Great Future in Plastics

First published in the Montague Reporter, May 2008

It was a simple enough design. Pink and white tampon applicators separated by blue milk bottle caps and strung into a necklace. Those treasures washed by the sea onto our beach, and collected by my father over the course of a few hours one Sunday morning, provided the perfect accessory to the orange fishnet cape adorned with fading coke bottles, pieces of old lobster trap and other assorted beach waste items. Twenty years later, the image of my father, in his faded blue oxford shirt, dungarees and size 12 Jack Purcells sterilizing a pot of tampon applicators in my mother’s kitchen and in my mother’s soup pot, reminds me of a rare moment of father-daughter complicity.

That year as I attended the annual Society of Toxicology and Chemistry Halloween Dance dressed as “Beach waste,” I was naïve about the dangers of plastics. At the time those tampon applicators and milk bottle caps simply signaled failures of waste handling and sewage treatment – an issue George Bush the first used disingenuously to his advantage while campaigning against Massachusetts’ Michael Dukakis.

What I didn’t know back then was that the plastic army of tampon applicators, bottle tops, fishing nets, coffee cups and Barbie dolls (an occasional head, arm or leg had been know to wash ashore) wasn’t just gathering on the shores of my beloved Nantasket beach. These insidious soldiers of the chemical revolution were infiltrating oceans world-wide – and worse, over the years bits of plastic have literally become a part of life. In their relatively short time on earth (in 2007, synthetic plastics celebrated centennial birthday) plastic now contaminants marine mammals, seabirds and most of us – kids and pets included.

I’m sure John Wesley Hyatt hadn’t intended to promote such a legacy when in an effort replace the ivory used for billiard balls he invented one of the first known plastic back in 1863. Although, it’s not clear that his intention was to save the thousands of elephants slaughtered for their tusks, but rather to collect a $10,000 award offered for suitable ivory replacements. Nor should he have been concerned, since his process used natural substances including cellulose, a compound more prone to biological degradation than its synthetic followers, (and 140 years later, a compound that is back in style.)

Probably Leo Baekeland, hadn’t envisioned the reach of his invention either, when, in 1909 he developed Bakelite the world’s first synthetic plastic and wonder material. As a thermoset plastic, a magical resin that could assume any shape as a liquid resin, and then once hardened remain resistant to heat and solvents – Bakelite quickly found its way into the American dream – from telephones to electrical devices, automobiles and jewelry.

But it’s not Bakelite that scientists are finding in North Pacific albatrosses, or in us. It’s the next generation of polymer plastics which have invaded our lives for better or worse. In 2007, the American Chemistry Council reported upwards of 13 billions pounds of plastic resin produced by U.S. industries a year. This is 13 billion pounds of substances resistant to degradation and substances which we are now just beginning to understand can impact the development and function of reproductive systems in subtle yet potentially very important ways.

By now, unless you live radio-free and newsprint free you’ve likely heard about bisphenol-A which leaches from those colorful polycarbonate Nalgene bottles we all bought to avoid buying bottled water, and hard plastic baby bottles and some food-can linings. If not, you must have heard about phthalates – the plastic additive used to soften poly-vinyl chloride (or PVC) and which leaches from items like IV bags, those cute yellow rubber duckies my kids used to mouth during bath-time, teethers and soft plastic books. (Phthalates are also ubiquitous in personal care products including shampoos and lotions –another route of exposure for infants.)

Bisphenol A, and some forms of phthalates act like the potent sex hormone estrogen. For decades scientists have known that exposure to unnatural levels of sex hormones (either too much or too little), particularly during key periods of sexual development can result in tragic outcomes for both sexes. Estrogen is a naturally occurring hormone, which acts by binding with an estrogen receptor. Any other chemical that binds with this receptor and turns it on is an estrogen mimic. Some chemicals may bind with the estrogen receptor but instead of acting like estrogen, block the receptor from any further action – these substances are referred to as antiestrogens. The same is true of other hormones like the male sex hormone testosterone – there are mimics and inhibitors. Collectively these substances are called endocrine disruptors.

The impacts of synthetic estrogen exposure are best illustrated by diethylstilbesterol or DES. For those who don’t recall, DES was a synthetic estrogen prescribed to women from the 1950s through the 1970s to stem complications during pregnancy. Although eventually found ineffective, it continued to be prescribed until the consequence of extraneous estrogen exposure reared its ugly head in the form of clear cell adenocarcinoma in daughters exposed in utero. Later, structural differences in the reproductive tract and infertility were identified in both DES sons and daughters.

That bisphenol A acts as an estrogen is no surprise. Back in the 1930’s the chemical was almost developed as a synthetic estrogen, until DES stole the show. So seventy years later how does this stuff – a known estrogen - end up in plastic drinking bottles and plastic can liners?

Plastics are polymers – that is, they’re made up of many repeating units, strung together like a paper chain. The broad range of plastics we’re familiar with today results from the diversity of repeating units and chain formations discovered and developed at a feverish pace over the past century: vinyl, polyurethane, polystyrene, Teflon, Nylon, neoprene, polyethylene, polypropylene, and in 1953, researchers resurrected bisphenol A in the form of polycarbonate. That’s right. A key link in the polycarbonate chain is bisphenol A. Only back then, we can only hope, no one figured their grandchildren would be sucking down mom’s milk, lovingly pumped so that she could continue to work, from polycarbonate plastic bottles, or that food cans would be lined with the stuff. Or maybe no one figured that individual units of plastic could actually break loose.

But the fact is they do. And the more scientists look, the more they seem to find – whether it’s bisphenol A leaching from polycarbonate bottles, or phthalates leaching from IV bags. And as with many toxicants like mercury and lead, it’s our precious next generation that bears the brunt of our collective ignorance.

“So what would you do?” asked my neighbor, mother of two young boys. “Do you still drink out of plastic?”

Her mother had just given her the “You’re intelligent, how can you feed your children that stuff,” lecture – but she hadn’t yet tossed the sippy cups, rubber duckies and baby bottles.

I nodded sheepishly. I do love those colorful polycarbonate drinking glasses I purchased at Stop&Shop several years ago. And yes, last hiking trip we all sipped from the bright red Chaco Canyon polycarbonate liter bottle.

“I figure the water’s not sitting there all day,” I said, explaining that the greatest leaching of bisphenol A was reported after liquids were heated, or in very “well-used” or distressed polycarbonate. We didn’t even get into the phthalate issue, which extends beyond the use and leaching of phthalates from plastics, to personal care products

“But,” I conceded, “I did just buy some new water bottles, made from polyethylene, for the kids.” Unlike polycarbonate, polyethylene doesn’t leach any thing toxic, at least not that we know.

As I said this, I am sure that the little enviro-region of my brain, the one that lights up every time I do something hypocritical, began flashing away. Did I say I replaced one plastic with another? And did I say that while wearing my favorite purple polyester fleece and polyvinylchloride-bottomed Dansko clogs? Did I say that after dumping a box of broken plastic toys – nonrecyclables – into our 40 gallon plastic barrel?

Even more concerning than the plastic and related compounds in our food and beverage containers – substances which can eventually be manufactured out of these products, or avoided by the careful consumer, are the reports that millions of tons of plastic, from fishing nets to bits of what might once have been tampon applicators and polyester clothing, now circulating in the regions of the Central North Pacific Ocean (gyres). By some estimates, these trash or plastic gyres cover an area equivalent to the size of Texas. And although plastics may not degrade they can break into bits – some as small as 20 microns, creating a plastic soup served up to unsuspecting wildlife.

Writes Charles Moore founder of Algalita, a marine research foundation focused on the protection of marine environments, “I now believe plastic debris to be the most common surface feature of the world's oceans. Because 40 percent of the oceans are classified as subtropical gyres, a fourth of the planet's surface area has become an accumulator of floating plastic debris.”

Further, scientists suspect that some of that plastic may be circulating around for hundreds of years to come. For better or worse – plastics are part of our lives. But they don’t have to be part of us and they don’t have to be part of all creatures on earth. Improved production practices, and products that are easily recycled back into the same products, rather than dead ends like lawn furniture and plastic lumber, and improved public awareness might not rid the North Pacific of its trash right now – but maybe generations from now.

In the ‘60’s movie The Graduate, when Mr. McGuire, a family friend of young Benjamin Braddock advised “Plastics…..There’s a great future in plastics,” he had no idea.

Motherhood the Elephant in the Laboratory: time to speak up

This is, and isn't, a little off topic but as editor of Motherhood the Elephant in the Laboratory: women scientists speak out, I'm happy to announce that this book of 34 personal essays is now in print thanks to Cornell University Press, and many bold women who wrote about how motherhood influenced their science careers and vice-verse.

Writing and teaching about toxicology (to undergrads and sometimes to highschoolers) is one of the indirect impacts becoming a mother has had on my own career. Because I made the choice to work part-time, which is not an easy thing to do in the sciences, I've kept my own scientist alive through all sorts of interesting people and projects over the years. All of this fueled my desire to reach a broader audience through writing, beginning with articles in our local paper, the esteemed but very small Montague Reporter (hence the Neighborhood Toxicologist) and now through this blog.

As I write on the blog created for the book, Sciencemoms, those who take alternative routes through science ought not be considered failures, or second-class scientists - but apprecaited for their role as communicators, educators, and synthesizers. For more on this see the sciencemoms blog about the two recent editorials in the journal Science. The editorials, written by Bruce Alberts, highlight and support development of programs encouraging scientists to seek alternatives to academia.

Any thoughts on this topic are welcome either here, or at sciencemoms (and you don't have to be a mom - or a women to speak up!)

Tetrodotoxin 101

A good way to hook students into the wonderful world of toxicology is tetrodotoxin. Sound familiar? It’s what makes fugu, or puffer fish, what it is - a potentially deadly Japanese delicacy. Or does it? Would the delicacy be so appealing if the consumer didn't risk death or paralysis?

For those unfamiliar with fugu or tetrodotoxin, note that a mere “taste” of the stuff can and does kill. Although not the most potent toxin in the toolbox (recall that we’re talking toxin - or naturally produced poison) that honor most likely goes to either C. botulinum toxin (the toxin whose presence may be indicated by those puffed up cans – like the tuna can I once pulled from a grocery shelf,) or ricin – most recently of Las Vegas fame – and produced by the lowly castor bean.

Although non-toxic preparation of fugu has been raised to an art by highly skilled Japanese chefs, and although not all wild puffer fish contain enough toxin to kill, one article estimates that upwards of 50 mortalities may occur each year in Japan following puffer fish ingestion.

But now there’s good news for those who just must nibble – yet who’d prefer to avoid death or illness (tetrodotoxin inhibits muscle contraction causing paralysis). A recent article in the New York Times by Norimitsu Onishi reveals not only some interesting fugu history, but also describes the current trend towards raising tetrodotoxin free fugu.

For years, scientists seeking out the source of fugu (and many other marine species) tetrodotoxin had been baffled – where did it come from? Was it produced by the fish themselves or was it in the food they ate? And why didn’t it kill puffer fish and other tetrodotoxin laden marine animals?

Recent studies now suggest that, like many other potent toxins, tetrodotoxin is produced by the smallest of small, bacteria. By providing a home for bacteria, the boxy puffer is offered protection (and fortunately for the puffer fish, they’re at an advantage thanks to a genetic mutation, which makes them immune to its toxicity.)

As you might guess, here’s where the non-toxic fugu come in. By knowing the source, fish farmers can now feed fugu tetrodotoxin-free food (say that ten times fast) producing a risk free meal.

Although, for some the thrill of fugu may be in the risk – for others writes Onishi,, fugu liver is just plain tasty – like foie gras but without the guilt.

Polycarbonate redux

I am listening to NPR’s All Things Considered – it’s a story about bisphenol A, a common chemical that many of us have heard about by now. You know the estrogenic chemical that’s in those colorful polycarbonate clear plastic bottles that we all bought when we didn’t want to use bottled water, as well as in the linings of food tins and clear plastic baby bottles – that yes, I’m sure I used with my kids. And I’m thinking maybe we all ought to drink a little bisphenol A if it’s true that a little estrogen is good for improving memory.

Here’s why.

There is no question that exposure to estrogenic contaminants is problematic – particularly when exposure occurs during fetal development and in young children. There are reams of data that demonstrate adverse impacts on the development of reproductive organs, timing of puberty, and other effects on both male and female offspring of test animals exposed in utero and during lactation. Then there is the unfortunate example of diethylstilbesterol or DES, the synthetic estrogen prescribed to women back in the twentieth century to stem complications during pregnancy. It was found to be ineffective in the 1950’s but prescribed until the ‘70s (go figure) when the consequences of exposure to extraneous estrogenic chemicals during development first reared its ugly head in the form of clear cell adenocarcinoma in the daughters exposed in utero.

But did you know that at one time, back in the 1930’s scientists seeking synthetic estrogens like DES found that bisphenol A also behaved as a weak estrogen? That’s right. Back in the 30s this was known. Then some genius discovered that it could be linked together to make plastic. And voila – perimenopausal women like me just have to drink from our polycarbonate bottles to replenish our estrogen. Apparently back then no one figured anyone would be drinking from the plastic, or storing food in it, or sealing children’s teeth – and then when they did discover these uses of the plastic they must have forgotten that it was a known estrogen.

Seriously, we could all use a memory boost. Here’s a Science News article from back in 1999 by Janet Raloff which, besides being so last century, is so similar to recent reports about leaching of bisphenol A from polycarbonate that I did a double take when I came across it on the web (actually I probably read it back then, being a fan of Ms. Raloff, but have since forgotten.) It’s uncanny. Right down to reports that bisphenol A is more likely to leach from well-used polycarbonate and when liquids are heated in polycarbonate.

If that was then, why has it taken us ten years to toss our bottles? Maybe it’s because as Raloff pointed out, the jury was out. Well, almost ten years later it has returned in the form of a report by the National Toxicology Program’s Expert Panel evaluation of bisphenol A, here’s what they conclude (their emphasis):

“The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children, at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty in females.”

“The NTP has negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring.”

Although I’ve confiscated my kids bottles I might keep them around for a few years in case I’m needing a little extra estrogen – if I can remember where I’ve stashed them!

It’s TOXICANTS stupid

Whenever I have the opportunity to teach, I quickly learn how little I know. Maybe that’s what draws me towards the classroom. Besides the opportunity for human contact – especially contact with students who are so eager to learn about how we’ve managed to muck things up and what we can do about it.

A few months ago, I took on two challenges 1) introducing students at Mount Holyoke College to the fascinating world of toxicants, which, as they all now know– it’s toxi-c-a-n-t-s – unless of course it's a biologically produced toxin (and each time I reminded them of this, I was reminded of my graduate school advisor, the one we called “the pedant,” and shudder,) and 2) asking them to write about toxicants (and in one case, a toxin) for publication in the very public Encyclopedia of Earth or EOE (www.eoearth.org). (And write they did - articles ranging from PBDEs to Atrazine to Synthetic musks - something I hadn't know even existed!)

For some it was a slog. As one student wrote, and I’m sure more than a few students thought, “I never realized writing for the EOE would be so tedious.” For others it seemed a breeze. For me it was nerve-wracking. Particularly after I had the brilliant idea that each student should send her article out for review to whatever expert on her topic she felt most appropriate.

When they sent their work out for expert review, writing letters of introduction, attaching their articles and sending a small part of themselves out into the unknown – I warned them,

“Don’t be surprised if you don’t hear back.”

But then something amazing happened. Scientists wrote back. Scientists - many who are respected in their field, who are pressed for time, who let reviews for prestigious journals sit on their desk until pinged for the tenth time by the journal editor - these scientists took the time to review articles written by undergraduates struggling to comprehend and communicate their research.

It was frightening.

“I didn’t open the response for a day,” said one student about her “expert review.” Another found a sea of red marks – comments, corrections, and No! Wrong! Wrong again – followed by helpful suggestions and further reading.

I wondered if I’d thrown my students to the wolves. Though I’d commented, edited and corrected as best I could before review, the fact is – I could never claim expertise on the breadth of topics covered by this group of young women. This was the lesson I'd learned. I hadn't planned for that level of expert review - but when the drafts came rolling in, I knew I was over my head. Without reading each and every reference - there was no way I could truly comment on the accuracy of what they'd written.

So was it worth the ego-bruising effort? (And I'm not referring just to the students here.) I had asked my students to write not only for the highest level of review, but also in the end, to put themselves out there in a way that many scientists haven’t dared, communicating a highly technical topic - one which they'd just learned about virtually on their own, to the public and in plain language. 

It’s something that I never felt comfortable with until I was out of the lab. Until I felt I had nothing to lose. But these days it is often necessary for scientists to communicate not just with each other but with the public, and it is my hope that that’s the lesson that sticks.

Maybe the difference between “toxicant” and “toxin” is pedantic. But sometimes you’ve just got to get it right. I think they did.

Check out their articles on the Encyclopedia of Earth:

PBDE
Pfeisteria
CFC-11
Pthalates
Atrazine
Perchlorate
Synthetic musks

Toxicant Inspired Poetry: Happy April Fools!

I’d like to share a poem written by a student who is no April’s Fool.

Last week I'd asked my students to respond to an Earth Forum posting by Sidney Draggan about the detection of a range of chemicals from personal care products to pharmaceuticals to detergents (all considered indicators of municipal waste) measured in earth worms by scientists from U.S. Geological Survey’s Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and reported in Environmental Science and Technology.

Sidney asked if anyone was surprised.

This was one student's response:

When you have a disgruntling ache,
Ibuprofen’s the thing to take.
If you’re feeling a little blue,
Pop an antidepressant or two.
Your kid’s attention span is shorter than that of a fly?
Stimulant medication is the thing to try.
You see, we’ll cook up a cure for whatever ails you,
And maybe a smattering of things you never knew
We're problems with chemical solutions;
We assure you all your kinks have easy resolutions.
Pharmaceuticals are the way to go
When you get an infection in your big toe
If plaque has clogged your blood’s flow
If your hair refuses to grow
If your insulin has fallen a little low.
And a bazillion other things, you know.

With this present in your mind,
It may not be such a surprising find
That even our worms are taking drugs!
Yes these naughty little bugs
Load up all day long!
But before you begin to think them wrong,
And go about accusing,
You might consider it is not their choosing
To ingest this vile mix of stuff.
You see, oddly enough
We are the ones to blame.

We may nobly aim
With pills to eliminate our daily pain
But it all ends up going down the drain.
Everything we get down with a drink,
Everything we throw down the sink-
Be it detergent or anti-bacterial soap
(It would take ages to enumerate the scope)-
Goes right on to a waste treatment facility.
I hope it does not affect your mind’s tranquility
To hear this is not where they stay,
Some into our drinking water stray!
Others catch a ride on our own waste-
Or “biosolids” if you want to show some taste-
And are applied freely to agricultural fields
So they will have record-breaking yields.
Their life sentence may sound tragic,
But worms are the ones that work the magic-
Turning dung into beautiful soil,
And what do they get for all their toil?
A mouthful of our chemical excess.
I think this is something we should address.
There is simply no good to gain,
When these things enter the food chain.
Against our wishes,
Some find their way into our dishes.
You can imagine this creates
Some concern over the toxicity of what’s in our plates
Maybe the effects of these chemicals are not so bad,

Or maybe we’ll be driven raving mad.
But the truth is it’ll take years to unveil
The effects these multiple low-level exposures entail.
If we one day find
That deeply entwined
Are the causes of our health woes
And our daily chemical dose

I can assure you of this:
There is guaranteed eternal bliss
For the one who finds an antidote
Clarity Guerra

If you'd like to pass this around, please remember to credit Clarity!

Making Lists: Dr. Cal's thoughts on priortizing chemicals

Guest blogger, Dr. Cal Baier-Anderson, a toxicologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Environmental Defense, adds her own thoughts about prioritizing chemicals (also check out the list created by J. Lowe from Impact Analysis in the comments section of Fav Five.)

A few years ago at a professional meeting I participated in a panel on the chemical perchlorate, which was receiving a lot of attention as an emerging drinking water contaminant. Perchlorate, an oxidizing agent that is used in rocket fuel, can block the uptake of iodide in the thyroid. One member of the audience suggested that focusing attention on perchlorate was a waste of time and money, that there are other chemicals that are more important. Make a list, I challenged the group; professional organizations and industry should step up to the plate and identify the top 10 chemicals of concern, from an industry perspective. It is certainly not an easy task, as Emily pointed out, many different lists can be made, depending on what features are most important.

With tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce, chemical prioritization is a hot topic. The traditional risk assessment process focusing on one chemical at a time requires a lot of data collection: the identification of the most important hazard endpoints (a prioritization process in and of itself); determination of dose-response for the priority endpoint, the characterization of exposure; and the assessment of risks. Chemical prioritization can be based on hazard, it can be based on likelihood of exposure, or it could be based on risk, incorporating both hazard and exposure. Many environmental groups argue that there is so much uncertainty in the risk assessment process that it is better to focus on hazard, emphasizing carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants, and endocrine disruptors. This has lead to the creation of lists, such as California’s Proposition 65 list of carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants (CMR), which requires that products containing a chemical on this label their products with a special notice.

Chemicals that can be classified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) are also considered to be high priority chemicals. EPA initially devised a list of PBT chemicals, but then developed a computer program that evaluates individual chemicals to score them as to PBT properties. Persistence and bioaccumulation are determined by basic chemical properties, whereas toxicity is based on aquatic toxicity data.

With public attention focused on chemicals in consumer products, many companies are critically evaluating their products’ ingredients to determine if they are made with chemicals of concern. But how can we define chemicals of concern? Based on hazard, or based on risk? Some companies have developed their own restricted substances list that contains chemicals that the companies believe to pose some unacceptable risk to their workers and/or consumers. REI has a list, but a simple Google search of “restricted substance list” will uncover many more.

At the recent SOT meeting in Seattle, there was a session on hazard vs. risk-based approaches. Many state governments and large companies are defaulting to hazard-based approaches as a simpler approach to removing chemicals of concern from consumer products. Several prominent toxicologists opined that focusing on hazard without considering exposure will result in time and money wasted on chemicals posing very little risk. But as my colleague noted during the discussion, there are many folks in the environmental community that are wary of our capacity to predict exposure, citing numerous examples where it was initially predicted that there would be no exposure, and the experts were wrong: PCBs, Bisphenol A, phthalates, PFOA, PBDEs…If we can’t correctly predict exposure, then confidence in the risk assessment plummets, shifting focus to hazard.

A new approach is being promoted by some very smart people: alternatives assessment. Rather than making simple restricted substances lists, focus on what are the alternatives and compare using a suite of criteria. These assessments can be used to drive continual improvement in materials safety – protecting workers, the environment and consumers. Makes sense to me!

What’s in Your Fav Five? Five top contaminants

I’d been blabbing away for the past hour or so about chemical contaminants, imparting my imperfect knowledge upon my seven brilliant college students.

“So, what do you think are the five most important contaminants?” asked Beth, my student who has been investigating atrazine, one of the most ubiquitous pesticides in this country.

I was speechless. “Um..” I wavered, “well….” I pondered, before finally copping-out with “that’s a really good question.”

“I guess that’ll be my assignment,” I grimaced, “but I’m not sure I’d be able to come up with just one list.” Although it seemed a fair if not daunting assignment, since I’d been asking them to stretch their brains all semester, I’m guessing if you asked ten toxicologists for their “Fav-Five” they’d come up with at least twenty different lists.

As with anything in toxicology, there are some basic questions about exposure, toxicity, how the stuff behaves in the environment, and who’s most at greatest risk? For example, we might use some pretty nasty stuff to clean our ovens, paint our toenails or kill rats but we might not expose ourselves to concentrations that are of concern (though that might be debatable), unless we drink them.

Then there’s toxicity. Does it cause cancer? Impair reproduction? Contribute to the development of asthma? Which is worse? Or maybe it’s more insidious, as one of my students, Liz, revealed about a group of fragrances, used in more consumer products that I can name, called synthetic musks. Some of these compounds impair the ability of our cells to spit out foreign chemicals. Finally, there’s the question of how the chemical behaves in the environment, and in us. Does it accumulate? Do we metabolize it? Does it seep into water? Is it spewed into the air? And this is just considering human toxicity. Finally there’s the ‘at risk’ question. Are we talking most problematic for humans? The Environment? Wildlife?

My brain was off in all directions. There are just too many variables. Even David Letterman hasn’t attempted at top-ten list for chemical contaminants I checked.

But I already copped-out once. I couldn’t do it again. So I did some academic soul-searching (A.K.A: A Google Search).

Maybe there are some existing lists that hordes of experts, policy makers and regulators have already developed? But no such luck (although please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to see one.) Then I dared write to representatives from USGS and EPA’s Office of Water, but got no response other than a boiler plate answer from the EPA's press office assuring me that in addition to protecting us from acute problems like pathogens, "EPA is concerned that water systems protect their sources of drinking water, address replacement of aging infrastructure, have properly trained operators, and charge sufficient rates to ensure that they have the revenue needed to provide access to safe drinking water."

So for better or worse it seems I’m on my own (with help from the universe of information available on the web – and these are in no particular order – they are about as random as my selection process,) though I’d love to see a poll of those in various fields to see what they’d come up with, here goes – not in any particular order:

1) Arsenic is linked to many different types of cancer, and occurs naturally in soil and water (and may occur in drinking water). It's a chemical once used widely as a pesticide. As a result it may be found in the neighborhood playground (arsenic is one of a triumvirate of metals in CCA or chromated copper arsenate,) or contaminate the soil of old fruit orchards (and elsewhere) thanks to its effectiveness as a pesticide. In terms of large scale environmental release, mining industries – like the Newmont Mining Corporation, in Nevada which describes itself as one of the leading gold companies in the world - may be most important. According to Scorecard a site originally created by Environmental Defense (and now "owned" by Green Media) that digests and synthesizes EPA’s Toxic Resource Inventory into a more readable format, arsenic is the number one cancer concern, and Newmont releases almost 300 millions pounds of arsenic a year into the surrounding environment.

Arsenic also tops the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry Top 20 List which is based on contaminants most commonly found at National Priority List or Superfund sites and which are considered most important in terms of potential for exposure and potential for causing adverse health effects.

Finally, in 2002, the EPA dropped the drinking water standard from 50 part-per-billion (ppb) down to 10 ppb, after considering even lower standards of 3 and 5 ppb.

2) Lead. This is not only important as a neurotoxic contaminant now because it exists in old house paint and other paint (e.g. on old peeling highway bridges), courtesy of the lead industry who once encouraged Americans to paint their houses with white lead, and advertised, yes actually advertised that “Lead Takes Part in Many Games,” (see Deceit and Denial for some fascinating reading,) but it’s also in our water having been used for pipes and solder. The EPA estimates that twenty percent of human lead exposure is the result of contaminated drinking water. Lead also tops NRDC’s Scorecard for number one, non-carcinogenic contaminant, this time thanks in part to Red Dog Ops in Alaska, another mining company.

Several years back, as a pregnant mother of a toddler, I dutifully tested the window sills of our new 1860’s home for lead paint – when the hardware store lead-test stick turned a shade of hot-pink I hadn’t seen since the psychedelic ‘70s. I immediately (and maybe not so wisely) purchased some gel non-toxic stripper and scraped away. Sometimes we do dumb things. And sometimes we just don’t learn. Maybe we will this time around.

Here’s a little ditty I found on EPA’s site:

Hence gout and stone afflict the human race;
Hence lazy jaundice with her saffron face;
Palsy, with shaking head and tott'ring knees.
And bloated dropsy, the staunch sot's disease;
Consumption, pale, with keen but hollow eye,
And sharpened feature, shew'd that death was nigh.
The feeble offspring curse their crazy sires,
And, tainted from his birth, the youth expires.
(Description of lead poisoning by an anonymous Roman hermit,
Translated by Humelbergius Secundus, 1829)

3) Priority Air Pollutants. Air is not my field, but no top-five list can be complete without at least a few air pollutants. These include particulate matter - released by power plants, motor vehicles, (especially older diesel vehicles), and some factories; ground-level ozone (primarily from motor vehicles and industry), carbon monoxide (from burning fossil fuel), sulfur oxides (fuel again, particularly coal burning plants), nitrogen oxides (yup, burning fuel again) and finally lead (again – so now you see it’s a double assault.)

We’ve all heard how asthma rates are going up. At least a few of those pollutants listed above aggravate asthma, and are known to cause or aggravate other respiratory conditions (for a historical perspective on the killing smog of Donora Pennsylvania, When Smoke Ran Like Water is a sobering read)

Although thanks to the Clean Air Act, smoke no longer runs like water, it’s still a pervasive pollutant, as anyone with a respiratory condition will tell you. As a parent who watched her asthmatic toddler’s every breath, and then watched as he bounced off the walls following massive doses of Ventolin (he’s thankfully grown out of it), I cannot imagine living in fear of the air. But people do, every day, and it’s criminal. Unfortunately, unlike water, until the sources clean up their act, there is no choice when faced with contaminated air (except perhaps, to visit one of those oxygen bars.)

4) Trichloroethylene, the “miracle” solvent of the twentieth century. I don’t know of too many contaminants that have their own blog, except for TCE (there’s also a very active TCE list serve run by Lenny Siegel, director for Center for Public Environmental Oversight). Though it may or may not reflect the importance of this developmental immuno - , neuro – (basically you name it) toxic and potentially carcinogenic contaminant, it does reveal the importance of this chemical. According to the EPA, TCE is present in 60% of their National Priority (NPL) or Superfund sites around the country, not to mention all the tens of thousands non-NPL sites contaminated with TCE as a result of past industrial, military, small business, or legal and illegal dumping. TCE not only contaminates water – including drinking water, but, depending on the depth of the water table and soil conditions, TCE vapors from contaminated ground water can and have intruded into homes, businesses and schools. Several years back, a class of mine worked with residents in North Adams, MA – a town where seventeen houses were bought-out and razed because of concerns about TCE vapor intrusion.

5) Bisphenol-A. Actually, I don’t know that anyone might consider this one a top-five, though it’s certainly among the top-five in “Buzz.” Bisphenol A is one of those seemingly all too-common estrogenic plasticizers. As we’ve all heard by now, this is the stuff that leaches from polycarbonate bottles – including those colorful Nalgene bottles that college students carry around (to make a statement about their environmental mindfulness) baby bottles, metal can linings, and even tooth sealants. Way back when, in the dark ages of 1993, when the realization that very small amounts of chemicals could really tweak developing reproductive systems was just dawning, the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) stated, “The developmental toxicity of bisphenol A has been adequately investigated. Confidence in the RfD, therefore, is high.” Consequently the EPA set the “Reference Dose,” an amount considered as safe, at 50 parts per billion per day. Recent studies now suggest concentrations nearing this reference dose may cause reproductive and developmental toxicity. Bisphenol A now contaminates rivers, streams, with unknown impacts on wildlife, and because of its use in consumer products, its in us as well, at concentrations nearing the EPA reference dose.

Phew. That about does it for me, I now submit to class for grading. Comments, corrections, additions and subtractions are welcome.

EU to the Rescue? Regulating Toxic Chemicals

Throughout my professional life, I have, for the most part buried my head in research. That’s what it’s all about - the science - right? Wrong. Not when it comes to toxic chemicals. Back when I was in graduate school, there were some hints that other things, like regulation and risk assessment were important – but I couldn’t be bothered. Even as Sheila Jasanoff, who boggled me with her intelligence and eloquence, led us graduate students through the morass of legalese in her Toxic Torts class, I just didn’t get it. Why laws were written so unintelligibly I could never understand, except maybe to help employ more lawyers.

So twenty years later – maybe even to the semester that I earned the only “C” in my post-secondary career (well – I also pulled off a C in History of the World a well known “gut,” freshman year of college), I am struggling to understand why our country’s Toxic Substances Control Act, the legislation designed to protect us from harmful effects of toxics does not; and why Europe’s new chemical control policy promises so much more.

Thankfully I’m not the only one trying to figure this out. This summer the General Accountability Office or GAO released a report comparing TSCA with Europe’s new Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) legislation. Noting one primary difference between the two, the GAO states:

“TSCA places the burden of proof on EPA to demonstrate that a chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment before EPA can regulate its production or use, while REACH generally places a burden on chemical companies to ensure that chemicals do not pose such risks …….” (emphasis added)

You don’t have to be a toxicologist to know how difficult it is to determine that any one particular chemical poses a risk, you just have to read the papers. He says this, she says that, and meanwhile, polybrominated fire-retardants contaminate the dust in our homes, bisphenol-A leaches from baby bottles, and we’re wondering how the gasoline additive MTBE, which now contaminates groundwater across the country could ever have been allowed. But now the EU is requesting that industry take the lead ensuring (as best they can) that a chemical poses little risk to human health and the environment before setting it loose.

Then there are the tens of thousands of chemicals that were on the market prior to the 1980 enactment of TSCA. Unless there was reason for suspicion, those were grandfathered into chemical complacency. And into our food, clothing, air and water.

Unlike TSCA, REACH does not distinguish between new chemicals or old chemicals, according to a recent article in Environmental Health Perspectives REACH will require safety and exposure data on something like 30,000 chemicals currently sold in Europe. Those chemicals that are “carcinogenic, mutagenic, persistent or bioaccumulative or toxic to reproduction” will receive special attention. I just hope the EU has armies of toxicologists lined up to review this stuff!

Many times I’ve harped on how we seem to make the same mistakes over and over again. But it seems the EU has finally looked back before moving forward. When in class, I try to make it clear that being toxic isn’t enough to raise the reputation of a chemical to celebrity status. Exposure matters. How and how much we are exposed to certain chemicals is key. Sometimes exposure takes us by surprise. Who knew that polybrominated fire-retardents would shake free from their products (although one would think that their similarity to PCBs and dioxins might have raised some concern early on about their tendency to bioaccumulate), or that bisphenol-A would leach into water and food to the extent that it does, or that MBTE would wend its way around soil particles into our water, leaving other fuel components behind to be degraded? To address exposure – the EU proposes to consider all uses of a chemical – and to inform all “downstream uses,” clothing, cosmetic, packaging manufacturers for example, of not only the chemical’s properties but also how it behaves in humans and in the environment.

This kind of information, according to Joel Tickner, from the Lowell Center for Sustainable Development, (as reported by EHP), may drive innovation towards less toxic, safer products. According to EHP, “[Tickner] says there is a clear interest of downstream users of chemicals who want the functionality of the chemical but not their toxicity. Companies in sectors such as health care, footwear, electronics, and cleaning chemicals have already started to demand these products from suppliers.”

Amen. And with some trickle down – U.S. companies wishing to supply E.U. with chemicals will have to comply with REACH – there’s hope that we can clean up our act here at home.

Well, we're better off than in the '70s right?

Toxicology fascinates me, and I love passing that fascination on to students eager to learn about how chemical contaminants impact their environment, and what they can do about it. But it’s a difficult science to teach to undergraduates. It’s hard not to talk about environmental contaminants without the doom and gloom. Particularly this semester, when I’ve decided to run a new course, introducing students to emerging contaminants, by having them investigate and write - for this site and others - about what they’ve discovered.

Because really, there’s nothing “new” or “emerging” about these chemicals, except that we’re now aware of their existence in the environment, and in us. As most of my students now know, many of these contaminants have been around for decades. Some were never regulated; some were regulated, but ended up contaminating land and water across the country anyway; some, have taken environmental scientists and regulators by complete surprise.

“How do you not get depressed?” asked one student, head in hands, slouching into the desktop.

“Well,” I reply, “we’re a lot better off than we were back in the ‘70s.”

Whoa, did I really say that?! The ‘70s? Do I have to harken back to the 1970’s to make us look OK now? A time when many environmental regulations were new, and couldn’t help but improve the condition of air, water and land?

I can relate to my students' sense of loss. It’s like having the rug pulled out from under. We all want to believe that all the regulations and regulatory agencies that serve to protect us from harmful chemicals really are effective. And, for the most part they are, and we are better off for it. But these emerging chemicals are more insidious. For decades many of these chemicals have contaminated food, water, us – in part because they were beyond the reaches of the analytical chemist. No one knew they were there - although some might have been predicted to be a problem, others were thought to degrade, break apart into harmless products.

But now, with improved techniques we know that we are not only stardust, but we’re synthetic chemicals as well.

So I point out that there’s hope. I say that even though PFOA and PFOS, which belong to a class of perfluorinated contaminants, were a big regulatory “whoops,” they now are undergoing the appropriate scrutiny, and within a fairly short timeframe, scientists have begun to measure their decline in the environment.

Shortly after that discussion, I sent the students off to investigate their favorite “emerging contaminant.”

Now I’m depressed.

Of the seven different “emerging contaminants” they chose to investigate, four of them, Pthalates, Atrazine, PBDEs, and Nitro-musks are banned by the European Union. But here in the United States? All four are still legal. (OK, California recently banned pthalates and many states have issued bans on specific PBDEs .)

As Mark Schapiro, editorial director of the Center for Investigative Reporting, reveals in his book Exposed , the differences in chemical regulation between the U.S., once an environmental leader, and the EU the rapidly emerging new leader are vast, and like the universe, rapidly expanding.

“All this makes me want to move to Europe,” commented one student, or maybe California.

A nanometer of regulation: EPA, TSCA and nanomaterials

I just came across a little blurb in this week’s issue of Science, noting that the EPA has finally made some decisions about regulating nanomaterials. A quick read indicates that 1) the EPA has decided that for chemicals already registered under their TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA is the law enacted to protect us humans and the environment from nasty chemicals – and the inventory is a listing of all those chemicals from which we’re being protected) – nano-formulations of those chemicals will not require new registration (or registration as a new chemical) and 2) they are asking for voluntary submission of health and toxicity data, by manufacturers and users of nanomatierals. Huh.

So what does this mean? I was confused when I first read it. After reading and writing about nanomaterials, I thought one of the advantages of producing these things were specifically (in some cases) because they act differently than their bigger, larger, brothers and sisters. For example compounds like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were nanoized in the first place was to take advantage of the differences between the larger forms and the smaller. So, I though, maybe the EPA didn’t really mean that.

Fortunately, EPA has an easily readable paper that explains these things – like how they define a new chemical - in great detail. According to their TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances – General Approach (2008) paper, EPA focuses on “molecular identity.” In this case, chemicals that have the same molecular formulas, the same crystal structures, the same spatial arrangement of atoms – are the same chemical. That means, according to the EPA, and to borrow from Dr. Suess, titanium dioxide is titatinium dioxide no matter how small.

Why is it important to distinguish a chemical as “new?”

Normally, when a company manufactures a “new chemical,” unless it’s exempt – the company must submit a Pre-manufacture Notice, which then triggers some basic testing. That little bit about “exempt” can be important. In fact, you’ve likely got some of those “exempt” chemicals floating around in you right now. Remember all the hubbub about PFOA and PFOS? Those chemicals in Gore-Tex and Teflon and other products? Well perfluorinated chemicals involved in the production of PFOA and PFOS were granted exemptions, in this case because they were in commerce before TSCA came along. But look what happened. Now we’ve got those chemicals contaminating wildlife around the world. To be fair, it’s possible that would have happened anyway – who knows. But here’s the catch, the exemption was granted with the understanding that under TSCA, should any manufacturer realize that there might be health and safety issues, such information “ [would] be submitted to the Agency…when companies learn of it.” In the case of these products this didn’t happen, and Dupont ended up settling that account for $10 million dollars.

A steep price to pay; and an example which hopefully demonstrates for manufacturers that honesty really is the least expensive policy.

There are various ways a chemical might be exempt. If it’s used only for research and development, it might be exempt. If it’s produced in low volume, it might be exempt. And, if there’s some indication that it would be released in only small concentrations or that there would only be small exposures, it might be exempt.

Bottom line? There will be nanomaterials that will not be required to undergo testing.

Ah but rest assured, EPA has considered that some of these exempt or untested chemicals may have adverse health or environmental effects. You see, they recently announced their Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, where according to the program description, “Participants are invited to voluntarily report available information on the engineered nanoscale materials they manufacture, import, process or use,” should they happen to observe anything funky happening with their materials.

Let’s hope they do.

For a good readable explanation of TSCA and how it may or may not apply to nanomaterials check out the article “TSCA and Engineered Nanoscale Subtances,” by Lynn L. Bergeson and Ira Dassa and published in Sustainable Development Law and Policy.

Virus farms or salmon farms? Wild salmon and IPNV

Here in the Valley, many of us love our local Atlantic salmon. We wait patiently watching as thousands of shad, and hundreds of eel pass by the murky fish ladder windows - where thick panes of glass separate us from the roiling Connecticut in spring - hoping to glimpse the rare silvery salmon. We scan the scoreboard, where FirstLight Power Resources, the local dam and fish ladder operators, records numbers of each species passing by the ladders. How many salmon, we wonder, will make it back to Holyoke where the majority of returning fish are captured and transported to the Richard Cronin National Salmon Station in Sunderland, for spawning?

Each winter and spring, school kids tend salmon eggs in their classrooms, watching as the large salmon embryos develop. They squeal with delight as the young salmon squirm from their translucent shells and begin to dart about the tank, their oversized yolk sacs sustaining them for the months to follow. Finally, as the salmon absorb the last of their maternal sustenance, developing into fry, the stage at which they’ll be released into the wild, they name them, and say their farewells, gently tipping cups of fry into local streams. In this valley, to paraphrase Monty Python, “every salmon is sacred.”

So when I awoke one Monday morning this past fall to Laurie Sanders’ familiar voice explain on Field Notes, her weekly show aired on WFCR, why most of this year’s 141 sea run returns – 121 salmon possibly raised and released by some hopeful school kids, fish that had spent the past two or so years at sea, dodging predators, seeking out food, and finding their way back home – were destined not for reproduction but for destruction, I turned to my own resident salmon expert, conveniently lounging in bed beside me: my husband Ben.

For the past ten years as an aquatic ecologist at the Silvio Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center in Turners Falls, Ben has led a team of scientists and resource managers who mix and match salmon mates, using genetic marker-assisted broodstock management techniques to better understand the factors limiting restoration and population growth of Atlantic salmon.

“What does she mean,” I asked, “that they have to destroy all those salmon?”

“Not just the salmon,” he said, regretfully, “but all their eggs too.” He’d just spent over a week at Cronin playing matchmaker for those 121 doomed salmon. Turns out, as Ms. Sanders explained, ovarian samples from two of those returning adult fish were infected with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus or IPNV, a potentially lethal disease in salmon. And so, as a precaution to prevent the possible spread of the disease, all of the adults, and over seven hundred thousand of their eggs were slated for destruction at the hands of the hatchery managers who had tended and cared for these precious wild fish.

As one who’d killed many a fish for research, but who towards the end of her career could barely kill a minnow, I couldn’t imagine how they must have felt.

“I was devastated,” said Mickey Novak, hatchery manager for the Cronin station, speaking of the drastic measures required to stay the spread of IPNV. “I’ve tested thousands of samples. I’ve never had to do this in my entire career.”

On the other hand, noted Novak, “had we missed those eggs, once they hatched [fertilized salmon eggs from Cronin are transported to the White River National Fish Hatchery in Bethel, VT] they could have contaminated the entire Connecticut River watershed with IPNV – and other susceptible species like bass and trout could easily have been wiped out.” Humans, notes Novak, are not susceptible.

Because of the threat that sea-run fish may bring to not only their own progeny but to the program as a whole, salmon that come into the hatchery are run through a battery of tests for viral, fungal and bacterial diseases. Some tests rely on blood samples, while others like IPNV require different bodily fluids. In this case, ovarian fluid from strip spawned females is collected and sent to the Lamar Fish Health Center, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, in Lamar, PA, where it is cultured for IPNV.

According to Trish Barbash, assistant fish health biologist at Lamar who tested those samples, “IPNV is endemic to freshwater rivers and streams in the northeast and may actually have originated here in Brook Trout…. This is the first occurrence of IPNV in Northeastern wild Atlantic salmon since many of these restorations began.” That is, in the over 30 years since efforts to restore Atlantic salmon stocks began, this disease has never once been detected in Atlantic salmon returning to natal rivers along the northeast coastal United States. Additionally, as Barbash noted, though the disease is endemic in Pennsylvania and some other Northeastern states, it has not been detected in Massachusetts rivers and streams in any species.

Where did the strain infecting the Cronin salmon come from? Barbash's analysis reveals that the virus infecting the Cronin salmon is not a known North American strain, but is genetically more similar to a Canadian genotype. So, it is unlikely that the salmon were infected with IPN during their life stages in the waters of the U.S., but may have come in contact with Canadian or European fish carrying this virus strain during their migration in the ocean. As Novak explained, back in the dark ages of conservation, the late 1800s, IPNV was likely transported from the U.S.Europe along with native brook trout. Over the past 100 years all sorts of trout and their associated diseases have crossed the Pond, in tanks rather than under their own piscine power, thanks to our incessant meddling, and
over the years, IPNV has diversified into a whole range of different strains. These strains are geographically scattered across the world, but not necessarily out of reach of the Connecticut River Atlantic salmon when one considers their migratory trek.

Ironically, though this is the first appearance of IPNV in wild U.S. salmon stocks, IPNV is well known in Europe, particularly in (or perhaps thanks to) European fish farms in Norway, Scotland and Ireland. Because of its impact in Europe, it is currently considered the most important viral disease for salmon in the European Union. Several years ago, IPNV was estimated to cost Norwegian salmon farms upwards of 100 million krone. In case you haven’t traveled to Norway lately– that’s roughly 20 million dollars. And, IPNV is just one disease of many endemic to salmon farms.

When I’d first heard that the fate of the Cronin fish may have been in some way associated with European salmon farms, I felt that familiar surge of anger towards industrial tinkering with natural systems mixed with guilt as I looked forward to my morning coffee, toasted bagel, cream cheese and, you guessed it – salmon. Salmon that likely traveled from a farm in Norway, Scotland, Chile or maybe Canada to my breakfast plate. As we all know, viruses thrive when their hosts gather in high densities, be it a crowded airport, our kid’s classrooms, or a fish farm. So while scientists estimate the prevalence (or number of existing cases) of IPNV to be very low in wild fish populations – making this year’s finding of IPNV in wild North American stock all the more important – that is not the case in fish farms.

Fish farms may be, according to a recent report by the Norwegian Seafood Federation’s aquaculture division, “the most important reservoir of IPN virus in the aquatic environment,” as infected fish shed virus in feces, urine, dead and dying fish into surrounding waters. And, according to some reports, IPNV can survive up to twenty days in seawater. As wild salmon migrate past infected Norwegian or, say, Scottish fish farms, though they may flip a fin at their captive cousins, they may also swim away host to a deadly disease.

But wait, you say. What’s fish in farming Europe got to do with Connecticut River salmon? It’s a big ocean after all – hard to imagine our small fry out there mingling with the Euro crowd.

Yes there’s lots of wide-open space out there in the North Atlantic. But, in the ocean, as on land, migrating animals tend to follow the beaten path, so to speak, or in this case ocean currents. So after spending two to three years, half their lives, in freshwater rivers and streams around the Valley, the salmon that many of us gently tip from PVC buckets, increase in size and grow into sea-ready salmon smolts, and head on out into the big blue. There, according to Janice Rowen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Connecticut River coordinator’s office, “They migrate to the North Atlantic following ocean currents. They spend a couple of years off the west coast of Greenland feeding, and sometimes, rarely, they stray further east. European salmon may mix with North American salmon there. But, the majority of European salmon seem to migrate to an area closer to Europe, near the Faroe Islands.” Large quantities of capelin are apparently at least one attraction, as salmon from afar mix, mingle, gorge, and as with any crowd anywhere – share disease before heading back from whence they came.

For years, Mickey Novak has been sampling - looking out for what wasn’t there. Thanks to Mickey, Jan and Trish and others who patiently sample and test, year in, year out, it still isn’t.

This article was first published in the Montague Reporter, Montague, MA

Lead in toys: A year in review

The current Environews Focus published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Face to Face with Toy Safety by Charles W. Schmidt reviews in mind-boggling detail, the lead problem that blindsided both consumers and major toy manufacturers this past year. By now – who isn’t familiar with stories of exceedingly high concentrations of lead in the brightly colored glossy paint on Thomas the Tank Engine toys, or in the sparkling beads and baubles that little kids love?

Even though it’s an issue we’re all familiar with, the numbers reported in Schmidt’s review are startling. Here are a few: 42 toy recalls, 6 million toys (and these were just the one’s recalled), lead levels in some toys (primarily vinyl) upwards of 2,000 parts-per-million or ppm, that’s 2 part-per-thousand (concentrations of lead paint over 600 ppm trigger a recall. A movement is underway in Congress to reduce this number further.) Some of the highest concentrations are found in kid’s jewelry, which caused at least two cases of lead poisoning in children, one of which was fatal.

In addition to the lead threat, Schmidt also reviews the use of pthalates (certain pthalates are what makes plastic squeeze toys, bottles and other items squeezably soft) another ubiquitous yet less well understood class of chemical contaminants. Some pthalates are known reproductive toxicants, and there are concerns that such pthalates may act cumulatively, potentially additively – such that combined exposures to small potentially non-toxic amounts, may add up to biologically active and toxic concentrations.

It’s an interesting article also covering the Toy Industry’s and the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s response in addition to proposed solutions.

Cross-posted at Encyclopedia of Earth Forum

High-tech trashed again

High tech trash is a problem that just won’t go away, and a problem which all of us help (if you're reading this you're included) generate. Whether it’s moving on to a more powerful and streamlined computer or buying the latest and greatest cell phone (and even if you don’t keep up with colorful cell phone trends, most only last a couple of years,) we all generate high tech trash or e-waste.

Though I wrote about this earlier (e-waste impacts in China) the January, 2008 National Geographic has an excellent article about the impact of High Tech Trash, by Chris Carroll, this time focusing on the impacts in Africa.

Here are a few sobering numbers from the article based on 2005 data:

• Of the roughly 760 tons of discarded TV sets only 13.4% are recycled. Just think of what will happen here in the U.S. when digital TV rules. Though a converter will get those of us with decades old sets tuned in, my guess is the changeover will be at the very least a good excuse for many to make the switch to a newer, slimmer tube (so to speak.)
• The proportion of discarded computer monitors fared better with 24.5% of the almost 390 tons that were discarded.
  
• The “frit” that connects the glass panel to the CRT funnel is 70% lead
• Pre-1990’s glass panels are 2.5% lead

As usual, at least on the environmental front, the European Union is steps ahead, with mandatory take-back programs and restrictions on the amounts of certain toxic substances incorporated into new electronics.

From the EU’s Removal of Hazardous Substances site: “The RoHS Directive stands for "the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment". This Directive bans the placing on the EU market of new electrical and electronic equipment containing more than agreed levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants.”

In the EU manufacturers are required to literally take-back electronic goods when consumers are done with them (and with a long history of planned obsolescence – that can be quite frequently with some goods) and manufacturers must ensure that electronics are either responsibly recycled or disposed. The U.S. requires no such thing.

From High Tech Trash:“In the United States, electronic waste has been less of a legislative priority. One of only three countries to sign but not ratify the Basel Convention (the other two are Haiti and Afghanistan), it does not require green design or take-back programs of manufacturers, though a few states have stepped in with their own laws. The U.S. approach, says Matthew Hale, EPA solid waste program director, is instead to encourage responsible recycling by working with industry—for instance, with a ratings system that rewards environmentally sound products with a seal of approval. "We're definitely trying to channel market forces, and look for cooperative approaches and consensus standards," Hale says.

The result of the federal hands-off policy is that the greater part of e-waste sent to domestic recyclers is shunted overseas."

Now, if I could just get my kid, who's been lobbying for a new flat screened TV to read this!

Story of Stuff - now showing on a computer near you!

My friend Cal recently sent around a link to the online video The Story Stuff. After a bit of inter-e-mail discussion by those receiving the email Cal asked if I'd post something about the Story so the discussion could go online. The following is my own experience with the video. We'd be interested in hearing yours - so we hope you'll share your thoughts in the comment section (you don't even have to read through my babble - you can skip right to the comments!) -Emily

Who doesn't use stuff?

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been bombarded by well meaning friends and colleagues with emails about the new 20-minute online video, The Story of Stuff. At the time I was in the middle of teaching a six-week high school workshop on “The Environmental Impact of Your Clothing.” Bingo, I thought, there's one class I wouldn’t have to prepare. Just download, turn off the lights and click.

The Story provides an overview of consumption from raw materials to disposal using clear and engaging cartoon graphics, narrated by Annie Leonard, whom I found equally clear and engaging.

“So what’d you think?” I asked my high school seniors.

“Oversimplified,” said one.

“Yeah, and biased,” said another.

I was surprised - though in some ways impressed. I’d worked with these kids for a couple of weeks and we’re a pretty small class. I knew they cared about environmental issues and that they were aware of the consequences of consumerism. They weren’t very impressed with this clip. Were they too old?

I didn’t think so – while the clip uses simple graphics, it covers a range of ideas that are complex and that really are aimed at adults, not just children. Had they ironically seen to much of this kind of stuff? Or too little?

Well, I thought, so much for that. Guess it’s not so useful after all. I had planned on showing it next semester to my college students but was having second thoughts.

Then one student asked, “What’s up with all that dioxin coming out of the stacks? Does that really happen? And is it really, like, the most toxic chemical?"

Aha. While I had honed my skill as a graduate student when dioxin was “hot stuff,” so to speak – these kids have barely heard of it. And what they have heard, sometimes came from clips like this – or as the prime example of a toxic disaster.

As with many environmental contaminants that have now become just buzz-words, they had no clue as to what dioxin was, how it can be formed, how it enters the environment and what happens when it does. We spent the remainder of the class talking about disposal of toxics, and the current problems caused when dioxins are released by villagers “cooking” e-waste. This issue of e-waste is one that they can all relate to. In fact - in some ways - I'd wished the Story of Stuff had focused a little on e-waste (though I understand the universal approach -we use and toss lots of stuff.)

"Who hasn't," I asked, "bought or tossed or hopefully recycled - something electronic in the past couple of months?"

Reluctant shrugs and sheepish grins all around.

Over-simplified as The Story may be, we're all participants.

It's definitely on the agenda for my Mount Holyoke class this spring - at the very least to spark lively discussion.

Fishing for disease

Just a brief note as I prepare a longer (and more depressing article) on farmed fish - salmon in particular. Hearing how local wild caught Connecticut River brood stock salmon, and their offspring, had to be killed off this month after Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) virus was detected in a few returning fish, I decided to take a closer look at the relationship between farmed fish and disease in wild fish.

It’s not a pretty picture, and although the link between IPN in our few and very precious local salmon is unclear, there’s plenty of evidence indicating that fish farming has increased disease in wild fish populations. Additionally there are a multitude of other problems that require attention – before farmed fish in a safe (and by this, I mean environmentally sound) manner.

For a quick read on the topic check out “Farming the deep blue sea,” an article about moving fish farming from near shore or coastal areas to offshore, published last spring in Environmental Science and Technology or more recently, Parasites from fish farms driving wild salmon to extinction in the news section of the journal Science.

So - enjoy your salmon in ignorant bliss over the holidays while you can. I'll be posting more on this, particularly the impacts of coastal and near-shore salmon farming in excruciating disease ridden detail later, after the new year.