tagged w/ BPA
Keeping up with the latest science regarding chemical safety is apparently of little or no concern to the Canadian government, which recently declared the highly-toxic plastics chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) to be safe just two years after declaring it to be a toxin. In a report issued by Health Canada's Food Directorate, the agency has iterated its unfounded position that exposure to BPA in food packaging "is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children."
The announcement is curious as Canada was one of the first countries to question the safety of BPA back in 2008, right around the time that emerging science began to show that the chemical leeches out of containers and into food and drinks. A Canadian government panel at that time had determined that BPA is potentially linked to hyperactivity in children, breast and prostate cancers in adults, and birth defects in newborn babies, among other conditions, which led many product manufacturers to voluntarily phase out the use of BPA.
"Our science indicated that bisphenol-A may be harmful to both human health and the environment and we were the first country to take bold action in the interest of Canadians," said Canadian Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq in a statement back in 2010.
But in typical wishy-washy fashion, these same corporate-backed bureaucrats are now back-peddling by trying to claim that BPA is just fine, even for infants and babies. In complete denial of copious amounts of evidence showing that even low levels of exposure to BPA can cause organ damage, developmental disorders, reproductive damage and infertility, digestive dysfunction, DNA damage, endocrine disruption and many other conditions, Health Canada is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by blatantly kowtowing to the chemical industry.
Th U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also flip-flopped several times on the BPA issue, having recently banned BPA from children's drinking cups after vehemently denying a few years earlier that BPA was at all dangerous (http: //w ww . ny times. com). The positions on BPA held by both the Canadian and U.S. governments are dubious at best, and have led to much public confusion about the chemical....
http://www.naturalnews.com/037740_BPA_Health_Canada_toxic_chemicals.htmlKeeping up with the latest science regarding chemical safety is apparently of little... more
The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to ban BPA from all food and drink containers, saying the science does not show an immediate cause for such action.
However, the federal agency cautioned that this ruling does not declare bisphenol A, or BPA, as safe. The agency says it is continuing its assessment of the chemical, which is used in the lining of most canned food and drinks.
Friday's action comes as a response to a petition filed in 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that the chemical poses a serious threat to human health.
"The FDA denied the NRDC petition today because it did not provide the scientific evidence needed to change current regulations, but this announcement is not a final safety determination and the FDA continues to support research examining the safety of BPA," said FDA spokesman Douglas Karas.
Karas said the FDA's recent research thus far indicates:
Exposure to BPA of human infants is from 84% to 92% less than previously estimated.
The level of BPA from food that could be passed from pregnant rodents to their unborn offspring is so low that it could not be measured. Researchers fed pregnant rodents 100 to 1,000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus eight hours after the mother's exposure.
People of all ages process and rid their bodies of BPA faster than the rodents used as test animals do.
The FDA continues to study the effects of BPA and will make any necessary changes to BPA's status based on the science, Karas said.
Sarah Janssen, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized the federal agency for failing to ban BPA.
"BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply," she said.
"The agency has failed to protect our health and safety - in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children."
Chemical industry lobbyists praised the government decision.
"FDA's decision today, which has taken into consideration the best available science, again confirms that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials, as it has been approved and used safely for four decades," said Steve Hentges, senior scientist with the American Chemistry Council.
While the chemistry council is characterizing Friday's move as the government "closing the books" on the petition, it does not mean that the FDA has decided once and for all that BPA is safe.
BPA, a synthetic estrogen developed more than 70 years ago, came into wide use in the 1960s and 1970s to make polycarbonate plastic for such things as baby bottles. It is also used as an epoxy resin to line metal cans. BPA can be found in cellphones, dental sealants, eyeglasses, as a coating for cash register receipts and hundreds of other household items.
It has been detected in the urine of more than 93% of Americans tested.
Karas said FDA regulators had "serious questions" about studies that found harm to human health.
The FDA is working toward completion of another updated safety review on BPA this year to include all relevant studies and publications.
The agency's move Friday was criticized by Environmental Working Group, which has lobbied to remove BPA from food and food containers, particularly baby bottles and infant formula.
"The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement," said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. "It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
Scientists first became concerned about BPA in the 1990s when rats stored in polycarbonate cages began miscarrying and showing other signs of reproductive failure. Since then, thousands of studies have linked BPA to health problems.
BPA is regarded by scientists as particularly concerning for fetuses and infants. The effects have been found at low doses, hundreds of times smaller than governmental regulatory agencies have determined to be safe.
Industry revenue from BPA is estimated at more than $6 billion a year.
Chemical makers maintain the chemical is safe for all uses.
Warning: Chemicals in the packaging, surfaces or contents of many products may cause long-term health effects, including cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other reproductive system defects; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism. A decade ago, the government promised to test these chemicals. It still hasn't.
More at the linkThe Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to... more
Dow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of Bhopal – they are desperate to whitewash their image and refuse any responsibility for the ongoing suffering of the people of Bhopal. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview with Dow’s CEO – we will interrupt that broadcast to fill in the gaps that Andrew Liveris is trying to gloss over.
The interview text is from here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3464938.htm
MARK COLVIN: Now before you go I have to ask you; it’s an Olympic year, the Olympics are only a few months away. The Indians are threatening to boycott because Dow is a major sponsor. What are you saying to them?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well I mean the issue that they’re all inflamed about is not the Dow issue, it’s an Indian government issue and that’s basically what we’re saying to them.
MARK COLVIN: Why? I mean you bought Union Carbide, which caused the Bhopal disaster.
ANDREW LIVERIS: The Indian government settled with Union Carbide in 1989. Settled and reaffirmed by their Supreme Court three times. So it’s got nothing to do with Dow and that’s in the legal agreements and all the bright lines. They’re trying to drag us in because we have deep pockets and that’s clearly what they want to do.
I would also note by the way the IOC supports us fully. There are lots of other corporate brands that support the Olympics that have had issues over time and boycotts don’t tend to work; they hurt a nation, they don’t hurt the Olympics.
ANDREW LIVERIS: But do you think that the settlement with Union Carbide was fair; there are an awful lot of people still suffering aren’t there?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well you don’t have to ask me what I think; I think you have to go to the Indian Supreme Court and ask them what they think; they ratified it three times.
MYTHBUSTING #1 – UNION CARBIDE
Union Carbide (UCC) is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. As UCC explains, their business activities “comprise components of Dow’s global operations rather than standalone operations” (UCC’s 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission filing).
‘Successor liability’ means that when one company merges into another, it gains BOTH its assets AND its liabilities. So, in gaining UCC’s wealth, Dow also gained UCC’s responsibility for the ongoing tragedy in Bhopal.
MYTHBUSTING #2 – THE SETTLEMENT
The settlement reached in 1989 – $470m –was 15% of the original claim for $3bn. $470m is roughly equal to £600 per survivor, none of whom were consulted. This money is not even enough to pay for the ongoing treatment that many survivors need.
The Indian government has recognised the settlement deal as an “irremediable injustice” and is now challenging its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.
The case for compensation is far from closed.
MARK COLVIN: So you bought it on a purely legalistic basis, knowing that you would have nothing more to pay?
ANDREW LIVERIS: There are companies being bought and sold all over the world all the time. Legacy issues and liabilities are a rule of law; rule of law speaks to bright lines and so that’s the topic here.
MYTHBUSTING #3 – LIABILITIES
The ‘polluter pays’ is a rule of law – it is a legal principle adopted by India and the US: if a company creates pollution, they must pay for it. Any damage the pollution causes is the company’s responsibility. Cases in both Indian and US courts are trying to make the polluter – UCC – pay to clean up and decontaminate the site of the disaster, and deal with the water contamination.
When UCC merged into Dow in 2001, Dow became responsible for UCC’s ‘polluter pays’ liabilities. Dow even recognised this by accepting UCC’s asbestos-related liabilities in the US which date back to before the Bhopal gas disaster. Dow set aside $2.2 billion to resolve these claims in the US, yet they refuse to accept liability in Bhopal.
The message from Dow and LOCOG is that ‘it is now the Indian government’s responsibility to clean up the site’ in Bhopal. But the government did not pollute the site, UCC polluted the site. Moreover, if the Indian government was to clean up the site, the money would come from Indian taxpayers, some of whom live in Bhopal.
Dow is asking the victims of the gas disaster and water contamination to pay up.
The polluter should pay, not the victims.
MARK COLVIN: Do you think the Indian team will boycott?
ANDREW LIVERIS: I don’t know what the Indian team will do. I think it’ll be a tragedy for India but that’s their decision.
MARK COLVIN: Is it damaging your company?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Absolutely not.
MARK COLVIN: How come?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Our company is a company that wins awards on sustainability. We’re named one of America’s most sustainably enriched company in terms of ethics….
(see Dow’s ‘sustainable’ and ‘ethical’ record here: www.athletesagainstdowchemical.wordpress.com)
MARK COLVIN: But in India I mean. There is clearly a depth of feeling about it.
ANDREW LIVERIS: It doesn’t hurt us in India. We have a great reputation in India. Look activist groups exist not just in India, they exist all around the world and people will have their views. It’s a free economy in India and they’ll have their views.
MYTHBUSTING #4 – DOW’S REPUTATION
There is widespread, international outrage at Dow’s involvement in the London Olympics.
Expressing that they are “dismayed” at Dow’s sponsorship of the Olympics, Indian officials refuse to endorse Dow Chemical and will boycott the opening and closing ceremonies in protest:
Meredith Alexander resigned from her position in the ethics committee for the London Olympics in protest.
Hindu groups from all over the UK met to rally their opposition to Dow’s involvement.....
More at the linkDow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of... more
If you've been reading health magazines and websites for any length of time, you've read a litany of reasons why soda is bad for you. It's nothing but sugar water. It's devoid of any nutritional value. It leads to obesity and diabetes. But we've dug up nine other disturbing facts about what soda does to your body, besides packing on the pounds, that don't get much attention in broader discussions about soda and its impact on your health.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gNgHOYb9WV8/SroiQRv3KZI/AAAAAAAAD3Q/alC4xEyTIVk/s400/Soda.JPGIf you've been reading health magazines and websites for any length of time,... more
The London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as Meredith Alexander, a Sustainability Commissioner and Ethics Adviser for the games, resigned live on the BBC’s flagship news program Newsnight. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
She stated, into TV cameras; “By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” She went on to state that while Dow Chemicals have an ‘army of PR people’ she hoped that her resignation could bring some attention to the continuing plight of victims in Bhopal.
The Dow Chemical Company took over Union Carbide corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and inflict even more with chronic illnesses. Lord Coe and LOCOG have been criticised for allowing Dow Chemical’s the opportunity to sponsor the London 2012 stadium.
Dow Chemical is currently a named respondent in two court cases pertaining to the Bhopal disaster and Dow’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Carbide, is involved in a US court case relating to the ongoing contamination. Union Carbide is also still wanted on criminal charges in India and the Indian courts have stated that Dow is ‘harbouring fugitives from justice’.
Further into the Newsnight interview, Ms. Alexander hinted at a developing crisis within the CSL regarding the Dow issue and stated that some of her fellow commissioners were also “very concerned” but she would not comment on the prospect of further resignations.
More at the linkThe London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as... more
Taking aspirin may do more harm tha`n good, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute.
The study sought to discover which companies produce the highest “toxic score,” a rating derived from a combination of what the Political Economy Research Institute deems to be a company’s toxic outputs.
The group’s findings were surprising. Bayer Group, makers of Aleve and Aspirin, topped their list of world’s worst polluters, even beating out oil giants Valero Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips and Exxonmobile.
In addition to popular pain medications, Bayer produces a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA. This compound has been widely used to create clear, hard plastics. If consumed, BPA can lead to neurological defects, heart disease, diabetes, early onset of puberty in girls, infertility, obesity, breast cancer and prostate cancer, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
It was this particular product that pushed Bayer’s toxic score to the top of the list.
by Dallin Hatch
http://universe.byu.edu/index.php/2011/12/07/bayer-leading-producer-of-a-toxic-chemical/Taking aspirin may do more harm tha`n good, according to a study by the Political... more
Women, who are exposed to BPA during their pregnancy term may notice some possible behavioral issues in their daughters at around age 3. Should you be concerned?Women, who are exposed to BPA during their pregnancy term may notice some possible... more
A new study shows that girls who were exposed to chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) as fetuses are more highly prone to hyperactive, anxious, aggressive, and depressed behavior than boys of similar age. BPA, an estrogen-mimicking chemical used to harden plastic, is found in consumer products ranging widely from canned soups to baby bottles and grocery receipts. (MoJo's Kiera Butler's got the full rundown on BPA's health risks.)
The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, joins a mounting body of evidence linking BPA to various reproductive and developmental diseases. The study's authors tested urine samples of 244 mothers during pregnancy and at birth and of their children for the first three years. The urine tests showed BPA in 84 percent of the women's samples and in 96 percent of the children's, with indications that behavior problems in the girls rose with rising BPA levels. But while the study shows a strong correlation between behavioral change and BPA levels, its authors say more research is needed.
Meanwhile, other studies in recent years have linked BPA exposure to impaired thyroids, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, breast and prostate cancer, and infertility in both men and women. The Pediatrics study confirms two previous ones finding that prenatal exposure to BPA affects child behavior, and it's the first to demonstrate that BPA exposure prebirth may matter more than exposure postbirth, lead author Joe Braun told Bloomberg.
The growing case against BPA has motivated an increasing number of state legislators to ban the substance from certain consumer products. Earlier this month, California officially banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, joining 10 other states that have recently passed similar bills. Around the world, BPA is already outlawed in the European Union, Canada, China, the United Arab Emirates, and Malaysia.
The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees federal regulation over chemicals in the United States, does not support a ban on BPA. This, despite being heavily criticized by consumer advocacy groups and being sued for failing "to safeguard the food supply." In 2009 the Consumers Union warned of the health risks posed by BPA in food containers, basing its position on more than 200 different scientific studies. The FDA recognizes that the recent studies on BPA warrant reason for "some concern." But it ultimately argues that there are "substantial uncertainties" in the interpretation of the studies and says it is conducting its own research on the matter.
Marion Nestle, a nutrition, food, and public health professor at New York University, sums up the regulatory BPA debate neatly:
In the absence of compelling science, regulators have two choices: exercise the "precautionary principle" and ban [BPA] until it can be proven safe, or approve it until it can be shown to be harmful. The United States and European safety agencies—and the food industry, of course—prefer the latter approach.
It's not just about the science. Unsurprisingly, plastic and other industry lobbyists routinely call into question the methodology of studies condemning BPA use, as they did in this most recent case. The criticism makes sense given that industry groups have also been campaigning aggressively against state legislation banning BPA from certain consumer products. In California alone, the American Chemical Council (ACC) spent $9.4 million on lobbying since 2005, Greenwire reported earlier this month. And the money can be persuasive. Mother Jones reported last month that the Susan G. Komen foundation, a leading breast cancer research group, downplayed BPA's links to cancer around the time it was receiving funding from pro-BPA pharma companies.
Now that states are starting to move toward BPA bans despite industry opposition, groups like the ACC seem to be stepping up their game, making a new push for the FDA to have final say over BPA regulation. Of course, if federal jurisdiction were to override the emerging state-level bans, the FDA's inconclusive position on BPA as a public health threat would work well in the industry's favor.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/10/pediatrics-study-bpa-girls-depressionA new study shows that girls who were exposed to chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) as fetuses... more
Obama to announce actions on housing, student loans
BPA in pregnant women might affect kids’ behavior
Turkey’s 7.2 earthquake has killed at least 239Obama to announce actions on housing, student loans BPA in pregnant women might... more
Earlier this year, I was contacted by a PR firm working for Dow Chemical to contribute a 60-second video for the Future We Create virtual conference on water sustainability the company launched yesterday. As a vocal advocate for strict regulation of toxic chemicals -- especially for food and farming -- I was surprised the company would approach me. Dow is the country's largest chemical maker, and profits handsomely from developing some of the world's most polluting products, many of which are widely used in industrial and consumer goods as well as agriculture.
In the video I submitted, which you can watch below, I stress that one of the greatest threats to clean water is chemical contaminants -- and that Dow Chemical has a long history of water pollution. The PR representative emailed to say "unfortunately we can't use your video," but that she would be happy to include me, still, if I would consider re-recording it. When we discussed what that would mean she said, no "fingerpointing"; they wanted a "positive, inclusive discussion."
I believe in inclusiveness and engagement, but I also believe we must pursue those principles within a context that is honest. To do otherwise is to participate in what is popularly called "greenwashing," painting a veneer of environmentalism on an otherwise unchanged product or practice -- a corporate strategy many of us are all too familiar with.
In this spirit, I felt it would be disingenuous to engage in a conversation about water sustainability, for a campaign paid for by Dow Chemical, without pointing out the direct relationship between Dow's core business products -- a source of its $8 billion in profit last year -- and toxins in our environment.
At the same time Dow launches this initiative, the company is actively fighting multiple lawsuits from communities who contend that their water has been polluted by the company, including from its hometown manufacturing plant in Midland, Mich. In 2007, the EPA detected the highest level of dioxin ever discovered in the country's rivers or lakes in waterways near Dow's global headquarters. Dioxin levels in some places were 1,000 times higher than the residential standard, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. A recent study found women living in Midland, as well as Saginaw and Bay counties, have significantly higher rates of breast cancer; dioxin was to blame. A class action lawsuit is pending.
"In the backyard of Dow's corporate headquarters, the company for decades through philanthropy, public relations, and politics has made the choice to push back at every regulatory level instead of addressing their dioxin contamination of 52 miles of freshwater and Lake Huron," said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Saginaw Bay grassroots environmental organization, Lone Tree Council. "The company has mastered the art of greenwashing while poisoning a whole watershed and getting away with it."
Community members in another Midland -- Midland, Texas -- filed suit earlier this year against Dow and three other companies for contaminating groundwater there with hexavalent chromium. Barred from use in the European Union because of its toxicity, hexavalent chromium is a known carcinogen. The EPA's own hazard report notes that exposure, including through contaminated drinking water, "may produce effects on the liver, kidney, [and] gastrointestinal and immune systems."
Dow also continues to drag its heels and fight regulators in order to continue production of some of its most toxic and water-polluting products.
In 2000, for instance, the EPA announced it was phasing out approval of Dow's insecticide, and potent neurotoxin, Dursban, for new home construction in the United States because the product is linked to serious illnesses and even death in children. Five years later, the chemical was still in use in U.S. homes. And in 2003, Dow settled a $2 million lawsuit with the state of New York, the largest penalty ever in a pesticide-related case, for repeatedly violating an agreement about proper advertising of Dursban and making misleading safety claims.
Dow is also a leading manufacturer of Bisphenol-A (or BPA), used in numerous consumer products such as baby bottles, children's toys, and the linings of food cans. It's a particularly dangerous chemical, with proven toxicity even in low doses, especially in utero. The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program has found the chemical may increase the risk of certain cancers and alter brain development. The chemical, a synthetic estrogen, has also been linked to reproductive and hormonal problems. New research is showing that a vast majority of Americans is exposed to low concentrations of BPA not only through consumer products, but from surface water, too.
More at the linkEarlier this year, I was contacted by a PR firm working for Dow Chemical to contribute... more
Bisphenol A is now deeply imbedded in the products of modern consumer society, not just as the building block for polycarbonate plastic (from which it then leaches as the plastic ages) but also in the manufacture of epoxy resins and other plastics, including polysulfone, alkylphenolic, polyalylate, polyester-styrene, and certain polyester resins.
Its uses don’t end with the making of plastic. Bisphenol A has been used as an inert ingredient in pesticides (although in the US this has apparently been halted), as a fungicide, antioxidant, flame retardant, rubber chemical, and polyvinyl chloride stabilizer.
These uses create a myriad of exposures for people....
http://www.factoverfiction.com/article/3737Bisphenol A is now deeply imbedded in the products of modern consumer society, not... more
Parents worry about exposing their children to chemicals like BPA, but nobody knows for sure what they do. That’s because current law doesn’t require that chemicals be tested for safety before hitting the market.Parents worry about exposing their children to chemicals like BPA, but nobody knows... more
Exposure to the chemical BPA very early in life might make it hard to get pregnant later on.
* BPA exposure could make pregnancy later in life more difficult.
* In mice, BPA affected fertility at levels equivalent to what people are normally exposed to and also at much tinier doses.
* Regulators need to recognize that hormones and hormone-like chemicals have different effects at different doses.
more at link....
So, why do they spray it to line baby bottles, beer cans, canned vegetables etc?
EUGENICSExposure to the chemical BPA very early in life might make it hard to get pregnant... more
By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
It won’t be long before the world has to confront its diminishing supply of clean water.
“We’ve had the same amount of water on our planet since the beginning of time, ” Susan Leal, co-author of Running Out of Water, told GritTV’s Laura Flanders. “We are on a collision course of a very finite supply and 7.6 billion people.”
What’s worse, private industries—and energy companies in particular—are using waterways as dumping grounds for hazardous substances. With the coal industry, it’s an old story; with the natural gas industry, it’s a practice that can be nipped in the bud.
In many cases, dumping pollutants into water is a government-sanctioned activity, although there are limits to how much contamination can be approved. But companies often overshoot their pollution allowances, and for some businesses, like a nuclear energy plant, even a little bit of contamination can be a problem.
Business as usual
Here’s one troubling scenario. At Grist, Sue Sturgis reports that “a river downstream of a privately-owned nuclear fuel processing plant in East Tennessee is contaminated with enriched uranium.” The concentrations are low, and the water affected is still potable. The issue, however, is that the plant was not supposed to be discharging any of this sort of uranium at all. One researcher explained that the study had “only scratched the surface of what’s out there and found widely dispersed enriched uranium in the environment.” In other words, the contamination could be more widespread than is now known.
Nuclear energy facilities must take particular care to keep the waste products of their work separate from the environment around them. But in some industries, like coal, polluting water supplies is routine practice.
The dirtiest energy
In West Virginia, more than 700 people are suing infamous coal company Massey Energy for defiling their tap water, Charles Corra reports at Change.org. In Mingo County, tap water comes out as “a smooth flow of black and orange liquid.” Country residents are arguing that the contamination is a result of water from coal slurries, a byproduct of mining that contains arsenic and other contaminants, leaking into the water table. Residents believe the slurries also cause health problems like learning disabilities and hormone imbalances, as Corra reports.
Even so-called “clean coal,” which would inject less carbon into the atmosphere, is worrisome when it comes to water. The carbon siphoned from clean coal doesn’t disappear; it’s sequestered under ground. For a new clean coal project in Linden, NJ, Change.org’s Austin Billings reports, that chamber would be 70 miles out to sea. As Billings writes:
The plant would be the first of its kind in the world, so it should come as no surprise that the proposal is a major cause for concern among New Jersey environmentalists, fishermen, and lawmakers. According to Dr. Heather Saffert of Clean Ocean America, “We don’t really have a good understanding of how the CO2 is going to react with other minerals… The PurGen project is based on one company’s models. What if they’re wrong?”
In this case, it wouldn’t only be human communities at risk (“Polluted Jersey Shore,” anyone?), but the ocean’s ecosystem.
Coal communities in West Virginia have been dealing with water pollution for decades. But a another source of energy extraction—hydrofracking for natural gas—has only just begun to threaten water supplies. Care2’s Jennifer Mueller points to a recent “60 Minutes” segment that explores the attendant issues: it’s a must-watch for anyone unfamiliar with what’s at stake.
Fortunately, some of the communities at risk have been working to head off the damage before it hits. In Pittsburgh this week, leaders banned hydrofracking within the city, according to Mari Margil and Ben Price in Yes! Magazine. They write:
As Councilman [Doug] Shields stated after the vote, “This ordinance recognizes and secures expanded civil rights for the people of Pittsburgh, and it prohibits activities which would violate those rights. It protects the authority of the people of Pittsburgh to pass this ordinance by undoing corporate privileges that place the rights of the people of Pittsburgh at the mercy of gas corporations.”
Environmentalists in other municipalities, in state government, and in Congress would do well to follow Pittsburgh’s lead.
Of course, you can’t believe every tale of water contamination you hear. At RhRealityCheck, Kimberly Inez McGuire takes on the persistent myth that estrogen from birth control is making its way in large concentrations into the water supply and leading to mutations in fish.
This simply isn’t true. As McGuire explains, “The estrogen found in birth control pills, patches, and rings (known as EE2) is only one of thousands of synthetic estrogens that may be found in our water, and the contribution of EE2 to the total presence of estrogen in water is relatively small.” Where does the rest of the estrogen come from? Factory farms, industrial chemicals like BPA, and synthetic estrogen used in crop fertilizer. So, yes, the water is contaminated, but, no, your birth control is not to blame.
Greening the US
Stories like these, of environmental pollution by corporations, seem to come up again and again. They’re barely news anymore and so easy to ignore. But it’s more important than ever for environmentalists to fight back against these challenges and push for a green economy that minimizes pollution. The American Prospect’s Monica Potts recently sat down with The Media Consortium to explain the roadblocks to a green economy. If green-minded people want to stop hearing tales like the ones above, these are the obstacles they’ll need to overcome. Watch the video:
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger It won’t be long before the world... more
A chemical commonly found in plastic bottles seems to adversely affect sperm in men, a new study has claimed.
http://www.indiareport.com/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/926293/Health/10/11/10A chemical commonly found in plastic bottles seems to adversely affect sperm in men, a... more
A controversial chemical used for decades in the mass production of food containers and baby bottles has been linked to male infertility for the first time.
Bisphenol-A (BPA), known as the "gender bending" chemical because of its connection to male impotence, has now been shown to decrease sperm mobility and quality.
The findings are likely to increase pressure on governments around the world to follow Canada and ban the substance from our shelves.
BPA is used widely to make plastic harder and watertight tin cans.
It is found in most food and drink cans – including tins of infant formula milk – plastic food containers, and the casings of mobile phones, and other electronic goods.
It is also used in baby bottles though this is slowly being phased out.
BPA has been the subject of intense research as it is a known endocrine disrupter which in large quantities interferes with the release of hormones.
Earlier studies have linked it to low sex drive, impotence and DNA damage in sperm.
Now a new five year study claims to have found a link between levels of BPA in the blood and male fertility.
For their study of 514 workers in factories in China, researchers at Kaiser Permanente, a California-based research centre, found that men with higher urine BPA levels were two to four times more at risk of having poor semen quality, including low sperm concentration, low sperm vitality and mobility.
What is more the amount of the BPA in the blood seemed to be inversely proportional to sperm quality.
Even those with less than the national average BPA levels in America were effected, it was claimed.
more at link...
Then why do they put this in all our beer cans, canned foods and plastics? Eugenics.A controversial chemical used for decades in the mass production of food containers... more
Effective immediately, the chemical Bisphenol A is officially considered toxic in Canada. BPA, as you’re likely aware, is a chemical commonly found in plastics, food cans, water bottles, and paper receiptsEffective immediately, the chemical Bisphenol A is officially considered toxic in... more
A 'gender-bending' chemical used in food containers, baby bottles and baked beans tins should be put through the same rigorous safety trials as new drugs, a leading scientist has declared.
Exeter University Professor David Melzer called for an urgent review into the safety of bisphenol A (BPA ) - a man-made chemical linked to heart disease, breast cancer and birth defects and has urged manufacturers to cut down on BPA in food packaging and containers.
BPA is used to harden plastics and is found in baby bottles, CD cases, plastic knives and forks and the lining of food and drink cans.
Because the chemical mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen, many scientists believe it interferes with the way hormones are processed by the body.
Although some animal studies have indicated it is safe, others have linked injections of BPA to breast cancer, liver damage, obesity, diabetes and fertility problems.
Experts estimate that BPA is detectable in more than 90 per cent of people. Earlier this year, Denmark banned the chemical in food and drink containers for the under-threes.
A study by Professor Melzer, an epidemiologist, found changes in sex hormones associated with exposure to BPA in men.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1309537/Chemical-used-make-baby-bottles-baked-bean-tins-face-new-safety-tests-says-leading-scientist.html#ixzz0ynv9w5fa
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1309537/Chemical-used-make-baby-bottles-baked-bean-tins-face-new-safety-tests-says-leading-scientist.htmlA 'gender-bending' chemical used in food containers, baby bottles and baked... more
Two article in Science News, written about a year apart tell of how BPA on cash register receipts can and is rubbing off on our hands and may be entering through our skin.
One link is above the picture, the other link, below.
Cashiers are the most at risk, obviously. Wearing disposal rubber gloves should be a mandatory safety issue for them.
After reading both articles, it does not look like anyone has done a thing about the paper and how it is made, or even issuing safety warnings.
So...when you are handed a receipt next time, take it very gently, you never know where it has been:))http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61740/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Cashiers... more