Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

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

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: mugley

Fourth of July fireworks spectaculars bring communities together, instill civic pride, and wow us with their bright beauty. They also release fuels, metals, and other toxins that can remain in the air and water sources months later.

The problem, it seems, is that the technology powering most fireworks shows hasn’t changed much since the 1930s. Blends of black powder, oxidizers, metals, and fuels are ignited. Then traces wind up in the air and water and spread long distances.

According to a report in the July 3, 2008, issue of The Los Angeles Times, “concentrations of fine particles, or carbon soot, skyrocket for up to 24 hours after the Independence Day shows, reaching levels as high as those from wildfires.” These fine particles can inflame airways, lodge in the lungs, and trigger breathing problems, coughing, and sore throats. It’s of even more concern for those with heart and respiratory ailments such as asthma. Hospital admissions spike when there are high levels of fine particles in the air.

Also troublesome are heavy metals, such as barium, and fuels, such as perchlorate, that the explosions release. Metals give fireworks their brilliant colors, and perchlorate, a cancer-causing and hormone-altering substance, is used as an oxidizer. (Perchlorate is also used a rocket fuel and is increasingly found in our nations waterways from various sources.)

All this said, it’s hard to give up a good fireworks show. As a nation, we love and expect them as a matter of patriotic duty. That’s why some fireworks boosters, like the Walt Disney Company, which puts on fireworks displays nightly at its theme parks during the summer months, are working with scientists to develop with greener solutions.

Now Disneyland uses ultra-low-smoke and perchlorate-free technologies developed at places such as Los Alamos Labs and DMD Systems. The park also uses an aerial launcher with compressed air so that less soot is released.

Now that the technologies are being developed, why doesn’t everyone use them? The answer, as with many environmentally friendly alternatives, is cost. Today, greener fireworks can cost as much as 10 times standard issue fireworks imported from China.

The hope is that as technologies improve and demand for greener fireworks increases, costs will come down. What you can do as an individual, is educate the people you know about the risks and benefits of traditional fireworks, and ask those who put on the displays (local theme parks, city governments, etc.) to consider new, greener alternatives.

More resources:

Along with Beauty, Fireworks a Beastly Mix of Pollutants, The Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-fireworks4-2008jul04,0,3738169,full.story

Pyrotechnic for the Planet, Chemical & Engineering News, June 30, 2008
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/86/8626cover.html

Chemists Brew Greener Fireworks, Cnet, July 3, 2008
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9983246-54.html?hhTest=1

Eco-Friendly Pyrotechnics, Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news124961394.html

EPA Considers Regulating Perchlorate in Ground Water
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/ccl/perchlorate/perchlorate.html