Toxic Talks Blog

11/25/13

Thanksgiving: 10 Tips for a Healthier Feast

This season, give thanks with a healthier and more eco-friendly dinner!! Remember, you vote with your dollar every time you make a purchase at the market. So vote for a cleaner and healthier future by supporting products made with fewer pesticides and less processing!

This Thanksgiving:

Eat Locally - Try an organic or locally raised turkey, or perhaps even a climate-smart center piece such as a stuffed winter squash!
Avoid BpA Exposure - Canned green beans and cranberries are both high in pesticide residues and, because of their canned storage, are also high in BPA (an endocrine disrupting chemical). Try using the fresh and organic forms of these ingredients. Maybe it’s a good opportunity to improve your cooking skills too!
Minimize the Fat - Some experts estimate that the average person consumes the equivalent of 3 sticks of butter at the Thanksgiving table. Use heart-healthy and GMO-free oils if you can.
Avoid Pesticides - Substitute white mashed potatoes, which are high in pesticides, with that made from sweet potatoes (low in pesticides).
Avoid Pesticides - Replace high pesticide stuffing ingredients such as celery and carrots with their organic substitutes.
Waste Less – While it might be tempting to use disposable plates and cutlery when hosting for a large group of people, this amounts to much wasted production energy, excess garbage to our landfills, and air pollution (from waste incineration). Using glass/china plates, glasses, and regular silverware is much more environmentally sound. If you choose to wash your dishes by hand, using lower temperature faucet water is even more eco-friendly!
Recycle- Don’t forget to recycle the items used to make your Thanksgiving meal, such as aluminum foil, metal cans, cardboard egg cartons, food boxes, glass/plastic bottles, jars, etc.
Use Tap Water - Serve your guests tap water. Bottled water creates mountains of plastic waste and is actually no healthier than tap water in the U.S. In fact, studies have shown bottled water to have a higher bacteria count than tap!
Save Leftovers - Sadly, the average American wastes roughly $600 of food annually. This Thanksgiving, be sure to send leftovers home with your guests if you can’t finish them singlehandedly.
Store Smart - Package your leftover food in reusable containers as opposed to tin/aluminum foil and plastic wrap.

Be sure to share these tips with family and friends! And remember, where YOU cut down on waste and energy demand, you enable a future world in which your children and your children’s children can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity for a healthy environment that you’ve enjoyed!

For information on where to purchase locally grown produce, visit:

http://www.localharvest.org/

For information on where to purchase antibiotic-free meat, visit:

http://www.realtimefarms.com/fixantibiotics

For information on the carbon footprint associated with various food products, visit:

http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!

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

10/17/13

Air Pollution: Announced to be Cancerous

Just yesterday morning the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced the classification of outdoor air pollution as a Group 1 human carcinogen. A specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, the IARC is the leading authority on the carcinogenicity of environmental chemicals. After a thorough review of what has amounted to decades of air pollution research and epidemiology, the IARC has officially concluded that there is “sufficient evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer.” The group also noted a relationship between air pollution and an increased risk of bladder cancer.

For a long time, air pollution as been known to increase the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, however, its association with cancer is something that has taken longer for scientists to demonstrate. The most recent science, however, indicates that in 2010 there were over 220,000 lung cancer deaths globally as a result of air pollution. By officially assigning outdoor air pollution to the Group 1 cancer category (reserved only for chemicals in which sufficient causal evidence exists), the IARC is shining a much needed light on the importance of air pollution exposure. While in the developed world air quality is by no means a vestige of the past, this issue is of particular importance in developing nations, where dirty industries complimented by burgeoning automobile fleets are causing major air quality problems. One can only hope that with this new categorization by the IARC, countries will take special notice and tailor their domestic policies so as to minimize dirty emissions to our atmosphere. To read the full press release by IARC, visit http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

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

-Shahir Masri, MS

7/22/13

The Impacts of Marine Plastics

Overview

Ocean contamination by plastic pollution is a growing problem worldwide. Since plastics don’t biodegrade, they persist and accumulate in large ocean gyres (rotating ocean currents). As many of these plastics float near the surface, they are often mistaken for food by birds and fish. Plastic ingestion can lead to choking, starvation, and drowning of marine species as well as introduce organic toxicants into the food chain. The bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants in fish and other marine species through plastic ingestion also has indirect implications for public health due to our consumption of these species. In this blog, I’ll highlight the main points surrounding plastic pollution in the hopes that by increasing awareness we can collectively begin to curb our use of plastic and improve public health and the environment.

Lifecycle of Plastic Pollution

Plastics that don’t reach the landfill are often swept to nearby ditches and streams by wind and rain, at which point they are carried to the ocean. Once in the ocean, plastics then enter large-scale rotating currents called ocean gyres. Due to the convergence of surface water, these gyres effectively concentrate plastics and other floating debris, earning the name “garbage patches” as with our very own Pacific Garbage Patch off the coast of California. Plastic polymers do not undergo biodegradation, but rather photodegradation, meaning instead of being metabolized and transformed by living organisms they are simply divided into small particles by the effects of sunlight. Plastics therefore persist and accumulate indefinitely in ocean gyres and in the environment in general.

Relevance to Public Health and the Environment

Due to their hydrophobic properties, plastics readily attract PCBs, DDT, and other harmful pollutants. Consequently, floating plastics essentially become toxic pills. By way of ingestion, these plastic particles, or pills, introduce toxicants into the marine food chain, becoming concentrated in fish and other marine species over time. The smallest plastic fragments have both the highest proportion of contaminants as well as the greatest likelihood of being ingested by marine animals. It is through human consumption of these animals that plastics pose an indirect threat to public health. Many of the contaminants that bind to plastics are the same chemicals I’ve discussed in earlier blogs such as phthalates and pesticides, associated with hormone disruption, cancer, organ disruption, etc. (See Pesticides in Food and Toxic Water Bottles). In addition to human health effects, bottle caps, lighters, and other plastic debris are often ingested by marine birds and fish, preventing their migration and reproduction as well as causing choking and starvation. Plastics also entangle marine species, leading to restricted growth and suffocation. Lastly, and perhaps least obvious, buoyant plastics when aided by currents can serve as vehicles for introducing foreign and destructive species to new habitats.

Plastic Facts

The average American throws away about 186 pounds of plastic per year.
The plastic-to-plankton ratio is over 6:1 in some regions of the Pacific Ocean!!
Nearly every plastic created that hasn’t been incinerated still exists somewhere in the environment
Over 8 million tons of plastic are washed into the oceans from the land each year
Studies show that 100% of certain marine bird chick carcasses and regurgitated food boluses contain plastic

Do Your Part to Help!

Avoid purchasing/using plastic products such as single-use plastic water bottles and grocery bags, plastic substitutes usually exist (e.g. stainless steel bottles and reusable bags).
Recycle your plastic products and encourage others to do the same.
Avoiding purchasing excessively packaged goods and choose products packaged in recycled material when possible
Avoid littering and pick up litter when you see it
Put pressure on government officials to address the issue of marine plastics in the ocean

For more details and info on the issue of marine plastic contamination, visit

http://www.algalita.org/index.php

-Shahir Masri, MS

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.

-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