Toxic Talks Blog

3/22/13

Fracking for Natural Gas: Why the Hype?

What is natural gas and where does it fit in as an energy resource?

Natural gas (NG) refers mainly to methane (the simplest hydrocarbon), but can also include other gases born from the earth including ethane, propane, and butane. NG is just one of many sources of energy, others being coal, oil, nuclear, as well as “green” sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal. Keep in mind that much of these raw resources are simply means of generating electricity, which is why electricity itself isn’t considered an energy source.

What is fracking and what’s all the hype about?

Fracking is a nickname given to hydraulic fracturing, a process recently developed and now being used to liberate NG from underground shale deposits. The process entails drilling a mile or more beneath the earth’s surface where sand and “proprietary” fluids are injected at high pressures to fracture and crack, or frack, the surrounding shale, allowing NG to then escape back up the drill pipe. Since about 2005, with the use of fracking technologies, companies have been able to tap previously inaccessible NG supplies, thus dramatically increasing supply. Largely due to this increase, domestic NG prices have dropped lower than at any time in recent history, making NG a hot item in the world of energy and politics.

Why isn’t fracking fluid regulated?

Perhaps the most overt and shameless example of political pull relating to U.S. environmental policy is the so-called Halliburton Loophole, a provision passed in 2005 that exempts fracking fluid from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This odd provision was passed under then Vice President Dick Cheney, who also happens to be the former CEO of Halliburton, one of the largest providers of hydraulic fracturing services to gas companies. A coincidence? I’ll let you decide.

Natural Gas and Fracking

Pros

Burning NG produces considerably less carbon dioxide per unit energy than either coal or oil (about half the emissions compared to coal). This means less of an impact on climate change compared to dirtier sources.
Increasing NG supplies means lower prices for the consumer.
Developing domestic energy supplies means greater energy security and perhaps more stable energy prices.

Cons

As the word “proprietary” suggests, the chemical ingredients used in fracking fluid are kept hidden from both the government and general public. If fracking was a closed process, perhaps this wouldn't matter. Instead, fracking fluid often leaks into the surrounding groundwater, affecting community drinking water as well as the ecosystem. You can actually find videos on youtube.com in which people from fracking-afflicted towns set fire to their faucet water to demonstrate its contamination.
Fugitive emissions, or unintended releases, of methane gas could offset the benefit of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, thereby exacerbating global warming (methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide).
Compared to greener energy sources, methane is still a hydrocarbon and thus its combustion directly translates to the release of greenhouse gases.
The use of NG means higher exports of dirty coal to other nations, effectively solving our local pollution problems by shipping them overseas; though from a global pollution perspective (i.e. pollutants that spread across the globe), we aren’t solving anything.
Low NG prices, while out-competing coal prices, are also competing with more sustainable technologies, meaning solar, wind, and other green technologies will be even slower to develop.

Closing Thoughts

Hell, since I’ve written this much I might as well close with my personal thoughts about natural gas and the future of energy. In my opinion, expanding the NG industry is akin to having expanded the oil industry in the past. We’re once again focusing an entire industry and global economy on a resource that will ultimately become exhausted. And when it does, we’ll be forced yet again into a panic, the product of which will be green renewable energy technologies. In the meantime, however, the effects of climate change will have worsened and afflicted generations more of people. This cost to humans and the environment is not justified by the short term profits realized by the select nations/companies that stand to benefit form NG expansion. Finally, relating to the economy, the infrastructure required to fully develop NG resources (including expensive import/export/NG compressions facilities) will require billions upon billions of dollars worth of investments, reshaping domestic economies in certain instances. Who is thinking about the fate of these economies when NG supplies run out? Not the NG companies I can assure you. As a society, we're better off bypassing the ramifications that will inevitably ensue with NG expansion and instead focus our efforts on long term energy solutions, that is, renewable energy.

If you enjoyed this article, please join my blog! Simply click the “join this site” button to the right, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.” Thanks!!

-Shahir Masri, MS

10/26/12

Obama vs. Romney: On Protection from Toxic Pollutants

We’ve now had two conventions and three presidential debates to familiarize ourselves with the candidates running for office of U.S. president. Having said that, and given that Election Day is just around the corner (Tuesday, Nov. 6^th don’t forget!!), I thought I’d dedicate this brief blog to comparing the two candidates’ proposed policies and track records as they relate to preventing toxic pollution and in turn protecting human health. While the candidates differ in many other ways with respect to domestic and foreign policy, here are their key differences solely in terms of their impact on pollution in the United States.

OBAMA

Has passed what are currently the strongest regulations enacted against toxic mercury, lead, soot, and arsenic emitted from dirty power plants

Has invested in and expanded clean wind-energy

Signed key land-protection legislation, safeguarding a million acres around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining

Implemented new standards to double average fuel efficiency of new vehicles, in turn saving twelve billion barrels of oil from combustion

ROMNEY

Opposes various regulations for protecting against toxic pollutants

Proposes to dismantle parts of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act

Wants to end wind energy Production Tax Credit, bringing growing wind industry to a standstill

Wants to overturn fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles

Will approve the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline, extending from Canada to Texas

What Will this Mean?

Under Romney’s plan, weaker pollution standards translate to higher levels of pollution in the United States and therefore a greater health risk to the population. If you’re wondering why it would make sense to lower pollution standards, it’s because the energy plan proposed by Romney favors fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Since these fuels produce a high amount of pollution, it’s difficult to expand the industry without lowering pollution standards. Unfortunately, however, these standards were put in place for a reason, that is, to protect our health. Lowering these standards is essentially prioritizing dirty energy (when other options exist) over the health of our population. Other proposals by Romney, such as lowering fuel efficiency standards and permitting the Keystone pipeline similarly prioritize the fossil fuel industry at the expense of human health. If you’ve forgotten how fossil fuels directly affect human health, refer to my earlier blog entitled Conserving Energy for Better Health at:
http://shahirmasri.blogspot.com/2011/10/conserving-energy-for-better-health.html

On the other hand, by increasing automotive fuel efficiency, investing in clean energy, and enacting stringent pollution emission standards, Obama’s plan will continue to establish a much cleaner environment for us to live in. If you think the health effects of air pollutants are overstated, keep in mind an estimated 60,000 American deaths each year are associated with inhaling particulate matter such as that produced by fossil fuel combustion. Furthermore, by investing in green technology early on, we’re not only reducing pollution, but in fact securing our energy independence in the long run; especially given that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that global political pressure to mitigate climate change is inevitably shifting the energy industry towards green technology.

10/9/12

Disappearing Honeybees: What’s Happening and Are We at Risk Too?

Colony collapse disorder, or CCD, struck the United States during 2006-2007 and other countries soon after. Characterized by the sudden disappearance of honeybees from their otherwise healthy beehives, CCD emerged as an unexpected and highly alarming phenomenon. Before long, CCD was making headlines as beekeepers in 24 U.S. states were reporting honeybee losses of up to 80%, occurring sometimes overnight! The importance of honeybees stretches well beyond preservation for the sake of preservation or even for the sake of honey production. Rather, because they can pollinate a wide variety of crops, can persist throughout the growing season, and can be concentrated in large numbers when needed, honeybees have become the dominate pollinators of a number of major crops including apples, avocados, almonds, pears, sunflowers, melons, etcetera, and are therefore critical to the agriculture industry.

Though stressors such as pathogens, malnutrition due to monoculture food sources, insecticide exposure, and stress due to commercial migration have been identified as potential causes of CCD, these are unsound explanations as such stressors existed long before widespread colony collapse was observed. In the last year, however, a key study conducted by Dr. Lu and colleagues at Harvard University finally succeeded in not simply identifying the likely culprit of CCD, but in fact demonstrating its impact on bee populations. The implicated culprit, imidacloprid (IMD), is a pesticide introduced by Monsanto some years ago. To understand how this pesticide is suddenly affecting bees, one must first understand that for cost-effectiveness, bee keepers have in recent years been replacing the honey within bee hives with high-fructose corn syrup. This allows keepers to profit from the honey while still keeping their pollinators alive throughout the year.

Though IMD as well as corn syrup substitution has existed for some years, historically IMD application consisted of spraying the chemical over corn fields, in which case the corn itself was protected by the corn husk from direct contact with the pesticide. As of 2005, however Monsanto introduced a new method of integrating IMD into corn production. Rather than spraying the chemical, the industry now soaks these corn seeds in highly concentrated solutions of IMD such that the chemical is dispersed throughout the entire corn plant during the growing process. This means that the corn itself contains a considerable amount of IMD. It is when this corn is made into corn syrup and subsequently fed to honeybees that bees are ultimately exposed. Through Lu’s study in which 20 hives spanning 4 locations were fed IMD-dosed corn syrup, the phenomenon of CCD was demonstrated to occur, and to occur increasingly in hives containing higher doses of IMD.

If you’re wondering if IMD is present in corn products served to humans, the answer is "yes." If you’re wondering what impact this might have on human health, the answer is far less certain. Having said that, France has suspended the growing of seeds soaked in a pesticide similar to IMD so as to avoid continuing losses of honeybees, potential human health effects, and agricultural repercussions. The U.S. has yet to take such action. To avoid the negative publicity associated with IMD, the agriculture industry has reassured the public that over 90% of its corn crops are not treated with this pesticide. However, this is only because the industry has cleverly defined the term “treatment” so as to include spraying, but not to include seed soaking. I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Lu about his study and experience in dealing with reps of the agricultural sector. Not surprisingly, there appears to be tremendous resistance by industry to accept anything from health scientists that would damage company profits.

To read Dr. Lu's study, visit:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/chensheng-lu/files/in-situ-replication-of-honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder.pdf

-Shahir Masri, MS

3/2/12

Broken Bulbs: Avoiding Mercury Exposure

I am a strong advocate of using compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs given their high energy efficiency, and therefore reduced impact on the environment. If you don’t know them by their name, CFL bulbs are simply the twisted light bulbs you see everywhere these days. As great as they are, however, CFLs do contain mercury vapor and are therefore important to dispose of properly if broken. In the event that you break one of these bulbs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends the following: First, open a window and leave the room for at least 15 minutes. This will allow for proper ventilation. Also, make sure to shut off your central heating/air conditioning systems if you have one. Upon reentering the room you’re then instructed to use stiff cardboard or paper to scoop up the large glass fragments. Make sure to not use a broom or vacuum to clean the debris as this will contaminate them. Sticky tape is then recommended to remove small glass fragments or visible powder. Finally, a wet cloth or paper towel should be used to wipe the area clean.

Note, all of the contents (broken glass, cardboard, wet cloth, etc.) are to be sealed in a glass jar or plastic bag following each step of the cleanup process. If you must use a vacuum at any point, as might be the case for cleaning carpet, be sure to dispose of the vacuum bag in the same manner used for the other contents. The sealed bags/jars containing the contents are then to be placed in an outside garbage can for the next local trash pickup. Note that some states do not permit such trash disposal, instead requiring that the toxic waste be taken to a separate waste or recycling center. Simply check with your local or state government about disposal requirements for info on this. Following the cleanup of the broken light bulb, be sure to wash your hands. The detailed procedures that have been written to aid in broken CFL cleanup underscore the importance of avoiding mercury exposure and, in turn, the importance of this blog!

If you enjoyed this article and have a Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, please join my blog! Here you can leave comments and feedback. Simply click the “join this site” button to the right, log in using your account info, and click “follow publicly.” Thanks!!

-Shahir Masri

12/29/11

Pesticides in Food

Since the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s best selling book, Silent Spring, which essentially launched the environmental movement, the use of synthetic pesticides to control pests has been a major issue to the public as well as various heath and environmental groups. Today, the toxicity of various pesticides is well recognized to reach beyond specific target organisms, affecting both wildlife as well as human health. Specifically, exposure to pesticides has been associated with a variety of health problems, ranging from mild headaches and fatigue to more severe cancers, birth defects, reduced fertility, and nerve damage. In spite of the damage caused by pesticides, however, the use of these toxic chemicals remains rampant in both the United States and abroad, and in some cases is even increasing. Consequently, pesticides are found everywhere in the environment and can be measured in the blood and urine of nearly every human being on earth!

While it is virtually impossible to completely eliminate pesticides from your grocery bag, an extremely simple and effective way to reduce your exposure to such chemicals is through the consumption of organic rather than conventionally grown produce. In the United States, organic products can be easily identified at your local market by a label which reads “USDA Organic.,” indicating that the product has been grown and handled in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. This Act applies not solely to products bearing this label, but to all food products sold or label as organic in the United States. Provisions of the Act require that organic produce is grown and handled without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This is not to guarantee organic produce will be devoid of synthetic chemicals since synthetic chemicals can still appear in old soils as well as drift between fields. Instead, because the Act ensures organic food be grown according to specified practices, we can expect far less synthetic contaminants in organic produce. It should be noted that consuming organic produce, while reducing your direct exposure to pesticides via consumption, can also reduce your indirect exposure as organic farms are less likely to contaminate the waters we use for drinking and recreation.

Studies investigating the link between produce consumption and pesticide exposure have shown significantly reduced levels of pesticide residues in people consuming organic produce compared with those who consume conventionally grown produce. One study based in Seattle measured organophosphate pesticide residues in the urine of preschool children and found that levels were 6 times higher in children whose diets consisted of conventionally grown produce compared with children whose diets consisted of organically grown produce. When the diets of highly exposed children were shifted from conventional to organic, their pesticide levels dropped dramatically. Upon reverting back to their original diets, levels of pesticide residues in their urine once again increased. Another study reviewing various food pesticide databases reported that organically grown products contained one-third the amount of pesticide residues as found in conventionally grown products. Additionally, the study concluded that organic foods were about 10 times less likely to contain multiple types of pesticide residues in a single product.

If you enjoyed this article, please join my blog! Here you can leave comments and feedback. Simply click the “join this site” button to the right, log in using your account info, and click “follow publicly.” Thanks!!

-Shahir Masri

12/14/11

Honey: Where’d All the Pollen Go??

According to a study conducted for Food Safety News, most honey sold in U.S. grocery stores isn’t true honey. This is because of a process known as ultra-filtration which filters out the pollen. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that any honey that has been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen isn’t honey. That said, the agency has been slow to test honey and prevent false labeling. Of all the samples tested from major stores such as Costco, Safeway, Sam's Club, Walmart, and Target, over 75% did not contain pollen. What’s more, of the honey sampled from drug stores (Walgreens, CVS, Right-Aid) as well as small single-use packets at fast food restaurants (McDonalds, KFC, etc.), 100% did not contain pollen.

Why is honey ultra-filtered?

There is no reason for ultra-filtering honey except to mask its identity (removing pollen makes it virtually impossible to detect where honey came from). For the most part, it’s believed that ultra-filtered honey comes from China. By masking its origin, China can avoid paying expensive import tariffs and indirectly sell cheap honey to the U.S. This is bad news for local U.S. honey producers, who are supposed to be protected by such tariffs.

Why is pollen important?

Probably due to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, raw honey and pollen has been shown to improve certain stomach ailments and is also believed to improve certain allergic conditions.

How Do I Buy Real Honey?

Results of the study showed that 100% of honey purchased at farmers markets, co-ops, and "natural" stores like Trader Joe's had the full, anticipated, amount of pollen. In general, honey labeled as “organic” is more likely to contain pollen. Of the organic honey analyzed in this study, over 70% contained heavy amounts of pollen.

-Shahir Masri

12/7/11

Canned Food Study

A couple months ago I blogged about the toxicity of plastic water bottles due to BpA and other chemical exposures. It’s important to be aware, however, that plastics are not the only major source of BpA exposure. People are also exposed through consuming canned food and beverages. This is because BpA is used to line the insides of these cans prior to packaging. As a reminder, BpA can interfere with metabolic processes and cause reproductive health problems, and is therefore important to avoid. Together, by reducing your consumption of canned foods and soft drinks, and by avoiding certain plastics (see previous article), you can successfully avoid the two greatest sources of human BpA exposure!

I can personally attest to the effect these exposures have on BpA levels in the body. About six months ago, I participated in a Harvard study assessing BpA exposure through canned soup consumption. For two separate weeks during the study period, us “subjects” were fed either fresh soup or canned soup for lunch. Our urinary BpA levels were then analyzed for comparison. Average BpA levels were 1000% higher following canned soup consumption compared to fresh soup consumption. My personal BpA levels were about 25 times higher during the week that I consumed canned soup! These valuable study results were recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. By sharing this information, I hope I’ve demonstrated that small changes in your daily habits can in fact translate to enormous reductions in the amount of harmful chemicals to which your are exposed.

-Shahir Masri