Blogs

Solar power generating blimp for disasters

Hank Green — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:09:16 PDT

We've been reminded in recent weeks that the world is a vulnerable place. First as many as 100,000 killed in the cyclone in Burma and now 12,000 feared dead after an earthquake in China. But as we've seen over and over again, sometimes disaster response is even more important than being prepared for the disaster.

How do you take care of hundreds of thousands of disaster refugees? It's not like you can plop down a coal power plant and fire it up wherever it's needed.

Or can you? Andrew Leinonen has put together a strong concept design for an airship covered in solar panels that can be flown into a disaster area, anchored, and immediately begin to serve power to the rescue effort.

Though the airships are small by blimp standards, only 20 meters long, they can house about 120 square meters of CIGS solar cells, producing up to 125 kWh per day. That's enough energy to power 25 shallow water pumps, providing clean water for up to 12,000 people. Or enough to power 400 medical refrigerators.

The airship will fly in its own power box (also containing anchoring mechanisms) that will be lowered when the disaster site is reached. Additionally, the vehicle flies autonomously and can be delivered entirely unmanned, simplifying the diplomatic process of serving aid, which, as we saw in Burma, can be a huge problem.

Build a better brunch

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:04:29 PDT

Whether it's Mother's Day, Father's Day, or a romantic breakfast in bed, sometimes you want to make a brunch that's really special. And nothing says you care like choosing wholesome, good-for-you and good-for-the-planet ingredients.

Let's start with that morning classic, the incredible, edible egg.

We hope the chicken who laid the little orb on your plate spent her life clucking around on a sunny farm, pecking at worms, and chasing merry chicks. But the reality of modern agribusiness isn't so pretty.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, most egg-laying hens in America are confined to cages with only 67 square inches of space per bird. These crowded battery cages are stacked on top of each other, and the chickens can't walk around or even spread their wings.

This is why many groups advocate for "cage-free eggs," sometimes called "free range" or "free farmed." But as the Green Guide notes, none of these terms are regulated or verified by a third party.

Only the term "USDA organic" is verified, and this confirms is that the chickens were fed organic feed, not given antibiotics, and were given access to the outdoors. But USDA regulations consider five minutes of open-air access each day to be sufficient -- and "access" simply means that a door is available and the chickens can use it. Nobody forces them to go outside, plus the "outside" may simply be a bare patch of ground.

And cage-free birds are not necessarily raised in a cruelty-free environment. Most cage-free hens have part of their beaks removed to limit stress-induced aggression. They live less than two years, which is less than half the normal lifespan.

Plus, it's just not that easy to find cage-free eggs, as the New York Times and others have reported. The idea has become trendy, so Whole Foods, corporate cafes (yeah, Yahoo!'s included), universities, Ben & Jerry's, and even Burger King are flocking to free-farmed yolks.

But only a reported 5 percent of American eggs are either cage-free or organic (that's up 2 percent in the past three years). And the prices are sky-high -- around $2 more per dozen, or so USA Today estimates.

If you can find genuinely free-range eggs from a small farmer, such as at your local farmers' market, some folks swear that the taste is better and the eggs are worth the price. But if you're in the city or 'burbs with only a big-name grocery store, well, it's hard to say if the cage-free label makes much difference.

A better bet to improve breakfast is organic fruit. Who doesn't love a beautiful bowl of fresh fruit in the morning, or maybe some chopped fruit topping a pancake or waffles? Just make sure you're not serving up pesticides with those sweets of the earth.

The not-for-profit Environmental Working Group has a handy list of fruits and veggies ranked by how clean they are. The results of nearly 51,000 pesticide tests on produce between 2000 and 2005 were analyzed to create this guide. You can get a printable PDF to keep in your wallet and take to the store.

This guide lists the dirty dozen fruits -- these are typically so contaminated, you should always buy the USDA-certified organic versions, which are clean. Common breakfast fruits on the list include peaches, apples, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, grapes, and pears.

The list of the 12 cleanest fruits -- ones you don't need to buy organic because they're usually safe -- also features some morning faves. Look for ordinary pineapples, mango, kiwi, and bananas.

Add a pot of fair-trade coffee, and you've got a brunch to make your mom, dad, your sweetie, and even Mother Earth proud.

The asthma and car connection

Mel Peffers — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:23:22 PDT

This post is by Mel Peffers, a project manager in the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense Fund.

May 6th was World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good time to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places -- by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe exhaust may cause asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostlyÂ during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. Thereâs a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse.

But the Childrenâs Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]).

As with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma and not just worsen it.

California kids arenât the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high-traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight global warming, save money

Thereâs no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained in a previous post:

Todayâs engines donât need a warm-up period.
If youâre stopped for more than 10 seconds, your car uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but theyâre rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. Youâll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Are we ready for climate change's health impacts?

Catherine Malina — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:51:33 PDT

This post is by Catherine Malina, an associate in the Health Sciences Program at Environmental Defense Fund and a survey interviewer for the "Are We Ready?" report.

Environmental Defense Fund released a new report [PDF] today on the U.S. public health systemâs state of preparedness for global climate change. Itâs based on a survey of local health department directors from across the country. I was one of the survey interviewers.

Is our nation ready to address the public health challenges of a warming planet? Our survey found thereâs much work still to be done.Â

Climate change already contributes to disease and premature deaths worldwide, as populations experience greater health risks from more frequent and intense heat waves, extreme weather events, reduced air quality and infectious disease. The new EDF report, written in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and George Mason University, evaluates our public health infrastructure based on a survey of 133 local health departments in 39 states.

Public health officials concerned
The survey, conducted over the course of two months, included health officials in all parts of the country - from Utah, Kentucky and Florida, to Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maine.

In each interview I asked public health directors about their perception of climate-related health risks, and the status and adequacy of their departments' programs in response to these dangers. Directors also described their current or planned activities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the additional resources they would need to more effectively deal with climate change as a public health issue.

I learned that there is widespread concern about climate change and the public health challenges it presents. This was true from small, rural counties to large, urban centers, and the suburbs in between.

Most of the directors were both personally and professionally interested in the issue, and believed climate change had already taken place in their jurisdiction. Even more believed they would see the local climate change over the next 20 years. I was struck to learn that a large majority thought their area would experience one or more serious public health problems as a result of climate change.

Lack of funding for long-range planning
Tellingly, most of the directors I interviewed saw the public health effects of climate change as an important priority for their department, but relatively few identified it as a top priority. Many admitted they lacked the resources and expertise to fully respond to the challenge. One director said:

We have limited staff and budget, so time is spent on routine issues. We don't have the ability to focus on long-range planning.

Another - one of many - echoed this response:

It would be a priority, but I don't have the funding for it.

Though we're not where we need to be, hearing this made me feel optimistic. Public health directors recognize the challenge ahead and are eager to find solutions.

Where we go from here
Our survey shows that local health directors across the U.S. are looking to state and national leadership for guidance and support. Improving public health's capacity to respond to climate change impacts will require closing a gap in resources and funding, but there are many opportunities to reduce health risks through smart policies that serve both climate and health goals.

For a detailed set of recommendations on how the U.S. can prepare for these health impacts, and to learn more about the survey, check out the full report [PDF].

Sustainable, affordable alternatives to salmon

Trystan L. Bass — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:35:30 PDT

Last week, the salmon fishing season was cancelled before it even began. Due to surprisingly tiny numbers of Chinook salmon (aka king salmon), the Pacific Fishery Management Council banned commercial and recreational fishing for 2008 of this popular fish.

The only wild-caught salmon left are smaller varieties from Washington state and Alaska, so prices are expected to soar. Estimates are about $30 to $40 a pound.

Atlantic salmon is still available, but that farmed fish has a host of health and environmental problems. Environmental Defense warns about high levels of PCBs and dioxins in farmed salmon. The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch notes that salmon farmers use a lot of pesticides and antibiotics, which get into the fish and the nearby ecosystem.

So what's a fan of fish dinners to do? Where do you go for those all-important omega-3s? What do you look for at the market or on a restaurant menu?

U.S. Tilapia - this fish is becoming more common in stores and is very affordable. U.S.-farmed Tilapia are more eco-friendly than the Latin American type, so make sure to ask.

Rainbow trout - A good choice for grilling and sometimes available smoked. Reminds me of childhood camping trips!

U.S. catfish - A Southern favorite that I find easy to cook, catfish is farmed responsibly. And it tastes great with hush puppies on the side.

Arctic char - Farmed in an environmentally sound manner, this fish comes from the U.S., Canada, Norway, and Iceland. It's also called Alpine char.

White seabass - Not really a seabass, this is also known as king croaker, weakfish, or seatrout.

Want more ideas about sustainable seafood? Read through our safe fish guide for expert resources about the best from the ocean.

CDC says climate change threatens health

Sheryl Canter — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:44:24 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

At a congressional hearing last Wednesday, Howard Frumkin, a senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said there was strong scientific evidence of major health problems due to climate change in the next few decades, including:

Heat waves that put children and the elderly at risk
Danger of droughts and floods from extreme weather
Increased food-borne and water-borne infectious diseases
Worsened air pollution due to higher temperatures
Migration into new areas of vector-borne diseases like malaria

At least he got to say it. Last October, CDC testimony on the health risks from global warming was censored by the White House.

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif), who chaired the hearing, said she suspected that "a layer of screening" continues to limit what CDC officials are allowed to say.

While insisting that CDC had no position on EPAâs pending regulatory decisions, Frumpkin said, "â¦there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas â¦ and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways."

Carectomy week in review

Joshua Liberles — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:04:55 PDT

To make cities âresilient,â reduce car travel

The goal for modern cities, as environmental scientist Peter Newman describes it, is to move beyond âsustainabilityâ to âresiliency.â The model of constant consumption needs to stop and cities need to be constructed in such a manner as to make this possible.

One of Newman's main targets is a decrease in oil consumption and, not surprisingly, minimizing the use of cars. Building of suburbs should be scrapped in favor of denser urban settings than enable mass transit, walking, and biking.

U.S. car sales crash in 2008

In the short span of one year, car sales in the United States have come crashing down -- and the change is significant. Industry giants Chrysler and General Motors sold 19 percent fewer automobiles in March 2008 than they did in March of 2007, according to sales reports. Ford isn't faring much better with sales that are down 14 percent. Meanwhile, Toyota is still hanging on with a mere 10 percent drop.

Introducing Hummer H8: The Earth f@#ker

Tired of tip-toeing around the Hummer's inherent incongruity with things like caring for the planet, giving a damn about anyone's safety, or working towards national energy self-reliance, the auto manufacturer has officially proclaimed, âScrew it!â

Diesel exhaust hurts your brain

New research indicates that exposure to diesel exhaust may cause long-term damage to brain function. The study, conducted by Particle & Fibre Toxicology, tracked the effects of the nanoparticles found in diesel exhaust.

The greenest way to die

Magnus Hølvold — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:21:38 PDT

We don't deal all that much with death on EcoGeek, but sometimes something comes along that captures our attention, interest and -- of course -- our morbid fascination. A way of processing corpses called resomation is one of those things. Veterinarians have been using a similar process for years now, but us humans are now finally getting in on the action.

Within a tank called a resomator, the body is immersed in a 1:21 solution of potash lye and water. Gas-powered steam generators build up pressure within the tank as the temperature rises up to around 170 degrees Celsius. Thanks to the pressure (and despite what the general news media would have you think) there is no boiling, only a chemical reaction that completely liquefies everything but the bone ash in our bodies. When the tank is opened, only the bone ash and any implants or prosthetics the person had remain.

Sounds pretty gruesome, eh? Why even do it, you may ask? Well, this is where our interest in this technology comes in.

Through talks with Sandy Sullivan,Â the founder of Resomation Ltd., I learned that an average cycle in this tank of three hours will consume around 90 kWh, while a cremation will consume 250 kWh. According to Mr. Sullivan, the total carbon footprint of a resomation is 18 times less than that of a cremation. Additionally, resomation is a 100% mercury-free process, something neither regular burial nor cremation can boast.

When the body has been fully liquefied, it has been separated into two main parts. The first is a bio-fluid that is basically a collection of all our building blocks: Salts, sugars, peptides, and amino acids. The nutrients in this liquid are still entirely intact and can be returned to the soil to help our plants grow.

The second is basically a "shadow" of your bones called bone ash, pure calcium phosphate. This can be used in horticulture, ceramics, and even as a raising agent! In other words, getting resomated allows you to fully return your body to the Earth without worrying about adding a bunch of unwanted stuff to the soil at the same time.

Like I said, any implants or prosthetics the person may have had are also left behind, and are in fact in pristine condition. With further sterilisation and repackaging, expensive prosthetics can be put back into use.

While what to do with these "leftovers" is still an open question, the folk at Resomation Ltd have considered donating them to third-world countries where such prosthetics would otherwise be completely unattainable.

So far, the process is only available in the United States, where more than 2,000 resomations have been performed so far, but the Glasgow-based company is only a year old, and Sullivan tells me that they are close to having the process specified as legal in the United Kingdom (bureaucracy at work!).

Many local authorities in the UK are having trouble taking care of their dead, what with the FBCA's regulations on mercury emissions. Additionally, several green groups are championing this tech all around the world.

Don't worry, you can still have a dignified ceremony that doesn't differ much from cremation. The body is placed in a quite ordinary coffin that is lined with a silk bag that seals to become an enclosed silk coffin within the resomator.

After the cycle, the soft bone ash can easily be powdered and put in an urn like you would after a cremation, with the added bonus that every single bit of ash is the body of the departed, not a mixture of whatever was in the furnace with the body.

I can even think of a few additions to the lowering of the ashes that would make the ceremony all the more meaningful, like fertilising the earth that surrounds our dearly departed's ashes with a vial containing their own bodily remains. One life gone, new life welcomed.

If you want to read more about the technology and the process, I suggest you check Resomation Ltd'.s official website or this very easy-to-read and accurate description of the process of resomation at Cremate Me.net.

Bottles, bottles, everywhere

Ramon Cruz — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:38:01 PDT

This post is by Ramon Cruz, Senior Policy Analyst for Living Cities at Environmental Defense Fund.

It's ironic. In many parts of the world, there is no clean drinking water. Here in the U.S., pure, drinkable water flows out of every tap, and yet Americans buy a staggering amount of bottled water. We pay big bucks for it, too â more than $15 billion a year.

Worse of all, the bottles are overflowing our landfills and contributing to global warming. Take a look at this video from Doug James:

Also illustrating the case against bottled water:Â

More than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani. Despite this, bottled water consumption is growing at 10 percent a year, faster than any other beverage. We drink 15 times more bottled water today than we did in 1976.

This doesn't mean we're healthier, despite the ads. Federal regulations for municipal water are far more stringent. Bottled water rules allow higher levels of many contaminants, with more lenient requirements for filtration, testing, and reporting. See NRDCâs bottled water report for details of contaminants by brand.

The earth isnât healthier for it, either. According to the Pacific Instituteâs fact sheet (PDF), manufacturing the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006 required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and used three times the amount of water in the bottle.

And these numbers don't include transporting the bottles. Nearly 25 percent of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers.

Adding in transportation, the energy used comes to more 50 million barrels of oil equivalent -- enough to run 3 million cars for a year.

Case study: Fiji water
Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles of water a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water (see this Fast Company article). Adding to the irony, Fiji itself uses almost no bottled water, according to a Pacific Institute report (PDF). They export it.

Shipping Fiji Water around the world increases its environmental footprint. Manufacturing and shipping a one-liter bottle produces over half a pound of greenhouse gas emissions and uses nearly 7 times the amount of water in the bottle, according to calculations by Pablo PÃ¤ster on TriplePundit.

The heavy use of water is as serious as the greenhouse gas emissions. Water is fast becoming a scarce resource.

What about recycling?
Recycling would help, but we donât usually do it. Less than 20 percent of the 28 billion single-serving water bottles that Americans buy each year are recycled. Some estimates are as low as 12 percent.

According to a Container Recycling Institute report (PDF), the national recycling rate for all beverage containers is 33 percent. In states with deposit systems, the rate jumps to 65-95 percent. But of the 11 states with deposit laws, only three include containers for non-carbonated beverages (like water), though non-carbonated beverages now comprise 27 percent of the market.

Last November, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a national bottle bill to address global warming that includes water bottles and other non-carbonated beverage containers.

The beverage industry, which long resisted deposit laws, has started to cooperate â mainly because it sees bottled water as the answer to the soda sales slump. Following months of bad publicity, manufacturers like Coke, Pepsi, and NestlÃ© have begun making lighter-weight plastic bottles and are encouraging consumers to recycle.

Better yet, carry tap water
If you buy bottled water, recycle the bottle. But the better solution â for you and the environment â is to drink tap water, both at home and at restaurants:

Tap water is cleaner than most bottled water.
Tap water is delivered to homes and offices for $0.002 a gallon. Bottled water, which can cost as much per gallon as gasoline, is a thousand times more expensive.

The quality of municipal water in the U.S. is generally excellent. Donât let the recent reports about pharmaceuticals in tap water deter you â see this TreeHugger post for why.

But if you donât trust tap water or you have old plumbing or you think tap water tastes funny, then try a water filter like those from PUR or Brita. To learn more about water filters, check out the rated list of water filter review sites at Consumer Search.

To carry water with you, use a reusable container filled with tap water. But donât reuse single-use water bottles. This can expose you to bacterial build-up and carcinogens leached from the plastic.

Quite a few companies make reusable water bottles. Thereâs an ongoing debate about the safety of the polycarbonate plastic some use, but there are many safe reusable bottles made from other materials.

Use it or lose it
National Geographicâs Green Guide notes, "the federal share of funding for water systems has declined from 78 percent in 1973 to 3 percent today." This places the financial burden almost entirely on local governments.

Food and Water Watch also talks about how important it is to stop this trend and maintain the quality of municipal water. Its Take Back the Tap (PDF) report gives a detailed overview of the issues surrounding tap water versus bottled water.

A cool, clean drink of water

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:00:21 PDT

In the U.S., we often take clean water for granted. Turn on the tap and - ta-da! - drinkable H₂O. But across huge swaths of the planet, it's not that simple.

According to the United Nations, 2.6 billion people - that's 41% of the global population - lack access to clean water.

That's why the U.N. has set aside March 22 as World Water Day, which calls on governments and individuals to recognize how crucial water is to our health, economy, and environment.

While the numbers can be staggering - 6,000 children die each day from diseases that could have been prevented by having access to clean water and sanitation - the solutions are surprisingly simple.

A mere one-dollar investment in providing access to clean water will return seven dollars in economic productivity, because people don't get sick, don't miss work and school, and live longer.

Folks like you and I can help those in the developing world get access to sanitation.

One way is through the Give PÅªRÂ® Water campaign. For every P&GbrandSAVERÂ® coupon you redeem during March and April 2008, Procter & Gamble will donate one liter of safer, cleaner drinking water to needy children in developing countries. Look for these coupons in your Sunday newspaper.

You can also give directly to a nonprofit like WaterAid America, which works in communities around the world to build clean water systems. A donation of just $30 can train a mason to build latrines in Nepal, while a contribution of $120 can buy a rope-pulley water pump in Uganda.

You can also donate your time, either in person or online, through WaterPartners International, a nonprofit group that helps provide safe drinking water and sanitation around the world. It also works with U.S. schools to raise awareness, create unique fundraisers, and inspire the next generation to help the planet.

On March 22, you can participate in live or virtual water marches sponsored by Starbucks. In New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Las Vegas, and other cities, people will walk miles to draw attention to water issues. These marches are inspired by the 3-6-mile journey women and children in many countries make every day just to get water.

Dip your toes in these great opportunities to help the world to a cleaner drink of water!

A power plant on each leg

Hank Green — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:59:59 PST

I don't know about you, but I've been feeling downright un-bionic lately. What I need is a good on-board power source that will whir and buzz and make me really feel like I'm worth at least $10 million.

Thankfully a group of U.S. and Canadian scientists have created a "knee dynamo" that taps the power of walking to create enough power to charge mobile phones or iPods or increasingly advanced electrical prosthetics for amputees (and RoboCops).

The device, aside from being obnoxiously large and loud, is really quite cool. It actually uses the energy of the leg swinging forward at the beginning of the stride to generate the power.

This energy would otherwise need to be counteracted by the leg muscles to keep the leg from jarring the knee. This way, the dynamo can actually produce more power than the extra energy the wearer spends to use the device. Think of it like regenerative breaking in hybrid cars.

Every time you take a step, your thigh has to both speed up and slow down your lower leg. This thing just helps your leg slow itself down and captures some of that energy. There's an excellent video of the thing in action at BBC news, I suggest you check it out.

I'm saying this right now...if I can't power my own iPod 15 years from now, I give up on this planet...thanks to these guys for getting this technology another step (or half-stride) closer to reality.

Via BBC News

Dangerous CFLs? Don’t believe the hype

John Balbus — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:01:00 PST

This post is by John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Health Scientist at Environmental Defense.

On February 3, Parade published a misleading Medical Alert column with the headline "Bright Lights, Bad Headache?" by Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld. It starts with a list of unsubstantiated claims:

As energy-saving fluorescent lightbulbs become standard, new research suggests some dangers: Flickering bulbs have been reported to precipitate migraines or even seizures, though manufacturers say the new models have been improved. Fluorescent light also can aggravate skin rashes in people with lupus, eczema, dermatitis or porphyria.

Environmental Defense could find no published scientific studies demonstrating that compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) trigger migraines or seizures. And unlike older fluorescent tube lights, modern CFLs with electronic ballasts donât flicker.

Rosenfeldâs statement about fluorescent light harming people also is highly misleading. While there is a theoretical risk to people with severe photosensitive skin diseases from the small amount of ultraviolet light emitted by CFLs, most people with eczema -- a very common disease -- have no such photosensitivity.

People who are unable to tolerate any sunlight due to photosensitivity may be advised to avoid additional exposure to the small amount of ultraviolet light from CFLs, but this is only a subset of people with eczema and lupus.

The piece then mentions that CFLs contain mercury. This is true, but the amount of mercury in a typical CFL is very small, only 4 to 5 milligrams, and newer bulbs have even less. This is almost one thousand times less than what used to be in mercury thermometers.

While people certainly should avoid exposing themselves to the mercury from a CFL if it breaks (see my previous post for how to properly dispose of CFLs), the exposure from a single broken bulb is comparable to the mercury in a few cans of tuna, and would not be expected to cause ill effects.

Articles like "Bright Lights, Bad Headache?" that make serious claims of harm from CFLs need to substantiate those claims with solid science. Why? Because CFLs have the potential to dramatically reduce energy use, and coal-generated electricity releases much more mercury (and other toxic pollution) than CFLs.

Parade does a disservice to its readers and the environment by propagating inaccuracies, half-truths and misleading statements. Instead of a medical alert, it should be issuing a junk science alert and tracking down the facts.

Phthalates basics, options

Trystan L. Bass — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:28:41 PST

The journal Pediatrics recently found surprising levels of phthalates in the urine of babies and traced it to products such as shampoos, lotions, and powders used on these children.

Phthalates are common compounds that stabilize fragrances in many personal-care products. They're also used in plastics such as PVC and vinyl to make the material flexible.

Europe has already banned phthalates from children's toys because of fears that kids would ingest the stuff when chewing or sucking on the goods. Starting in 2009, California law will ban phthalate-tainted toys too.

The Breast Cancer Fund notes that phthalates are found in a wide range of cosmetics, hair care products, and nail polish.

The health effects (PDF) of absorbing or ingesting phthalates range from developmental and reproductive toxicity to damage to the liver and kidneys. At least one study connected genital abnormalities in baby boys to phthalates exposure when their mothers were pregnant. Another larger study found links between asthma and allergic symptoms in children and contact with phthalates.

Scientists have only been looking at this issue for a short time (and these chemicals have been in use for many years), so some think worries are overblown.

Still, when you're caring for you own baby, why take chances? Chemical-free goods are available in stores and online, and these are a good, old-fashioned way to treat a child's delicate skin.

For starters, check out the Environmental Working Group's database of baby care products to see how your brands rate. Read a complete report on each lotion, shampoo, powder, and more to see toxicity of the ingredients.

If your current stuff doesn't measure up, try searching the Web for organic baby skin-care. Read the labels and make sure the products use certified organic ingredients and nothing ends with "-phthalate."

Tree huggers hate treadmills

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:14:58 PST

Sometimes, it isn't easy being green. Not during the depths of a dark, cold, rainy winter. You want to get healthy, maybe lose those extra pounds of holiday flab. But now TreeHugger tells you that the gym's treadmill pumps out 2 lbs. of C02 and burns as much energy as 15 of those wasteful incandescent lightbulbs.

"Pick a machine without a plug," the greenies say.

Sorry, not until spring unless you live in Arizona. I'd love to go jogging outside. Frankly, the treadmill bores me silly and makes me feel like a hamster in a wheel.

But when the sun goes down before I get home from work, this little female runner isn't heading into the streets alone, even if the sidewalk is dry. And for folks who live in snow country, indoor gyms can be the only consistent opportunity for activity in this cold season.

Considering the high rates of obesity in America, I'd rather encourage folks to work out, even if that uses a little fossil fuel. After the spring thaw, yeah, let's head for the great outdoors.

Just don't give up a workout with the "earth-friendly" excuse. If you feel strongly about it, buy a carbon offset.

Safer, smarter fish

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:53:06 PST

Worried about contaminated seafood? What about over-fishing? Our planet's oceans are more delicate than they look, and a lot of garbage from the land ends up damaging the water and fish in the seas. If we're not careful, we could be eating pollutants or catching more than the oceans can produce. Here are some tips for seafood shopping from the experts.

One of the biggest concerns is mercury in fish. It gets into the oceans from industrial runoff and builds up as methylmercury in fish and shellfish, then it can poison us if we eat too much contaminated fish, particularly raw fish (cooking can reduce the contaminates a little). Mercury is most harmful to children and pregnant women.

Environmental Defense created this useful chart to show what kind of fish is safe to eat, how many servings, and by what age and gender of person. The fish most people should avoid include bluefin tuna, wild striped bass, Bluefish, and American and European eel.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency recommends that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because of high methylmercury.

Also, the Food and Drug Administration notes that women who are considering getting pregnant should avoid these kinds of fish for at least a year before conceiving. It can take that long for methylmercury levels in a person's blood stream to drop significantly, and this would be dangerous to a developing fetus.

Wondering about the mercury levels of what you've eaten this week? Check out Got Mercury, a handy calculator where you put in your weight, select a type of seafood, and add how many ounces you've eaten. The site will then tell you approximately what your mercury exposure is right now.

While pollutants in our food are an immediate worry, the long-term problem of over-fishing hurts our food supply and the oceans. Many species of fish are being caught faster than they can reproduce. Other fish are caught in ways that accidentally kill non-food species.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch is an excellent guide to making sustainable choices. Click "Seafood Search" to find a type of fish and learn where it's caught and how. Each fish gets a "Best Choice," "Good Alternative," or "Avoid" rating.

Download a printable pocket guide to keep with your grocery list and take to restaurants. The Sustainable Seafood Sources page is useful for finding places to buy earth-friendly fish.

Green choices at the gym

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:08:10 PST

We all put on a few pounds over the holidays, and now we're climbing on the treadmill.

January crowds at the gym mean that more folks have New Year's resolutions to get in shape by beach time. Can we do it in an earth-friendly style too? You bet.

Step one: Replace the plastic water bottle with stainless-steel

Plenty of sturdy, fashionable versions are available, and they should fit into the cup holders of your gym's elliptical machines.

We previously discussed the problems with plastic. To recap, the disposable bottles are wasteful, and packaged water is unregulated. Refill your own bottle from the tap to conserve resources.

Step two: B.Y.O. towel

Sure, many gyms offer fancy towel service. But when you bring your own from home, you control what kind of detergents are used to wash the towel, so you can choose more enviro-conscious, biodegradable brands. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a handy tip sheet about safer cleaning supplies.

Plus, you don't need to bleach towels unnaturally white (let's face it, gyms only do that so you get the impression they're super-clean). Exposure to chlorine bleach can cause health problems. And even in medical situations, chlorine bleach is of questionable help for sanitizing â it's primarily a whitener. Oxygen bleaches do the same thing more safely.

You can go a step further and ask your gym what laundry cleaners it uses. If it uses a lot of chemicals and chlorine, suggest gentler alternatives. If they hear it from enough customers, things may change.

Step three: Step into some green shoes

Or at least see if your current shoes are up to snuff. Some of the materials used to make athletic shoes can be pretty harmful to the environment, but manufacturers are starting to wise up.

The Green Guide notes that Adidas, Asics, Nike, and Puma have all phased out noxious PVC as a material in their athletic shoes. Ideal Bite gives high marks to New Balance, calling this "the most socially responsible of the big shoe manufacturers" for not using PVC and for having vegan shoe options.

Running shoes last between 300 and 500 miles, so be kind to your tootsies and the planet by getting new sneaks and recycling the old ones.

Extra credit: Try yoga on a natural mat

Whether made of cotton, rubber, hemp, or jute, natural yoga mats are a green alternative to petroleum-based PVC. Yoga itself is an exercise emphasizing stretching and balance that most anyone can try.

At this time of year, when the weather keeps us inside, we can still pick up a new activity. Winter is the right time for yoga. You can look for classes or get a DVD or video to try at home. Go slow and see what works for you.

With these three or four steps, we're on the way to trimmer, healthier bodies by spring. Let's keep up the good work!

CFL migraine concern starts crazy wildfire

Hank Green — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:14:41 PST

There's a Daily Mail story making the rounds on the blogosphere with the headline "Energy Saving Bulbs 'Can Cause Migraines' Warn Experts." Oh come on ... are you serious?

Spend a little time reading the article and you discover that one 'expert,' who is in charge of a migraine awareness charity, said that there is "concern." He worries that it's possible ... that's all.

Is this really a story? Let's at least have someone do a study first, before the headline "CFLs Cause Migraines!!!" spreads like wildfire over the Internet. I mean, I love blogs, but I've seen this story retold in five different places now ... not one mentioning that it's just one guy who's concerned.

Not to say that I'm not happy for the level of concern. Concern is a good thing, and I think it should be investigated. But the truth is, the concern about migraine-inducing flickering is a non-issue with current CFLs, which are no longer stroboscopic (they give off constant, non-flickering, light.)

Unleaded at home

Trystan L. Bass — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:10:55 PST

If the little ones got loads of brightly colored loot over the holidays, you might wonder if you should test the toys for lead before play time. After all those toy recalls last year, some concerned parents are trying home lead-testing kits.

These DIY packets contain chemical-coated swabs that you rub on a toy, and a color change is supposed to show if the item has dangerous levels of lead.

The kits are available at hardware stores and online for $8 to $30. Surely a reasonable price for your child's safety.

But how reliable are the results?

Consumer Reports tested several kits and found them able to detect lead on the surface of toys. Obviously, you're only swabbing the outside of the item, so you can't tell if there is lead deep inside it.

The home lead-test kits that Consumers Reports recommends gave "no false positives and no false negatives," according to an NPR article.

However, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) -- the group that recalls toys in the first place -- disagrees about those kits.

In the CPSC's evaluations, more than half of results from the home kits were false negatives and two were false positives. Plus, the CPSC notes that the home lead-test kits don't detect low levels of lead, which are over the regulatory maximum and can be harmful to children.

Even Canada agrees. Our neighbors to the north have also evaluated home lead-testing kits and found them inconsistent. The country's federal health department, Health Canada cautions against relying on the results from home kits.

Both the CPSC and Health Canada recommend simply removing suspect toys from your kid's reach and taking the child to a doctor immediately if you suspect lead poisoning.

Want to replace a questionable goodie in your kiddo's stash? Check out The Daily Green's huge list of lead-free toys. Many are made in the U.S.A. too.

Traffic is bad for the environment and your health

Trystan L. Bass — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:07:15 PST

Nobody likes traffic, and we all know that cars stacked up on the freeway pollute the air we breath (not to mention, all those cars take up space!).

But now we learn that traffic is hurting America's economy and it's bad for our mental health. Doesn't that make you want to seek alternative transportation?

Yahoo! Health writer Anne Kreamer points out several recent studies on the high cost of cars. She found that each of us is spending 38 hours a year stuck in traffic -- that's nearly two wasted days. The U.S. economy is losing about $78 billion per year in time and fuel -- money that could be a big help for education, healthcare, and plenty of other more relevant causes than traffic jams.

The stress of sitting in traffic is linked to increased heart rate, high blood pressure, and anxiety. All of that leads to poor health, bad moods, and lower work performance.

Thanks to cars, we're a nation short on time and money, and we're going to die early from stress! But most people can fix it quick. Just change your weekday commuting habits.

Find a carpool in your area to ease your commute. Discover public transit in your town. I've been carpooling or taking the train and bus all my working life, and I like to think the reduced stress is adding mellow years to my retirement.

Don't forget to ask your boss or human resources department about discounts for transit passes and special perks for carpoolers. Larger companies are getting on the ball and rewarding employees for being green -- especially since more communities are helping businesses with eco-friendly transit programs.

Many of us keep to a regular weekly work schedule, so creating a carpool is easy. Exceptions are just that, exceptions; you can adjust your carpool or public transit plans to accommodate an occasional doctor's appointment or after-work errand.

The overall time and stress saved will be worth it.

Public health professionals are catching the fever

John Balbus — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:11:53 PST

This post is by John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Health Scientist at Environmental Defense.

Damage to public health from climate change is already occurring around the world, with over 160,000 extra deaths occurring annually from malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, and flooding.

Public health professionals are taking notice, and looking for solutions.

Climate change and its effects on human health took center stage at last week's annual meeting of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Three sessions were devoted to the topic, including a plenary session attended by 700-800 people. A policy resolution calling for an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases passed easily.

After the plenary session, APHA executive director Georges Benjamin held a press conference where he announced that climate change will be the theme of next April's Public Health Week. The organization plans to release a set of recommendations for addressing the health impacts of climate change at that time.

Many presentations focused on how to stop global warming.

Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins caught the audience's attention with an eloquent call to "reconnect the disconnect" between our intellectual understanding of the need to lower greenhouse gas emissions and our personal energy consumption choices, from house size to automobile use.

Dr. Howard Frumkin of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) discussed how public health professionals can apply their skills to the health challenges of climate change. He showed a great "back to the future" slide describing the health benefits of low-carbon behaviors from the past like walking children to school.

When it identifies a clear threat to health, the public health community can mobilize significant change. Messaging and advocacy from the public health community has transformed the fast food hamburger from a staple to a symbol of our obesity epidemic, and removed soft drink marketing from our schools.

It took the finding that tobacco harmed bystanders to eliminate smoking from public spaces, and that may be the type of framing that can build momentum for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Jonathan Patz from the University of Wisconsin made this case in his presentation at the plenary session. Public health professionals might be able to drive change by likening the carbon dioxide coming from automobile tailpipes to second hand smoke emitted from cigarette tips, while at the same time demonstrating the health benefits of other modes of transportation.

The challenge is making this case stick when the people harmed live on another continent or in the future -- far removed from the "smoker."

One thing is certain. The public health community is starting to get it. Look for more action from this corner as April and Public Health Week draw near.

Cleaning clothes, more naturally

Trystan L. Bass — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:33:08 PST

If you're a fashion freak like me, laundry day is more like laundry week. And if you aren't careful, all that cleaning could leech a load of chemicals into the environment as well as your skin.

I try to read the clothing care labels closely, then pick cleaners with simple, natural ingredients.

Sometimes clothes that are tagged "dry clean only" don't really need to be. Which is a good thing, because after reading this article from Dr. Maoshing Ni on Yahoo! Health, I'm thinking twice about taking a suit to the cleaners.

Dr. Ni warns about various toxins you may run into when cleaning clothes, and dry cleaning tops the list. Many cleaners still use a solvent called perchloroethylene or "perc," which can cause a host of health problems. So seek out a cleaner who uses fewer chemicals.

The Union of Concerned Scientists lists several safer, perc-free cleaning methods. Ask around to make sure your clothes get clean and green.