Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: Velo Steve

In August, we wrote about a California Audubon report that said lead poisoning from spent hunting ammunition is killing the last California condors — birds that, thanks to two decades of human intervention, were brought back from the brink of extinction. The report also noted that this costly recovery effort is unrealistic and unsustainable unless lead is banned from hunting ammunition.

Now the Los Angeles Times reports that: “A ban on hunting with lead ammunition within the California condor’s 2,385-square-mile range will be expanded to prohibit its use in the shooting of small nuisance animals [such as squirrels and rabbits].”

Good News for California Condors

The majestic birds with wingspans up to 9 1/2 feet are scavengers, like vultures, which means they ingest lead while eating the carcasses of hunted animals and gut piles.

The California Condor Preservation Act had already banned lead ammunition from hunting large games such as deer and antelope (presumably an easier sell to hunters because people don’t want to ingest lead from game they’ve hunted either). This will be the first time the act applies to small animals, which are more likely to be left behind, and thus more likely to be eaten by California condors.

Read the complete story at: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-condors4-2008dec04,0,1706424.story

E-waste, or electronic waste, consisting of old computers, cell phones, TVs, VCRs and other discarded electronic equipment, has become one of the largest sources of solid waste generated by our high-tech, consumer-driven society.

photo credit: bdunnette

The ever-growing pile of e-waste shows no signs of abating anytime soon. For while we covet the latest electronic equipment on the market, the minute we obtain that new computer or cell phone, it has already become obsolete, soon to be replaced by a newer, sleeker version already being developed. And, when the newer model hits the market, we “throw away” our old equipment and the process begins anew.

The problem with this seemingly endless cycle is that e-waste—which contains valuable metals such as silver and gold as well as toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium—is difficult to dispose of efficiently and safely.

Currently, only about 20% of e-waste is recycled. The rest sits in storage and domestic landfills, or it gets shipped off to China, India and other developing nations in Asia and Western Africa where it’s disassembled—often in a very dangerous and crude manner—and its parts sold for scrap.

Efforts to stem the tide of this “noxious clutter” (as National Geographic writer Chris Carroll put it) include the 1989 Basel Convention, a 170 nation-accord mandating that nations must be informed of incoming shipments of hazardous e-waste. In response to criticism that the Basel Convention wasn’t stringent enough, the 1995 Basel Ban was instituted, forbidding shipments of hazardous e-waste entirely.

However, illegal shipments abroad continue. The 2002 documentary Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia showed the harmful effects of e-waste dumping in places like the town of Guiyu in Guangdong Province in China. In Guiyu, both residents and the land tested positive for high levels of the toxic chemicals that leach into the ground and infiltrate the air once electronic equipment is dismantled. In his January 2008 National Geographic article, “High-Tech Trash,” Chris Carroll wrote of e-waste in Ghana being “flushed into the Atlantic” after it’s stripped of its valuable parts. And, in September of this year, a Government Accountability Office report, criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to prevent e-waste exports, particularly those of cathode-ray tubes (CRT) used in computer and TV screens, a responsibility allocated to the organization in January 2007.

Stressing the importance of accountability to combat the export and accumulation of e-waste, electronics manufacturers and governments (especially in Japan and Europe) have instituted “green design” and “take back” initiatives that not only restrict the amount of chemicals that go into electronic equipment to begin with but also promote responsible recycling by establishing e-waste collection points.

In the United States, where the infrastructure for “take back” and “green design” is not federally regulated or mandated, the responsibility for e-waste recycling rests with organizations like the EPA as noted above, as well as with state governments and individual companies.

In initiating and enforcing responsible e-waste recycling, the states of California and Massachusetts—who were the first to ban cathode ray tube monitors (CRT) from landfills—lead the way. Of course, many of the special e-waste recycling programs charge a fee, though a fairly nominal one. For example, in California, depending on the size of the computer or TV screen, the charge is about $6-$10.00.

Creative Solutions is one of a handful of U.S. companies who recycle electronics for a wide variety of “small, mid-size and Fortune 100 companies, government agencies, non-profit organizations, educational institutions and concerned citizens.” ReCellular, Inc., a Michigan-based reseller and recycler of mobile phones, sends its obsolete phones to Sims Recycling Solutions, an Australian firm with branches in the U.S., so that phones can be safely and efficiently recycled. Even the United States Postal Office is developing a free national collection program for small electronic items. The program was tested in select cities throughout the summer with the intention of implementing it nationwide this fall.

To find out more on how you can do your part to curb the e-waste cycle, see

Greenpeace “Guide to Greener Electronics”: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/toxics/hi-tech-highly-toxic/company-report-card

ERecycle.org—a “California partnership between government, manufacturers, retailers, and the environmental community”–offers a wealth of information about where and how Californians can recycle their electronics:

http://www.erecycle.org/search.asp

Earth 911 provides information on what items are recyclable and where they can be recycled:

http://earth911.org/electronics/

Image courtesy VBS.tv's excellent 12-part video series.

Out in the beautiful deep blue waters of the Pacific Ocean swirls a giant mass of plastic trash. It’s huge, it’s gross, and it’s growing.

Some Say It’s Twice the Size of Texas

This giant plastic trash continent goes by many names: the Pacific Gyre, the Great Garbage Patch, and Garbage Island. And before the real estate speculator in you gets excited about the possibility of a new oceanfront property, you should know it’s not a single cohesive mass of trash, but rather billions and billions of plastic pieces, big and small, that float out to sea and collect in a large, shifting swirl, thanks to ocean currents.

For an eye-opening visual of this floating trash vortex, see VBS.tv’s excellent (but, parents be warned, foul-mouthed) 12-part video series. Each episode is about seven-minutes long: http://www.vbs.tv/shows.php?show=1154

What Goes Around, Comes Around

Unfortunately, the vast majority of plastics manufactured are not biodegradable. That means this patch of old bottles, toothbrushes, straws, nets, shoelace tips, wrappers, packaging, and more is here to stay. The pieces of plastic do, over time, erode into smaller pieces, which are then ingested by birds and fish, which then are ingested by us. Pause here to think not only how disgusting that is, but how harmful to our health it is to ingest known toxins and carcinogens.

What Can You Do to Stop the Great Garbage Patch?

There’s been some talk about cleaning the mess up, though due to the enormity of the task and small pieces, it may not be feasible. Think how hard it is to fish out a single speck of eggshell from a bowl of cracked eggs and multiply that by trillions.

The best way to help is to stop it from growing. And the best way to stop the Great Garbage Patch from growing is to reduce our consumption of plastics, non-biodegradable plastics, in particular.

I, for one, tuck a small shopping bag in my purse when I go out, just in case I make an impulse buy. For planned shopping trips, I bring my own bags. I carry a stainless steel water bottle with me instead of buying bottled water. I don’t use straws. I refill our hand soap dispensers. I avoid products with lots of wrappers. And, of course, I recycle what plastics can be recycled. It’s not the entire solution, but it’s a start. It’s also, honestly, a lot less convenient. But thinking of the huge floating plastic trash heap keeps me in line.

There are millions of ways to make a difference. I’ve heard of people bring their own food containers for takeout and bringing containers back to their neighborhood health food store for refills. If you have more ideas, please post a comment and share them here.

More resources:

Join the Stop the Great Garbage Patch cause on Facebook:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/57731?recruiter_id=10314532

“Giant Plastic Soup Floats Out to Sea,” on frogblog:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/02/11/giant-plastic-soup-floats-out-to-sea/

“Is There a Solution to the Continent of Plastic that Pollutes the Pacific?” on Fat Knowledge:
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-solution-to-continent-of.html

“Continent-Size Toxic Plastic Stew of Plastic Trash Fouling the Pacific Ocean,” San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/18/SS6JS8RH0.DTL

photo credit: ..· ✈Katherina ➳·..

As host of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, China missed key opportunities to leave a meaningful, lasting environmental legacy.

In a recently released report, Greenpeace commends China for living up to many of its environmental promises. But, the watchdogs note, a lack of transparency and independently verified data made evaluation difficult. And many solutions, especially those relating to Beijing’s air quality, are temporary fixes that will not continue after the games, and therefore not be of real benefit to the people of Beijing.

Here’s a quick look at Beijing’s missed opportunities:

• Waste management
  Instead of moving toward a zero-waste policy, polluting incineration was encouraged and more landfill was created.
• Car ownership
  While four new rail lines were added to boost public transportation infrastructure, little was done to curb private car ownership. About half a million cars were added to Beijing’s roads last year, a pace that is expected to continue.
• Air quality
  Dramatic quick fixes like temporarily halting industrial production and banning most private cars from the road may improve air quality for the games, but they are not lasting, cost-effective solutions. A better approach would be to enforce stricter emission standards for manufacturing, make public transportation viable for more riders, and move away from reliance on coal-burning energy plants.
• Water conservation
  Water-saving technologies used at the Shunyi Olympic Rowing and Canoe Park could have been more widely adopting to prevent and further strain on Beijing’s dwindling water supply.
• Air-conditioning and refrigeration
  Most of the cooling technologies used eschew ozone-depleting CFCs, but many use climate-boosting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because most of these systems are new and will likely not be replaced for some time, it represents a failure to leapfrog to more-efficient, greener technologies.
• Building construction
  Green building techniques were encouraged but non-binding, limiting their implementation.
• Sponsors
  Electronic companies Lenovo and Panasonic provided equipment containing known toxic substances like PVC and BFR.

More resources:
Greenpeace’s full report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/news/green

“IOC Could Have Done More,” TreeHugger
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/beijing_ioc_get_mixed_report_greenpeace.php

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: SqueakyMarmot

If you love seafood as much as I do, you should know that there is less of a reason to fear for your health or that of the ocean’s when you are armed with the knowledge to make educated choices about the type of fish that you buy (where it comes from and what species it is) as well as how you prepare it.  You can stop avoiding the fish market or the fish entrée served at your local restaurant if you follow a few easy guidelines in making your selections:

Sustainable Fishing Certification: One of the keys to making smarter choices when purchasing fish has been simplified through the sustainable seafood certification methods implemented by the Marine Stewardship Council. This non-profit organization works with independent, accredited certifiers to ascertain whether or not various fishery practices meet the following standards of sustainable fishing methods.

Every fishery must demonstrate that it meets 3 core principles:

Principle 1: Sustainable fish stocks
The fishing activity must be at a level, which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continue indefinitely and is not overexploiting the resources.

Principle 2: Minimizing environmental impact
Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.

Principle 3: Effective management
The fishery must meet all local, national and international laws and must have a management system in place to respond to changing circumstances and maintain sustainability.

The blue MSC ecolabel can be found on seafood products at fish markets and retailers throughout the world.  Check out their website (http://www.msc.org/) to see which retailers in your area are carrying MSC certified products.  You may be surprised to find retailers, such as Target and Walmart listed among the likes of Whole Foods.

Choosing Safe Fish: Different types of fish are known to be more harmful than others, depending on the general preferred fishing practices for each species. There are a handful of downloadable pocket guides that you can keep in your wallet and reference the next time you are out shopping for seafood.

Some safer seafood to purchase include:
Anchovies
Catfish (farmed)
Mussels (farmed)
Oysters (farmed)
Salmon (Alaska, wild-caught)
Scallops, Bay (farmed)
Striped Bass (farmed)
Tilapia (U.S. farmed)
Tuna: Ahi, Yellowfin, Bigeye, Albacore (pole/troll-caught)
White Seabass

Some seafood to avoid:
Cod (Atlantic)
Crab, King (imported)
Chilean Seabass (Toothfish)
Halibut (Atlantic)
Monkfish
Orange Roughy
Shrimp (imported)
Snapper (imported)
Swordfish (imported)
Tuna: Bluefin

For complete downloadable pocket guides, visit one of the following websites:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/lo/seafood/
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1521&redirect=seafood

Cooking Your Fish:
Since seafood can be contaminated with toxins, including mercury and PCBs, the way you cook your fish is another factor to consider since these toxins tend to build up in the fat of the fish:

• Before cooking, remove the skin, fat (found along the back, sides and belly), internal organs, tomalley of lobster and the mustard of crabs, where toxins are likely to accumulate.
• When cooking, be sure to let the fat drain away avoid or reduce fish drippings as much as possible.
• Grilling or broiling fish is much better than frying fish in order to avoid sealing in chemical pollutants that might be stored in the fish’s fat.

Additional Resources

Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=79

WWF:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/index.cfm

photo credit: apert

Thanks to enormous human intervention and tens of millions of dollars spent, the California condor population is at 279, up from just 21 in 1982. But according to a new report released by California Audubon, this recovery effort requires “constant and costly human assistance” that is unsustainable and unrealistic unless lead is banned from ammunition.

Lead Is Bad News for Condors and People Alike

Lead poisoning from spent ammunition is what drove North America’s largest birds to the brink in the 1980s, and it continues to sicken and kill the last surviving California condors. Condors, as a scavenging species, feed on carcasses, so the killed game remains left by hunters are integral to condor survival. Unfortunately, when the carcasses contain lead-bullet fragments, condors inadvertently ingest lead. The consequences are deadly.

(It’s also worth noting that the lead fragments in shot game are highly toxic for humans and at least 48 other species, including Bald and Golden eagles.)

Tiny Lead Fragments Cause Birds to Starve

What happens to the majestic birds after ingesting lead fragments isn’t pretty. Lead poisoning paralyzes the birds’ digestive systems and they are doomed to slowly starve. So poisoned birds are trapped, confined, and injected twice a day with a chemical to rid the body of lead. Sometimes the treatments don’t work, and birds die despite conservationists’ best efforts.

Copper Bullets Cost More and Are Not Always Available

Efforts to encourage voluntary replacement of lead ammunition and to remove or bury kills have been largely unsuccessful. Not all hunters are aware of the environmental harm lead bullets wreak. Habits are hard to break. And higher costs and lack of widespread availability of alternatives, such as 100-percent copper bullets, also hamper compliance, even on ranges where lead ammunition is already banned.

Today, human assistance acts as a costly band-aid to the problem. California condors are provided lead-free food at man-made feeding stations, hindering their ability to forage. They are also regularly monitored, trapped, tested, and treated for frequent lead poisoning, which lessons their fear of people and man-made structures. As a result, the birds risk electrocution from sitting on utility lines and frequently feed harmful “microtrash” (nuts, bolts, rags, bottle caps, etc.) to their young chicks.

Removing the Source of Lead Is the Condors’ Only Hope

As long as lead exposure continues, recovery efforts are doomed. Researchers hope that a successfully enforced ban on lead ammunition across Western hunting ranges would allow the California condor to survive without human assistance.

More resources:

Audubon California
View the complete report as a downloadable PDF:
http://ca.audubon.org/AOU_CONDOR_REPORT_Aug08_final.pdf

The Audubon California page below hasn’t been updated to reflect the passage of CA bill AB821, but it provides a good summary of recovery efforts and information on where to find alternatives lead bullets:
http://ca.audubon.org/California_Condor.html

The American Fisheries Society on the impact of lead in shooting and fishing sports (downloadable PDF)
http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/fisheries/fisheries_3305.pdf

U.S. National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm
Lead v. Copper Bullets Quicktime movie

photo credit: otisarchives2

In the world of medical imaging, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are computers or networks dedicated to the storage, retrieval, distribution and presentation of images.  Typically PACS handles the gamut of medical imaging instruments, including Magnetic Resonance (MRIs, or imaging which uses a powerful magnetic field, radio waves and a computer to produce detailed pictures of organs, soft tissues, bone and virtually all other internal body structures), Positron Emission Tomography (PET scans, which accurately image the cellular function of the human body), and Computed Tomography (CT or CT Scan, which uses special x-ray equipment to produce multiple images or pictures of the inside of the body and a computer to join them together in cross-sectional views of the area being studied).

A PACS system usually includes a state-of-the-art Radiology Information System enabling images and data to be delivered to physicians anywhere in the world with access to a high speed broadband internet connection.  As the medium for medical imaging becomes more sophisticated, a PACS system is necessary to take full advantage of the higher level diagnostic studies.  Essentially, because the technological advances in MR, CT and PET imaging are so great, traditional “films” no longer suffice for an accurate patient study.

Translation: The radiology equipment in health care facilities has become so high-tech, doctors now need super-fancy machines to read the results. (more…)

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

photo credit: TheeErin

Here’s something the dry cleaning industry doesn’t want you to know: You don’t need them. Really. Most items in your closet, even the ones labeled “dry clean only” are hand-washable in mild detergent. I know. I’ve tried it myself on suits for work, wool sweaters, silk shirts, and more. Over the course of a year, I easily save $200-$350 just skipping the dry cleaner.

Save Even More Compared to “Green” Cleaners

I save even more if you compare what I’d spend at a “green” dry cleaner. I tried one once. It cost me $20 compared to the $6 at my standard cleaner, and it shrank my sweater. Good thing 3/4-length sleeves are “in” right now! Though, in all fairness, they did warn me that their environmentally friendly method has a tendency to shrink woolens.

Sure, dry cleaning has its immediate benefits, namely, someone else is doing your washing and pressing. But when you take the economic cost to you and the environmental impact (lots of non-biodegradable plastic bags and wire hangers in the landfill, toxins released into your home and our waterways) and compare it to a little extra work on your part, the choice is clear.
(more…)