with an article on growing questions about the herbicide's health effects.

The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee has asked the EPA for a comprehensive briefing next week on the agency's failure to publicize results of tests that showed high levels of atrazine. The committee also is asking the EPA to develop a specific plan for reporting this data to the public in the future.

A senior committee staffer confirmed Friday that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and her staff plan to meet with "key players" at the EPA next week to discuss their data on atrazine.

"This is a top priority for us," the staff member said. "We're not going to shy away from this. People have a right to know what is in their drinking water, particularly when the EPA's data suggests that there could be a health concern."

For five years, the EPA has been collecting weekly tests of drinking water in about 150 watersheds, primarily in the Midwest, where farmers spray the herbicide on cornfields and other crops. The agency, however, never acted on the results. Nor had it ever published the data -- until tonight. EPA officials say they have now decided to make the test results available on their Web site.

The Investigative Fund obtained the data this summer through a public records request and published it last week.

In a statement to the I-Fund on Friday night, the EPA said the change in policy is important "because now people can get the data much easier" without going through the "burdensome" process of requesting public records.

The statement from the EPA said: "EPA is taking a hard look at atrazine, including many of the issues you raise. Atrazine is very controversial ... Administrator Jackson has made a commitment to strengthen the Agency's chemical management programs, which she identified as one of her top priorities upon her arrival at the Agency. This includes atrazine. We really want to emphasize that this new team is actively rethinking how to address atrazine."

It’s not only the Senate and EPA that plan to take a look at policy on atrazine. In the House, one congressman is planning to reintroduce legislation to ban the herbicide atrazine in the fall.

Last August, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) introduced a bill (H.R.3399), prohibiting the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. It died in the health subcommittee last September.

Minh Ta, legislative director for Ellison, said the congressman is concentrating on the financial crisis and health care, but would reintroduce the bill in the fall. "It’s an issue that the Congressman has been concerned about," Ta said. "These articles in the Huffington Post reinforce the need to act quickly."

But Richard Wiles, executive director at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, said that it will be difficult to garner broad congressional support for tighter atrazine regulation, let alone a ban. "This is the big kahuna," Wiles said. "Atrazine is one of those pollutants with a fortress of defenders — more so than most other chemicals."

Wiles said that any attempt to restrict atrazine use would likely be blocked by the House Agriculture Committee, who tend to favor the "pro-pesticide farm lobby and pesticide makers." The committee is chaired by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Peterson was the top congressional recipient of campaign contributions from the agricultural services industry (which includes Syngenta Corp) in the 2008 and 2006 election cycles. Peterson's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

OliBac via flickrAh, back-to-school season. The rustling of leaves, the squeak of new sneakers, the reassuring sound of chalk on a blackboard. Wait, does anyone still use chalk? And if they do, is it emitting some sort of toxic dust that’s dooming our children to a life of bad health and environmental despair?

School, once that bastion of knowledge and wholesomeness, has become a sort of devil’s playground, presenting dilemmas ranging from toxic threats (probably not chalk, but what about radon or asbestos?) to junk-food lunches to diesel buses. We hereby present a few useful links and resources for navigating the hallways of your educational institution, whether it’s the local Kindergarten or a top-tier college.

Study up on the issues and think about whether your school makes the grade—then give yourself recess. You deserve it.

For the younger (swing)set

Most of you organized parental types have no doubt finished buying school supplies, but in case you’re scrambling—or all the colored pencils mysteriously break at once—here’s our guide to greener back-to-school shopping and a rundown of materials to avoid and embrace. Think about whether you can buy less overall, and remember: shopping online is better than driving to the mall.

Now that your kiddo is stocked up and off to school, will the bus ride be a source of bad fumes? Visit EPA’s Clean School Bus USA site to find out more about the issue of diesel buses and what school districts are doing to address it.

The toxic fun doesn’t stop when the bus puts on its brakes: unhealthy schools across the country are dealing with a legacy of bad building decisions. Once again, our friends at the EPA have a thorough (if not very pretty) site dedicated to making schools healthier places. You can also visit the Healthy Schools Campaign for a look at the issues and solutions (and enter their photo contest!).

One more major component of your child’s day: school lunch. Today’s lunches are a pale, plastic-wrapped imitation of the hot lunches of yesteryear (which were nothing to write home about, but at least they involved vegetables). A growing contingent is pushing for healthier lunches, and Congress is taking up the Child Nutrition Act this fall. Don’t let them keep feeding your kids crap. Get involved today.

And if you’re off to college ...

Take a look at our list of the 20 greenest colleges in the U.S. If you’re going to one of them or another green-leaning school, good for you! If you missed the boat, you could always transfer ... or better yet, check out our green campus special for inspiring profiles of student activists, tips for helping your school see the light, and handy links and resources for making this school year the greenest yet.

And keep an eye out for the newest Umbra Fisk video, coming soon: Umbra visits College of the Atlantic, the country’s first carbon-neutral school.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Not my window. But this is how they feel sometimes.TottoBG via flickrOnce upon a time, I was full of unswayable romantic notions about old houses. Then I bought one.

I’ll refrain from going into too much detail about the quirks of our house, and of course I’m grateful to have a roof over our heads. But we’ve come up against a particular challenge that I can’t seem to figure my way around. It’s a little thing called window shopping.

No, not window shopping like pressing your nose up against the glass (thanks, wordplay-loving co-workers!). Window shopping like, “We have got to replace these old, rattling, single-paned, glazing-falling-out beasts before another winter sets in.” Even weatherstripping doesn’t help at this point.

The good news is that friends and family and This Old House keep telling us how easy it is to replace windows yourself. The bad news is, we’re pussies. I mean, of all the projects to screw up, is that really the one you want to test your skills on? So we started scouting around for installation estimates.

But that’s where the bad news got worse. Not surprisingly, it costs a lot to have someone else put windows in your house. And furthermore-not-surprisingly, it costs a lot more if you choose a material whose production doesn’t devastate planetary and human health.

The most affordable option? Vinyl.

If there’s one thing that echoes in my head after editing Ask Umbra for years, it’s this: “No vinyl, that’s final.” Vinyl’s drawbacks are many, varied, and well documented. We had two companies visit so far; one spent the entire time talking up vinyl (and assuring us that “it doesn’t bleed”) while the other spent the entire time talking it down. I look around my neighborhood, and everyone seems to have it. I research online, and everyone seems to sell it—but I’m also noticing another interesting trend, which is a sort of vinyl-window backlash. They don’t actually perform that well. They warp and wear out. There are other more modern options (fiberglass, for one, which is a relative newcomer to WindowLand and brings its own set of pros and cons).

I’m thrilled to see vinyl getting its due. But here’s the thing: of the estimates we’ve gotten so far, only vinyl came even within spitting distance of our budget. This is one of those moments where I get a fresh reminder of why everyone doesn’t just “Go Green It’s So Easy and Fun!” Reality intervenes.

I know new windows—whether vinyl or not—should eventually pay for themselves in energy savings. So I figure I have a few options: Keep getting estimates in the hope that someone will magically be willing to install non-toxic windows for a reasonable price. Suck it up and buy the vinyl windows, installation and all. Buy more expensive windows and try to install them ourselves, thus coming out at about the same place. Or really suck it up and buy non-toxic windows and installation. (This last one is, frankly, nearly impossible given our current budget.)

What should I do? Now you get to vote. And/or rant in the comments about what a fool I am. Meanwhile, I’ll be window shopping.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

This story was written by Danielle Ivory.

One of the nation's most widely used herbicides has been found to exceed federal safety limits in drinking water in four states, but water customers have not been told and the Environmental Protection Agency has not published the results.

Records that tracked the amount of the weed-killer atrazine in about 150 watersheds from 2003 through 2008 were obtained by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund under the Freedom of Information Act. An analysis found that yearly average levels of atrazine in drinking water violated the federal standard at least ten times in communities in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas, all states where farmers rely heavily on the herbicide.

In addition, more than 40 water systems in those states showed spikes in atrazine levels that normally would have triggered automatic notification of customers. In none of those cases were residents alerted.

In interviews, EPA officials did not dispute the data but said they do not consider atrazine a health hazard and said they did not believe the agency or state authorities had failed to properly inform the public. "We have concluded that atrazine does not cause adverse effects to humans or the environment," said Steve Bradbury, deputy office director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.

Officials at Syngenta, the Swiss company that manufactures atrazine, declined requests for interviews about the testing results. In a statement on its Web site, the company says that atrazine "poses no threat to the safety of our drinking water supplies. In 2008, none of the 122 Community Water Systems monitored in 10 states exceeded the federal standards set for atrazine in drinking water or raw water."

Atrazine has become an issue of concern for environmentalists and consumer groups as the use of the herbicide has soared in the United States over the past few decades. Some scientists who have studied atrazine said the information about its higher levels in drinking water should be made public.

For more background on the story of atrazine, watch our video: How Safe Is Atrazine?

"This is an issue of the EPA not being forthright about what they know," said Robert Denver, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Michigan who has served on two of the EPA's scientific advisory panels on atrazine.

"It is the responsibility of the EPA and Syngenta to inform the public of accurate levels of atrazine in their drinking water," said Jason Rohr, a specialist in ecotoxicology at the University of South Florida who studies the effects of atrazine in animals, and who served on the EPA's atrazine panel this past spring.

Atrazine is sprayed on cornfields and other major crops during the summer months and can run off into rivers and streams that supply drinking water. It is also commonly used on golf courses.

Studies of atrazine's potential links to prostate and breast cancer have been inconclusive. Based on the recommendations of its scientific advisory panels in 2000 and 2003, the EPA has listed atrazine as "not likely" to be a carcinogen but does officially consider it to be a potential hormone disruptor – a risk factor explored by researchers testing animals.

In recent years atrazine has been the subject of intensive debate among scientists about its effects on the reproductive systems of frogs and other vertebrate animals. In some studies, male frogs that were exposed to high levels of atrazine have been documented to grow eggs.

In 2004, the European Union banned atrazine because it was consistently showing up in drinking water and health officials, aware of ongoing studies, said they could not find sufficient evidence the chemical was safe.

State regulators in the U.S. test their local water systems for atrazine a maximum of four times a year, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2003, the EPA again approved atrazine for use in the United States but it made some demands of Syngenta for the re-registration.

The EPA and Syngenta negotiated a deal for more extensive monitoring of about 150 vulnerable watersheds. Under that arrangement, the company pays for weekly monitoring and sends the results to the EPA, as well as to the local water companies and most state regulators.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy organization, is expected to release a report on Monday that fully analyzes a smaller set of Syngenta's weekly testing results -- from 2003 through 2006 -- and reaches conclusions similar to the Investigative Fund's analysis of all five years of data. The group supplied an advance copy of its report to The New York Times, which today published an article about the tests and other safety questions about atrazine.

Misleading Water Bills

The EPA plans to revisit its rules for atrazine in 2011. Presently the agency requires water systems to notify their customers if the quarterly state tests average higher than 3 parts per billion (ppb) annually. According to the EPA data obtained by the Investigative Fund, cities in four states — Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas — had yearly averages of atrazine violating that standard from 2003 to 2008.

In addition, more than 40 water systems in those states showed spikes of atrazine over 12 ppb – which if found in the state quarterly tests would have required the water system to notify the public within 30 days.

In none of those cases were residents notified of the high levels. In fact, the brochures in their water bills – reviewed for this report -- contained misleading numbers based on the state testing.

For example, based on the quarterly tests, residents of Mt. Olive, Ill., were told that the highest level of atrazine in their drinking water last year was 2 ppb. However, the EPA data shows a spike in June of 16.47 ppb. The same year, residents of McClure, Ohio, were told that the highest level of atrazine in their drinking water was 3.4 ppb. The EPA data shows a spike in June 2008 of more than ten times that amount — 33.83 ppb.

Both of these cities' water utilities received the weekly EPA data directly from Syngenta, but did not report it. Legally, they didn't have to. The drinking water act only requires cities to report data collected by the state. State tests are performed infrequently, so they are vulnerable to missing the chemical spikes that consistently occur around the time the weed-killer is being applied. With weekly tests, such as those ordered by the EPA, it is all but impossible to miss these spikes.

Asked why the results of the weekly tests had not been published, the EPA's Bradbury said "no data is withheld from the public." Bradbury said the information has been posted on the agency's electronic public docket. In fact, the weekly test results are one of the only items on the docket that are not posted on the site.

Instead they are listed as available only through the Freedom of Information Act.

In an on-camera interview with the Investigative Fund in June, Bradbury also said that the weekly monitoring had found no spikes in any watershed over 3 ppb. "It's these spikes that we're focusing on," he said. "There have been no exceedances." In fact, the EPA's data recorded more than 130 spikes over 3 ppb during 2008 alone — not only in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Kansas, but also in Missouri, Louisiana, and Texas. Bradbury declined to elaborate on the apparent contradiction.

The EPA does not consider one-time spikes of atrazine to be dangerous, but several peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest that the chemical may be harmful, particularly to developing fetuses, in doses as low as 0.1 ppb. One study, published this year in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica, found that birth defect rates in the United States were highest for women who conceived during months when atrazine levels were spiking.

"If you happen to become pregnant in June, you care about the levels [of atrazine] in June, not in January," said Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester who has studied atrazine's effect on semen quality and development.

"For pregnant women, you have a critical period of a couple of weeks to a couple of months," Swan said. "If you have a peak exposure in that period, that's what's relevant to the pregnancy."

"The annual average might be relevant for [measuring the risk of] cancer, but it's obviously not okay if they [the EPA] care about regulating for reproductive toxicity," she said.

Had the EPA, the state or the local water companies made the weekly testing results public, residents could have made different choices about their water consumption, such as using inexpensive household carbon water filters or bottled water.

Asked about the discrepancies between the state and weekly EPA data, an EPA spokeswoman, Deb Berlin, said in an e-mail, "Consumers need accurate information to make health decisions for themselves and their families. EPA and state authorities would be interested in knowing about any situation where a public water system is not reporting accurate information to their customers as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act."

‘I'd Do More Testing'

Under the terms of its 2003 agreement with the EPA, Syngenta for the past five years has been monitoring water weekly in 10 states, with special emphasis on Illinois, Ohio, and Kansas.

This is how the EPA's testing program generally works: Syngenta sends boxes containing two tubes to about 150 water utilities. During the summer growing season when atrazine levels are likely to spike, water operators at these utilities take samples on a weekly basis. Every week, they fill one test tube with river water and one test tube with drinking water. They ship these samples to Syngenta labs, where the company analyzes them. Syngenta then reports the data to the EPA, as well as to the water utilities themselves and the state regulators.

Testing at the state level is much more modest. Up to four times a year, but as infrequently as once a year, water utilities ship one test tube filled with drinking water to their state regulator. The state analyzes the water and reports the data back to the water utility. This limited data is reported to the public, as required by federal right-to-know laws.

There are vast discrepancies between the two data sets. The Huffington Post Investigative Fund contacted water plant operators to see if they had noticed.

Some local water officials said they provided weekly samples to Syngenta but did not realize the company was acting under a requirement from the EPA intended to supply more data as a safeguard for their drinking water. They indicated they paid little attention to the results of the tests.

Robert Leonhardt, the water plant manager in Mt. Olive, Ill., received the weekly EPA data but said he was not aware of any of the spikes during the last five years, including a high reading of 16.47 ppb. He said the weekly testing was not a central part of his work. "This is a side thing," he said.

Steve Kubler, the water plant manager in Chanute, Kan., initially said of the state and weekly tests: "The numbers match up pretty well. I've never noticed a discrepancy." He added, "If I did, I'd do more testing."

According to that data, his town of Chanute recorded one reading of 6.51 ppb last year. The city reported a high of 1.4 ppb to the public. Asked about the numbers, Kubler said, "Look, what I do with Syngenta — it's in excess of what I have to do. I don't know even know why they're testing."

In Illinois, Roger Selburg of the state's Environmental Protection Agency said that he looks at the weekly data. But he said he does not use it to determine violations, nor does he report any of it to the public, because he does not know if the data are reliable or accurate. "We are only required to report the state data," he said.

Other water officials expressed some surprise and dismay about the levels of atrazine that showed up in the weekly tests. Osawatomie, Kan., showed a spike of 8.70 ppb in May 2008, although the city reported to the public a high of 0.89 ppb for the year. "That's a pretty good spike," said Marty Springer, water plant manager at Osawatomie's plant. "And no one knows about it."

McClure, Ohio, showed a spike of 33.83 ppb in June 2008, but the town told its residents the highest level that year was 3.4 ppb. "If we had been using Syngenta's data, obviously we would have hit the maximum contaminant level," said Christopher Diem, superintendent at McClure's water utility.

In Baxter Springs, Kan., atrazine spiked above 11 ppb in May 2008 while the town told its residents the highest level during the year was 1.3 pbb.

"We may have passed the quarterly tests for the state, but we're not passing them weekly or daily," said Stan Schafer, a water plant operator in Baxter Springs. "Somebody's got to do something," he said. "I live here. I drink the water. My parents drink the water. My kids drink the water. I just try to keep it clean."

Schafer said he regularly receives atrazine testing data from Syngenta, along with the results from the state, but he doesn't think he is allowed to report it to the public.

That fits with the impression that Kansas state health officials gave Lloyd Littrell, director of utilities in Beloit, about the weekly test results from Syngenta.

"I kept track of those numbers for a couple of years, but I stopped," Littrell said. "The state of Kansas would not let us report the results. We had several conversations about it. They said it wasn't certified by the state or something. I stopped trying. If we can't use it, what's the point of me looking at it?"

According to the EPA data, atrazine spiked above 20 ppb in May 2008, but Beloit reported a high of 2 ppb to the public.

"It concerns me," Littrell said. "If it's an actual health hazard and they know and the EPA knows it's getting in water — I can't believe they're not doing anything about it."

--

See also: Huffington Post Investigative Fund also obtained access to the EPA's data on atrazine levels for about 150 community watersheds in ten states from 2003 to 2008.

Reprinted courtesy the Huffington Post Investigative Fund. The article was first posted here.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Triclosan: a toxic chemical that shows up in the damndest placesIn Checkout Line, Lou Bendrick cooks up answers to reader questions about how to green their food choices and other diet-related quandaries. Lettuce know what food worries keep you up at night.

---------------------

Dear Grist,
I have been getting contradictory information about triclosan. Organic Consumers Association says danger, beware, don't use. Other sources say no problem. I trust you. Precautionary principle says don't use. What do you say?
Love,
Steve

Dear Steve,
I say, the good old precautionary principle has a point this time. In fact, I'd make like a teenager looking to impress friends in a souped-up car: flee triclosan, leaving nothing behind but a screech, a cloud of dust, and skid marks. Oh, and while you're barking your tires, don't forget to flip the bird in the rearview mirror. Trust me, this anti-microbial chemical deserves it.

So what is it? Triclosan is a leftover from the germ-phobia of the '90s, when people were trying to sterilize everything in sight. People don't seem as intent as they used to on buying anti-microbial everything, but triclosan just keeps hanging around. 

The watchdog Environmental Working Group (EWG) says it's "nearly ubiquitous in liquid hand soap and dishwashing detergent" and also found in "toothpaste, facewash, deodorant, a host of personal care products, and even mattresses, toothbrushes and shoe insoles." Mattresses? This creepy stuff even has the nerve to get in bed with us! Triclosan is also often found in chopsticks, because ... your don't want to be exposed to your own germs while eating Chinese food. Or something.

But get this: it fights germs no better than plain soap--and yet its widespread use may be creating "super germs"!

And make no mistake, it is creepy stuff. As the EWG put it:

Triclosan is linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Wastewater treatment does not remove all of the chemical, which means it ends up in our lakes, rivers and water sources. That’s especially unfortunate since triclosan is very toxic to aquatic life.

Studies show that it disrupts thyroid function in both rats and harms tadpoles, to boot.

It's too bad triclosan is so common in personal care products, such as toothpaste and shaving cream, because it can combine with chlorine in tap water to form chloroform, a probable human carcinogen. (As is the case with oh-so-many industrial chemicals, Further Studies Are Necessary to "prove" the bad effects of triclslan plus chlorine. Don't hold your breath.)

Still not convinced? From our sinks and potties, triclosan takes a free ride down the drain into our waterways, where it wreaks serious havoc with aquatic life. Read all about it in this excellent Beyond Pesticides fact sheet(PDF). Speaking of aquatic life, a recent study found triclosan in the blood of dolphins.

Of course, Steve, there is that no problem camp you mentioned. According this enough-about-those-dolphins-already press release from the Soap and Detergent Association, the low traces found in dolphins just proves that, thanks to science, "You can find just about anything you want to just about anywhere if you're looking for it." Hmm. Uh, okay then. Let's look for triclosan in human blood, shall we?

Turns out that, even when avoided, the stuff has a disturbing tendency to linger. Chances are that it's in your blood and pee or your wife's breast milk right now, so you might want to get a restraining order.

For you, Steve, I called up Dr. Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defense Canada and co-author of the forthcoming book Slow Death By Rubber Duck, which is already a bestseller in Canada. In the book, Smith and his colleague Bruce Lourie imbibed and absorbed seven common toxic substances, including triclosan. The results were surprising at the outset because Smith had measurable levels of triclosan in his blood before the experiment despite the fact that he had been "scrupulously avoiding this thing for years."

How triclosan got into Smith's body is anyone's guess, but he happened to notice that his garden hose was "Microban protected." (Microban is one of Triclosan's brand names)

"I was showering my little tomato plants and chives that we use in our egg omelets with a triclosan garden hose," he told me. "So I don't know if it came from there, but it's likely that this stuff is just ubiquitous now."

So how much more triclosan was in Smith's blood after two days of using triclosan-infused toothpaste, shaving cream, body wash and deodorant?

"My levels spiked by 2,900 times," he said. Check out the video footage of the experiment here.

Steve, I can tell by the way you sign your letters that you are a loving person, but I think it's time to get tough. Take Smith's advice and avoid triclosan rigorously: "It's a classic example of a pointless product foisted upon us by money-grubbing companies," he said. "It's just that simple. There's no evidence that this chemical is improving our lives. The extent to which it's being used in frivolous ways is just mind boggling."

To give triclosan the heave-ho, read labels and get savvy. The Environmental Working Group's has a great guide to Triclosan-free products. For good measure, here's a list of products that do contain the nasty stuff.

Good luck. One more thing. How to keep your life reasonably germ-free without resorting to toxic chemicals? Like your mama probably told you, plain old soap and water does the trick. As with everything, moderation!
Love back at you,
Lou

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Canadian journalist Andrew Nikiforuk won the top prize from the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual reporting awards for his investigation of oil extraction in the tar sands of northern Alberta.

Nikiforuk’s book -- Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent -- examines the high social and environmental costs of the process of converting bitumen to refinable oil, which has drawn $150 billion in investment from the world’s largest oil companies. SEJ awarded Nikiforuk the Rachel Carson Environment Book Award, which comes with $10,000.

Grist reviewed the book and interviewed Nikiforuk when it was released; he told us:

He said the economic downturn and drop in oil prices have slowed the pace of tar sands development, though they’re still generating attention. A pair of new studies attempt some tar sands greenwashery, and the activist group Action Factory held an oily demonstration in Washington on Friday to urge Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to nix a pipeline linking tar sands oil to U.S. refineries.

More notable winners from SEJ’s awards:

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Are we there yet?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has decided she'll take another look at monitoring of car battery recyclers, concrete kilns and power plants that spew dangerous lead emissions. She did not say she'd toughen up the monitoring, but clean air advocates are hopeful.

"It's a step in the right direction for public health, and children's health in particular," said Avi Kar, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. His group and several others petitioned the agency in January to reconsider -- and tighten -- proposed monitoring requirements on lead emitting facilities. On Thursday, Jackson granted their petition, and said a new monitoring proposal would be ready later this summer.

"We do take it as a good sign that they're willing to reconsider," said Kar in an interview.

In an online blog post, he was more effusive.

The granting of NRDC's petition for reconsideration, as it's known in bureaucratic parlance, is one step in a still lengthy process. There will be a proposal, public comment, and, finally, a possible amendment to a huge update of the entire lead regulation. This is the federal government, after all.

"This is just reconsideration, this is just a first step," said EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn. "NRDC and others asked us to reconsider it, and our answer is yes, we will reconsider it. ... We can't 'just change the rule' without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. We can't change any final rule without giving the public opportunity to comment on potential changes."

Many in the environmental movement were astonished last fall when President Bush's EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, took his own scientists' advice over the complaints of industry, and lowered the legally allowable amounts of lead in the air by more than ten times. Lead battery smelters had charged over to the White House a few weeks earlier, as a court deadline neared to update the regulation. It was the first time lead limits had been touched since 1978.

The astonishment turned to familiar groans from environmentalists when it turned out White House budget officials had intervened at the eleventh hour to eliminate required monitoring for facilities emitting less than a ton of lead annually. Being exposed to the heavy metal in even small amounts can damage children's brain development, heart and kidney functions, among other maladies. Johnson's own staff had recommended that facilities spewing out half a ton be monitored in geographic areas where emissions exceed the new limits.

The night before Johnson's announcement, a senior EPA staffer e-mailed a White House Office of Management and Budget staff person saying a technical, rather than a policy explanation, was needed for why there had been a last minute, sharp reduction in monitoring. That explanation was never received, and Johnson followed the White House recommendations in his announcement the next day.

EPA staff reiterated in a conversation this week that proper monitoring is a critical part of protecting public health.

Any proposal by Jackson and her staff will have to be vetted by the White House budget office again, said Milbourn in an e-mail.

"Yes, whatever we propose will have to go back to OMB," she wrote.

A battery council representative did not return a call for comment Thursday. Industry representatives have argued in the past that they are among the world's best recyclers, and that the new regulations could drive their business overseas to places with far more lax health and environmental regulations.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

About a year ago I made the whole body switch to organic and all-natural shampoos, body lotions, makeup, etc. In an attempt to stop my packrat-like habits, I want to know, what do I do with all of my old chemical-laden bottles and tubes? I can't bare to just throw them in the garbage knowing that I could have recycled the plastic bottles, but if I recycle the bottles, that means I will have to pour the contents down the drain which flows into our lake affecting the wildlife--the reason why I switched to all natural in the first place! Please help!

Frettingly,
Carlee S.
Niagara Falls, ON

A. Dearest Carlee,

I'm supposed to be relaxing!Also Dearest Many Others with Confusing Trash Around the House. I have filled a 42-gallon trash bag with recent letters about vexing unwanted items: cosmetics, pill bottles, cookware, shampoo, floppy discs ... fortunately for me, my trash bag is digital, and seems to vaporize when I hit the happy button.

For non-virtual objects, however, I wish you all to follow some very basic steps. The first step is to admit that you are powerless to prevent accumulation of a certain amount of garbage, no matter how earnest your intentions. Then we get to skip the fearless moral inventory and go straight to making an inventory of which items it is possible to recycle or reuse.

There are two main substeps at this point. One is contacting your local trash management information source and finding out if your particular garbage is toxic, recyclable, collected by a local agency, etc. Many agencies have an annual or more-frequent household hazardous waste collection day, and some accept cosmetics and the like. The second thing you can do is search on the internet for people recycling your item; perhaps someone wants old VHS tapes, and if you are willing to ship them to Iowa, the problem is solved.

If you make these efforts and are thwarted, then feel free to move on to the next step: Throwing things out. In your case, Carlee, it is better to throw the tubes and bottles out than to pour their contents down the drain. Better still would be to use the products up. You could use them as intended (one more wash with the last dribs of your old shampoo will not be the end of the world), or find a new purpose for them at a site like AltUse. And then you can recycle your containers.

But people, listen: We will have garbage. Unless it is electronic, officially toxic or hazardous, or recyclable, we will need to throw it out. The only way to have fewer things to throw out is to bring fewer things into our lives. We must do the best we can at that, and accept that we are not perfect, or we will go insane. I am going to now model this behavior and throw out all the letters about throwing things out.

Valiantly,
Umbra

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting