Last week, we told you about the National Stroller Brigade that was happening May 22 at the U.S. Capitol. The event was held in support of the Safe Chemicals Act after the Chicago Tribune wrote articles exposing the chemical industry's deceptive lobbying techniques.
Here's a recap if you missed the event:
Moms, nurses and cancer survivors came together on May 22 to encourage the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to vote for the Safe Chemicals Act. The bill is designed to change outdated laws governing toxic chemicals.
People from all around the U.S. came to the Capitol and broke up by their home states to deliver 12,000 petition signatures to their senators.
Several senators were there, including Dick Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer of New York. Sen. Lautenberg, who started the Safe Chemicals Act, spoke out at the event.
“It’s shocking that toxic chemicals end up in everyday consumer products, and in our bodies, without anyone proving that they are safe,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “The stroller brigade is carrying an important message to Congress that we're not going to stand by and let our kids continue to be exposed to chemicals that make them sick. Concerned moms are the best weapons we have in this fight. With their help, I will keep advancing the Safe Chemicals Act to reform our broken toxic chemical laws and provide a healthier future for our families.”
During the brigade, Polly Schlaff - a widow from Western Michican and mother of three boys -- told the crowd about how she lost her high-school sweetheart to cancer at the age of 35.
"My husband’s cancer had no genetic links, a fact both reassuring and troubling to a single mother bent on protecting her children from illness,” Schlaff said. “No genetic flaw predisposes my sons to Ewing’s sarcoma, yet every day they, along with millions of other American children, are exposed to known and suspected carcinogens. This is unacceptable.”
Celebrity Jessica Alba, who serves as a spokesperson for Safe Chemicals, Healthy Families, helped support the brigade.
“I hear stories from parents across the country every day - they are frustrated with the lack of transparency and honesty about the safety of the chemicals in consumer products," Alba said. "I stand in support of the parents in Washington asking for stronger laws that protect our babies. We deserve the peace of mind of safe and healthy products.”
“If there is one overwhelming message from years of science, it’s that exposure to toxic chemicals early in our lives is responsible for some of the cancer, infertility and other health problems that affect millions of Americans,” said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “However, Congress has been paralyzed. We’re here to break the gridlock and demand common sense limits on toxic chemicals.”
See pictures from the event here.
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM1 comments
Hundreds of moms and cancer survivors from across the country are flying and taking buses into Washington, D.C., to take part in the National Stroller Brigade at the U.S. Capitol on May 22. The Brigade supports the Safe Chemicals Act, a bill designed to overhaul outdated laws governing toxic chemicals.
Mothers will be rallying together partly in response to some Chicago Tribune articles that found the chemical industry is using deceptive lobbying techniques to protect flame retardants and other toxic chemicals.
The event will begin with a press conference at 10 a.m. followed by the stroller brigade at 11. Moms from each state also will deliver thousands of petition signatures asking their senators to support the act.
“The rise in childhood and young adult cancer is simply unacceptable,” said Lindsay Dahl, deputy director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Blog. “Learning and developmental disabilities are on the rise in alarming rates.”
Some mothers plan to hand contaminated nursing pillows to their senators with the message "This is unacceptable" written in magic marker.
So how bad is the deception? What is the Chicago Tribune saying about the chemicals?
One article describes how a flame retardant manufacturer stood before a crowd of California lawmakers and told a story about a 7-week-old girl who was severely burned after her pillow lacking flame retardant chemicals caught on fire. The manufacturer went on to tell other stories about infants who died in candle fires and fires in their cribs. Read the story here.
All his stories turned out to be lies.
“His testimony is part of a decades-long campaign of deception that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility,” The Tribune said.
The article says that deception began with the tobacco industry, which wanted to prove that cigarettes weren’t causing fires. Then, chemical companies wanted to ensure they could continue marketing their products.
“These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the public's fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause,” the article said.
What’s the damage?
The average American baby is born with more concentrations of flame retardants than any infants in the world, according to the article.
Hopefully, mothers and cancer survivors can get through to Congress and lawmakers at the Stroller Brigade and help change our laws.
We’ll give you an update after the event, which takes place on Tuesday.
Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM0 comments
Who said boating had to be bad for the environment?
The world’s first green superyacht will go on sale sometime in 2013. Consumers can purchase Palambo’s 130-foot Columbus Sport 130’ hybrid, but it won’t be cheap. The yacht is priced at $30 million.
What makes this yacht different?
The Italian superyacht has an eco-friendly design and duel-powered electric and diesel engine. It uses hybrid fuel and is “powered by a Toyota Prius style mixture of electricity and diesel that reduce the ship’s emissions,” according to a news article. In addition, it has a bilge water separator that keeps oil from spreading in the sea.
Built with an aluminum exterior, it features three-cabins and holds up to eight people. It’s also the ninth-largest yacht in the world.
The cost to cruise around in the yacht for week: $384,000.
Read more about the yacht here.
Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 16, 2012 at 12:30 AM0 comments
Are Fracking Chemicals Making our Drinking Water Unsafe?
Today, many scientists say fracking isn’t hazardous to our drinking water. Layers of rock can keep fracking fluid tucked away from our water supply close to a mile away, according to some scientists’ theories.
But a new study examining the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale found that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could move closer to our drinking water supply than scientists may have thought. Check out the study, mentioned in an article on Business Insider, here.
The researchers in the study found that “natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus, worsened by the effects of fracking, could allow chemicals to get to the surface in as little as a few years from now.”
"Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable,” said Tom Myers, author of the study and an independent hydrogeologist.
This isn’t the first time fracking has caused concerns about whether it can get into our drinking water.
A U.S. News opinion article, however, calls the case against fracking “anecdotal and overstated,” stating that there haven’t been any cases where fracking chemicals have entered our water supply. Read the article here.
But several other news sources disagree, arguing that fracking chemicals have, in fact, been found in drinking water.
In one instance, the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an investigation in 2011 to determine whether Encana drilling company’s fracking process contaminated water in Pavillion, Wash. The EPA found that the water contained “synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above the Safe Drinking Water Act standards for high methane levels.” Read the story here.
So what happens when fracking chemicals seep into our water supply?
One website said fracking chemicals are “linked to bone, liver and breast cancers, gastrointestinal, circulatory, respiratory, developmental as well as brain and nervous system disorders. Such chemicals are present in frack waste and may find their way into drinking water and air.”
But how do we know the true dangers? How do we know what fracking can really do to our water supply is, how dangerous the chemicals are, and who we can trust to keep our drinking water safe?
Please let us know what sites you visit to learn more about fracking.
Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 04, 2012 at 2:13 PM3 comments
It seems not everyone is pro natural energy. On Tuesday, April 3, demonstrators rallied against wind power projects in Ontario, Canada, claiming turbine noise was causing physical illness and rural property values to plummet.
More than just a few people expressed disdain for the wind turbines; roughly 800 farmers rallied outside downtown Toronto protesting against a government subsidy and requested that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty resign due to his push for clean energy that is allegedly costing citizens more money. The protestors demanded McGuinty cease wind and solar power projects.
Some residents claim they have been forced out of their homes because of the noise.
McGuinty is all for the continued progression of green initiatives throughout Ontario with the goal of reducing Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050; he states on the government website: “Ontario has a vision for green energy – we will be a North American leader. We have practical, aggressive policies to secure green energy generation, research and manufacturing, which will create good jobs in a growing industry.”
McGuinty aims to reach his government's green goal by opting for renewable energy over coal-fired power plants, encouraging conservation, providing tax breaks for energy-efficient products, and creating incentives for green businesses, municipalities and consumers.
While McGuinty stresses the positive side of the green energy movement in Ontario, voices from the citizens personally affected by some projects oppose the initiative – specifically the turbines.
“They’re huge power-producing machines that make noise and produce vibration…that is felt in the inner ear, similar to the bass from a passing car that’s playing loud music,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario to AFP. Wilson is one of many protestors involved in nonprofit organizations participating in the wind power protests. The Ontario Wind Resistance represents more than 50 organizations banning together against wind power. The April 13 protest was just one in an ongoing battle against the turbines – the group even has a calendar highlighting scheduled protests on their website.
The Ontario Wind Resistance website features testimonials from Ontario residents and their experiences with the turbines – some testimonials include citizens of Australia and the United States of America. Check them out for yourself here. Apparently, the whole green movement isn't a good thing for more than a few Ontario residents.
Posted by Christina Miralla on Apr 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM0 comments
HealthyStuff.org, a website run by the Ecology Center, a Michigan-based non-profit, released a report that several national vendors sell low-cost jewelry that contain toxic chemicals known to cause cancer and allergies. The products, which included inexpensive jewelry for adults and children, were tested for chemicals including lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, bromine, and chlorine (PVC).
More than half of the tested items resulted in a “high” level of concern because one or more of the dangerous chemicals were detected at high levels. The presence of hazardous substances were found by using an X-ray fluorescence detector. Retailers such as Target, Walmart, Claire’s, and H&M were among several popular national chains represented. To find the items tested by brand name and vendor, click here and see the individual contaminants in each product.
“There is no excuse for jewelry, especially children’s jewelry, to be made with some of the most well-studied and dangerous substances on the planet,” said Jeff Gearhart, Research Director at the Ecology Center and founder of HealthyStuff.org. “We urge manufacturers to start replacing these chemicals with non-toxic substances immediately.”
A total of 27 percent of the 99 tested items contained more than 300 ppm lead in one or more components, which is higher than the legal limit for children’s products. Additionally, ten percent contained cadmium, 93 percent chromium, 30 percent nickel, seven percent brominated flame retardants, and 12 percent PVC. Click here to view a summary of the results as well as other chemicals found.
Cadmium and chromium are known carcinogens. Nickel is carcinogenic in addition to causing skin and lung problems. Brominated flame retardants contain more than 1,000 ppm bromine, which causes nervous system damage and disrupts genetic materials. Chlorine, which is contained in PVC at 25,000 ppm, does not have consistently documented long-term effects, but is know to irritate the skin, lungs, and eyes.
According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), children should not be given cheap metal jewelry because, “Swallowing, sucking on, or chewing a metal charm or necklace could result in exposure to lead, cadmium, or other heavy metals, which are known to be toxic at certain levels of exposure.”
However, the CPSC has failed to regulate cadmium in children’s products in general, instead opting for a voluntary standard developed by the industry. Six states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, have moved to regulate the harmful chemical through state law. Also, the Toxics Substance Control Act is in the process of being reformed through a bill, the Safe Chemicals Act (S.847), introduced by Senator Lautenburg in 2011 with 15 co-sponsors.
Click here to watch a video and contact your senators about the Safe Chemical Act.
Posted by Elizabeth Freed on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM0 comments
When people think about the impacts of war, they usually think in terms of lives lost and dollar spent. While these are valuable considerations, what impact can human conflict have on the land, water, air and animals in the near vicinity?
The most obvious example of harmful warfare is nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in World War II are the only known examples of atomic bombs actually being used. Besides the significant loss of civilian life and subsequent radiation sickness and birth defects, the environmental impact of the A-bombs was profound.
Radioactive dust particles floated and settled nearby on land and in water. Also, debris that was blasted into the atmosphere travelled untold miles. Plants and animals suffered similar burn deaths, or died shortly thereafter due to radioactive rainfall.
The surface water was contaminated, leaving local Japanese (and animals) without safe drinking water for months. The earth was similarly scorched, with dead rice stalks reportedly found up to a seven mile radius from the drop sight.
However, nuclear weapons do not have to be deployed for similar effects to happen during wartime. Probably the most infamous of chemical weapons, Agent Orange, had similar effects on Vietnam’s water supply and natural ecosystem. The defoliant was used extensively during the U.S. conflict in Vietnam. It was used to kill off hundreds of acres of dense rainforest and also found its way into rivers as well.
Although the use of Agent Orange is now illegal, defoliants continue to be deployed as a viable military tactic with devastating effects on the land and water. As recently as 2007, President Bush used defoliants in Colombia to kill coca farms. Unfortunately, cocaine production did not slow down as a result of the seven-year policy, so Colombia decided to revert to the less destructive use of manual removal.
Probably the most controversial of recent chemical war agents, depleted uranium, which is used on tank-busting munitions, has been found to have significant radiological impacts on human health and soil. The weapons were used extensively in Bosnia and Iraq where many birth defects and infant fatalities have been reported.
Chemicals don’t have to be contained in weapons to be used aggressively during war. Although the legality and morality behind the strategy is questionable, chemical production factories are targeted for bombing. In 1998, President Clinton thought a Sudanese factory contained dangerous chemicals and ordered it to be bombed. Luckily for locals, it did not, but the bombing still harmed the Sudanese economy.
Armed conflict in Rwanda took park rangers out of the protected habitats of gorillas, leaving them vulnerable to poachers. Also, the forced migration of refugees has had a detrimental effect on the habitats of endangered species throughout the African continent.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) is an organization “concerned with issues of the legality of bombing certain targets, such as chemical plants near populated areas; employing certain weapons, such as depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs; and adopting certain tactics, such as high-altitude bombing.”
In 1998, following the widely condemned burning of Kuwaiti oil fields and dumping of oil into the Persian Gulf, ELI, the Smithsonian Institution and the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences co-hosted the First International Conference on Addressing Environmental Consequences of War.
A book, The Environmental Consequences of War, was produced from that conference. According to a chapter by Christopher D. Stone, only one provision of all the laws regulating war behavior specifically addresses the environment. All other laws include it incidentally as a secondary factor after human impact. That provision, Article 35(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prohibits methods of warfare: “expected…to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” (page 21).
This is an excellent start, but has been demonstrated – who decides when the damage is too severe, and when will the consequences for violations be enforced?
Posted by Elizabeth Freed on Mar 05, 2012 at 12:16 AM11 comments