Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

Painting is more fun with non-toxic paint.

I was a big fan of Home Depot’s Behr brand paints, until I learned that mainstream paints emit dangerous toxins called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). When it came time to repaint the rooms our house, I decided to use “green” paints that reduce indoor air pollution and are more environmentally friendly.

A friend who is a building contractor recommended we try “natural” paint. Seems easy enough, but the more I read, the more I realized I was green on the topic of green paint. (Eartheasy.com offers a great round-up of the types of non-toxic paints and who offers them.) I decided the best way to learn was to experiment, so I chose two types of non-toxic paints (natural and synthetic) in three brands: AFM Safecoat, Yolo Colorhouse, and BioShield. Here’s what I found:

AFM Safecoat Pros:

• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days–much faster than my old Behr paints
• Wide color selection (”Blue Wish” is the color shown in the photo above.)
• Good coverage
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Paint chips not easily available
  (I know they are wasteful, but they are handy. Instead, I had to wait until the paint chip book was returned by another customer and then check it out for three days. Eco-friendly, yes. Convenient, no.)
• Not an entirely natural paint

AFM Safecoat is my overall favorite of the three non-toxic paint brands I tried, the main two reasons being availability and color selection. I also liked that while it did give off an odor, it wasn’t the strong chemical-smelling odor found in standard high-VOC paints.

Yolo Colorhouse Pros:

• Paint chips and poster-size swatches made with real paint available for purchase
• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days
• Good color selection (though not as wide as AFM Safecoat)
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Fair coverage, it didn’t stretch quite as far as the AFM Safecoat paint for the same size room
• Not an entirely natural paint

I love the Yolo Colorhouse color choices, and the big swatch gave me a good sense of what the color would like in the room we painted (much better than a standard 1-inch paint chip). But the coverage wasn’t good enough to make it my top pick.

BioShield Clay Paint Pros:

• Water and clay based, so I consider it a “natural” paint
• Odor dissipated within four days (a little longer than the others, but faster than standard paint)
• Odor was earthy smelling, not like that chemical, solvent smell present in nail salons
• Excellent coverage, the same amount of paint stretched further than the others
• Free chips available to order online; a kit with real paint swatches of all their colors is also available for $12.50

Cons:

• Costs more than AFM Safecoat or Yolo Colorhouse paints: $44/gallon versus $38
• Not available at as many retail outlets (You can order online, though.)
• Color selection, while attractive, is limited compared to the other brands
  (Eco Home Improvement in Berkeley taught me how to blend two colors to achieve the shade I wanted, but I prefer to buy off the shelf.)
• Not available eggshell or gloss finishes (They do offer a trim enamel, but according to instructions, it requires sanding between coats–too fussy for me!)

I love the BioShield clay paint we tried. If I hadn’t been in a hurry to finish my work, I would have used it for all my walls, if not the doors and trim. But the hassle of ordering and waiting for color swatches, and then ordering and waiting for my chosen colors was not worth it for me. If you are a good plan-ahead type though, this brand of paints comes highly recommended.

If you can’t find these brands at your local retailer, you might consider trying Home Depot’s new zero-VOC paint called Freshaire Choice. You can order free color chips online and purchase the paint at your local Home Depot.

photo credit: photohome_uk

The choking exhaust you smell when a tour bus is idling is small when compared to the massive toxic emissions that come from idling tankers and container ships at our nation’s ports. So it’s with welcome relief that Newsweek reports that America’s biggest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, have kicked off new plans aimed at reducing pollution. About 44 percent of the country’s international cargo–cars, clothes, cosmetics, you name it–comes through these two ports alone, so the effects could be significant.

Newsweek says:

“The constant stream of diesel ships and trucks emits a noxious mix of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that permeate nearby neighborhoods. In the L.A. area, studies attributed 120 premature deaths each year to the docks, mostly from heart and lung ailments; the cancer risk nearest the ports is almost twice the already-elevated risk in the region. Worse, while the chances of contracting cancer are dropping overall in L.A., they grew in port areas by 15 percent between 1998 and 2005. ‘It sticks out like a sore thumb,’ says Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which oversees pollution-control planning in the L.A. area.”

The plans include shifting idling container ships from “bunker fuel” to cleaner burning marine diesel or even electricity while docked. The alternative fuels are more expensive, but plan supporters say lower fuel prices don’t take into account the high health care costs associated with pollution-related illnesses. The Coalition for Clean Air, for example, says that measures that allow shipping growth to continue while capping emissions at 2001 levels can save $1.4 billion in health care costs and productivity over 20 years.

More resources:

For the full Newsweek article, “The Greening of America’s Two Biggest Ports,” September 9, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158126

The California Progress Report on legislation that would help pay for port pollution reduction:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/08/major_legislati_1.html

photo credit: Inferis

Last month, the California legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing and phase out the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, cups, and baby food cans and jars sold in the state. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, it would have banned the use of BPA only in products intended for anyone under the age of 3.

Senate Bill 1713, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden, passed in the Senate, but even after several rounds of amendments and votes, failed to pass in the Assembly. This is a real shame. It had been hoped that the bill, if passed, would lead the way for other states to follow suit.

BPA, in case you haven’t heard, is a chemical additive found in clear, shatterproof plastics and in canned-food liners. It’s also a well-known endocrine disrupter that is linked to a variety of ailments, including infertility and breast and prostate cancer.

Would you want to give a known carcinogen to your baby? Remember, babies are in a state of rapid development, so environmental toxins can play a more harmful role in amounts smaller than is needed to harm adults. It’s no wonder that parental outcry has strong-armed manufacturers to produce alternative baby products that don’t use BPA. (With cups at least. So far, it seems, all cans of baby formula contain BPA. Powdered cans contain less, however.)

Most parents, i.e., voters, are overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1713. I know a few parents who are indifferent to it, but none who are clamoring to include even a suspected toxin in products that developing babies use every day. So who sank it? Primarily, the plastics industry. These are the same people who mailed a flyer misleading voters to believe that the BPA phase out would include a wide range of favorite consumer goods, even those intended for adults.

The American Plastics Council insists the amount of BPA that leaches from BPA-containing cups and bottles into food and drink is safe. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies, after decades of knowingly lying about the dangers of smoking, pretty much ruined the industry safety line for everyone. When companies talk about “acceptable levels of risk” these days, do you believe them unquestioningly?

Of course, the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology also claim BPA is safe. But even the American Plastics Council admits that the U.S. National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” regarding BPA exposure in infants and children and that “more research is needed.” (That phrase always raises my eyebrows.) Non-Toxic Kids has a good graphic that shows that the “some concern” level is no cause for dismissal.

Both Canada and Japan have taken a “just in case” approach and moved to ban the use of BPA in baby products. Don’t our families deserve the same level of precaution?

What’s Next
The fight is not necessarily over. Senator Carole Migden will be replaced by Mark Leno in November. When I called her office, they suggested letting him know you support the proposed ban. He could draft a new bill if enough people voice their support.

More Resources:
“Caution Is the Right Reaction to Chemical,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-lazarus13-2008aug13,0,3672425.column

“California Assembly Rejects Two Bills on Chemical Bans,” The Sacramento Bee, August 19, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1167258.html

“BPA in Formula: This Is Not a Call to Panic,” on Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/12/bpa-in-formula-this-is-not-a-c.htm

1. 
   photo credit: cursedthing

   Buying in Bulk Saves Money
   We’re not just talking about buying giant boxes of food a warehouse store. (Although, if you eat that many Cheerios in a month, it can save you money.) We’re talking about the bulk bins at your local grocery store, where you can buy everything from rice, beans, flours, and spices to cereals, nuts, dried fruits, and pastas.
   You can save serious money shopping from these bins—10 to 30 percent off prepackaged prices.

2. Less Trash
   Compare the packaging of 10 cans of kidney beans to one bag. Or three 10-ounce boxes of cereal (three cardboard boxes and three un-recyclable plastic liners) to one bag and a twist tie. You can also reuse your bulk bin bag and twist tie to reduce your waste even more.
   If you’re super-attached to your old cereal boxes, save them and place your reusable bag inside.
3. Less Goes to Waste
   When you buy from the buy bins, you can buy the exact amount you need, so less is likely to spoil and go to waste.
4. Food Often Tastes Better
   Canned beans, for example, are more convenient, but once you get into the rhythm of pre-soaking beans and cooking them the night before, you’ll find beans from the bulk bins taste much better. They harbor none of the metallic aftertaste found in canned beans.
5. A Chemical Found in Most Canned Foods Is Linked to Cancer
   Unbelievable as it sounds, it’s true. Most food and drink cans are lined with a plastic resin that contains a chemical compound called bisphenol A (BPA). Due to a growing concern about the harmful health effects of BPA, it is being banned from baby bottles in Canada and many plastic-bottle manufacturers are voluntarily phasing it out of their products. The makers of cans, however, have not felt the wrath of consumers yet, so most plan to continue using it.

   More resources on BPA in cans, and, if you can’t buy fresh, who offers BPA-free cans:

   “BPA Danger May Be Greater in Tin Cans Than in Water Bottles,” TreeHugger
   http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php

   A list of companies that use BPA in cans, from Organic Grace
   http://organicgrace.com/node/316

   “Where to Find BPA-free Cans,” Julie’s Health Club
   http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/06/where-to-find-b.html

photo credit: Nicholas_T

After looking into China’s Weather Modification program, and its Olympic Weather plans, I began to wonder what kind of effect such practices could have long term.

Putting aside the image of regional farmers equipped to work rocket launchers and anti-aircraft artillery—which leads to a whole different set of concerns—I wondered about the dangers of shooting silver iodide into the sky. Wasn’t anyone concerned about what kind of rain was coming back down?

Turns out, they are.

While researchers from organizations like North American Weather Consultants Inc (NAWC) claim that the silver iodide crystals are so dispersed only trace amounts can be found in test samples that fall to Earth, others are crying foul.

(more…)

photo credit: boliston

Other than a possible seismic issue here and there, and maybe some other obvious exceptions (we’ll just let that surgeon wash those hands and arms with the water running for a full 300 seconds, just in case), healthcare facilities around the nation are jumping on, and occasionally off, the green bandwagon.  Green is clean, and nobody likes a dirty hospital. Indeed, it is the fantasy of every soon-to-be hospital patient that he or she is greeted at the door by Florence Nightengale and then whisked away to a private, state-of-the-art patient room complete with satellite television and high speed internet.

Being a green hospital, however, is not so easy, and many of the suggested green practices may actually compromise patient care.  Green cleaning products, mercury, lighting and basic hospital equipment are just four of many examples currently waiting at that crossroads where “green” public policy and generally accepted healthcare practices collide. (more…)

photo credit: Vanessa Pike-Russell

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows air quality is improving in terms of Second Hand Smoke (SHS).

The report states SHS exposure dropped approximately 70 percent from the late 1980s through 2002. The decline is attributed to “widespread implementation of laws and policies prohibiting smoking in indoor workplaces and public places.”

Analysis was conducted using data from the 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, in which serum cotinine (a biologic indicator of SHS exposure) was measured in nonsmoking kids, teens and adults.

The results showed a significant decline throughout the US population, but there was less of a decrease for 4-19 year olds than for their adult counterparts—underscoring the need to reduce SHS exposure at home, the primary source for children and teens.

The report also notes: “the prevalence of cigarette smoking has decreased during this period, from 28% in 1988 to 21% in 2004,” which may also account for less SHS. But despite this reduction in exposure, almost half of U.S. nonsmokers still had detectable levels of serum cotinine, indicating that SHS exposure remains an important issue for public health.

To check out the CDC report, go to: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a3.htm