Rachel's News #949 - Freepage News

1 message - Collapse all

news.omega

View profile

More options Mar 7 2008, 6:13 pm

From: "news.omega" <news.om...@googlemail.com>

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:13:57 +0100

Local: Fri, Mar 7 2008 6:13 pm

Subject: Rachel's News #949

  Forward
  | Print
  | Individual message
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Having trouble viewing this email? You can read it as a web page
<http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht080306.htm>.
.
*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #949

*"Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide?"*

*Thursday, March 6, 2008*.................Printer-friendly
version <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_dhn080306.htm>

www.rachel.org <http://rachel.org> --

*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*

*Featured stories in this issue...*

The Coal Industry's Ace in the Hole <#The_Coal_Industrys_Ace_in_the_Hole>
For the past seven years the coal industry and the U.S. government
has been quietly building a global network of organizations to promote
"clean coal." Their work is about to pay off, endangering the future
of green chemistry and renewable energy.
Only Zero Emissions Can Prevent a Warmer Planet <#Only_Zero_Emissions_Can_Prevent_a_Warmer_Planet>
Greenhouse gas emissions will have to be eliminated completely to
stabilise the Earth's climate and prevent temperatures from rising.
That's the conclusion of climatologists in the US who say that our
current efforts to merely stabilise emissions will not be enough.
Outspoken Scientist Dismissed from Panel on Chemical Safety <#Outspoken_Scientist_Dismissed_from_Panel_on_Chemical_Safety>
What happens to a scientist who believes her knowledge warrants a
precautionary approach to a toxic chemical? For her ethical stance,
she is smeared by the chemical industry and U.S. EPA then removes from
an advisory panel, signaling that it knows how to play ball with the
industry. In the mainsream media, this is not being discussed as an
attack on both science and precaution, but that's what it is.
Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root <#Synthetic_Turf_Health_Debate_Takes_Root>
"Before we take risks with our children's health and drinking water
quality, we need to make sure that the uncertainties... are fully
investigated." The debate is over synthetic turf, used to blanket
lawns, park spaces, and athletic fields where children and adults
relax and play. Is synthetic turf safe for human and environmental
health?
Immune Systems Increasingly on Attack <#Immune_Systems_Increasingly_on_Attack>
Overall, there is very little doubt that we are seeing significant
increases in immune system disorders like asthma, diabetes, multiple
sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease. "You can call it an
epidemic," says Syed Hasan Arshad. "We're talking about millions of
people and huge implications, both for health costs and quality of
life."
'Plastic Soup' Debris in Pacific Ocean <#Plastic_Soup_Debris_in_Pacific_Ocean>
"Degraded plastic pieces outweigh surface zooplankton in the
central North Pacific Ocean by a factor of 6-1. That means six pounds
of plastic for every single pound of zooplankton."
Sex-changing Chemicals Make Male Starlings Sing Sweet Songs <#Sexchanging_Chemicals_Make_Male_Starlings_Sing_Sweet_Songs>
Hormone-disrupting chemicals cause male starlings to sing songs
that are especially attractive to females. But if the male starlings
have been made less healthy by the chemicals, the net result could be
the weakening of the entire population.

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #949, Mar. 6, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_power_update_pt2.htm>

*THE COAL INDUSTRY'S ACE IN THE HOLE*

By Peter Montague

We saw last week <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_power_update.htm> that, as the price of oil rises, the coal industry
is planning to replace oil by turning coal into liquid fuels *
and* into feedstocks for the chemical industry. Of course they are
also planning to burn ever-more coal to produce electricity. If these
plans materialize, green chemistry <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/7929/7929greenchemistry.html> and renewable solar energy both
will be sidelined for the rest of this century.

You may have heard that "coal is dead." But this is not the case; in
its struggle for survival, the coal industry has an *ace in the
hole*. In July of this year, the industrialized nations of the
world are going to announce their united support for "clean coal."
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and
the U.S. are about to sanction burying today's global warming problem
in the ground, passing it along to our children to manage essentially
forever.

There's one major problem with the coal industry's plans, and that's
carbon dioxide, the most important global warming gas. Therefore, the
coal industry's plans all hinge on the development of "clean coal" --
a clever name for an untested idea, burying billions or trillions of
tons of liquid, pressurized carbon dioxide in the ground, hoping it
will stay there forever. Burying CO2 is called "carbon capture and
storage," or CCS <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht080207.htm#The_G8_Plan_of_Action_f...> for short. If the public can be convinced to
support (and pay for) "clean coal" (CCS), then the coal industry can
flourish. If not, the way will remain open for renewable energy and
green chemistry.

The coal industry is politically very powerful, especially within the
administration of George W. Bush. One measure of this power is the $5
billion in subsidies for the coal industry embedded in the Energy Bill
Congress enacted in 2005. In his book, Big Coal <http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780618319404-1> (chapters 6-8),
Jeff Goodell describes how coal companies and electric utilities came
to dominate many aspects of the Bush administration, convincing the
President to renege on his 2000 campaign promise to impose mandatory
controls on CO2, gutting the "new source review" provisions of the
Clean Air Act, and manipulating the mercury rules to suit the
industry.

Early in the Bush years, bad news was piling up for the coal industry.
In January 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
announced <http://www.precaution.org/lib/planet_may_warm_10_deg.020226.htm> that greenhouse gases might warm the planet by as much as
10.4 degrees Fahrenheit during this century -- which nearly everyone
at that time recognized was a dangerous state of affairs. (It's a
tribute to the power of the coal industry that today, 7 years later,
essentially nothing has changed.) In June of 2001, the prestigious
U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a report that the New York
Times described <http://www.precaution.org/lib/nas_says_warming_is_real.010607.htm> as follows: "In a much-anticipated report from the
National Academy of Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric scientists,
including previous skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the
mainstream scientific view that the earth's atmosphere was getting
warmer and that human activity was largely responsible."

The Times went on: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's
atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the report
said. "Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

Anyone paying attention in 2001 could see that CO2 emitters were about
to be blamed for dislocating the climate. Luckily for the fossil fuel
industries, later that year the World Trade Center and Pentagon
atrocities unfolded, President Bush soon embarked on two difficult
wars, and the world's focus drifted away from global warming for a
time.

While the newspapers were focused on Mr. Bush's perpetual war on
terrorism, the fossil fuel industries and their supporters in
Washington quietly ramped up a new international organization to
promote the only solution to global warming that would allow the coal
and oil industries to continue business as usual -- carbon burial
(CCS). The organization they created in 2003 is called the Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum <http://www.cslforum.org/> (CSLF); it members include 21
countries and the European Union, but its secretariat (its
administrative apparatus) resides within the U.S. Department of Energy
in Washington. The U.S. Department of Energy had been promoting CCS
half-heartedly since 1997, but the CSLF represented a 1000-fold
increase in effort.

Two years after the CSLF was created, in 2005, the wealthy "group of
8" (or G8 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8>) nations announced their plan for solving global warming.
It is called the "Gleneagles Plan of Action <http://www.precaution.org/lib/g8_gleneagles_plan_of_action.050701.pdf>" or more often simply
the "G8 Plan of Action." The centerpiece of the G8 Plan is "clean
coal" with CCS. The coal industry was getting its ducks in a row.

Immediately after the Gleneagles Plan was adopted, the G8 expanded its
circle of "clean coal" supporters to include the entire OECD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oecd>
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) -- the 30
wealthiest nations in the world. Since 1974, the OECD has had its own
energy department, known as the International Energy Agency (IEA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency>),
with headquarters in Paris. Since 2005 the IEA has been carrying water
for the "clean coal" industry. By spreading small amounts of money
around, the coal industry, and its helpmates within the U.S.
Department of Energy, quickly created an impressive global network of
institutions and projects to promote CCS <http://www.precaution.org/lib/ccs_web_sites.htm>.

In 2006 and 2007, the IEA and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum co-sponsored three technical workshops on "clean coal" and CCS.
The first workshop (3.5 Mbyte PDF <http://www.precaution.org/lib/iea_issues_summary_report.080204.pdf>), held in San Francisco,
identified the issues involved in CCS; the second (2.4 Mbyte PDF <http://www.precaution.org/lib/iea_global_assessments_wkshop.070601.pdf>),
held in Oslo, Norway, assessed the specific opportunities for CCS that
had been identified in the first workshop. More ducks were falling
into line.

After the first two workshops, the IEA issued a lengthy report titled,
"CO2 Capture Ready Plants" (1.2 Mbytes PDF <http://www.precaution.org/lib/iea_co2_capture_ready_plants.070501.pdf>). This report describes
the features of a power plant that could be built today, which would
be ready to capture and store its CO2 emissions underground whenever
CCS becomes feasible. Even if CCS *never* becomes feasible
"capture ready" is a label being applied to power plants in hopes that
they will be licensed for construction today, a good 20 years before
commercial-scale CCS could be ready. Given the immature state of CCS
technology, it is unclear whether "capture ready" is anything more
than an optimistic label for old-style power plants, a PR ploy rather
than a serious statement of intent to capture CO2. Dr. Mark Diesendorf
at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia suggests <http://www.precaution.org/lib/can_geosequestration_save_the_coal_indu...>
that "the possibility of large-scale geosequestration [carbon burial],
three or more decades in the future, is being used to deflect
attention away from the current reality of business-as-usual. Thus,
geosequestration is less about sustainable development and more about
sustaining the coal industry by greening its image."

In any case, a host of difficult issues must be resolved before CCS
could be commercialized, including such matters as (c) what
constitutes a suitable site for CCS and how do you know when you've
found one? (b) how to identify potential leakage pathways; (c) how to
analyze the likelihood and consequences of large releases; and (d) how
to monitor for leakage for thousand of years. These and many related
questions of ownership and liability would have to be addressed before
CCS could proceed at commercial scale.

By the time the third IEA/CSLF workshop was held, in Calgary, Alberta,
in November 2007, the IEA and the CSLF had their final ducks lined up.
That workshop issued a mere one-page report <http://www.precaution.org/lib/g8_call_for_ccs.071129.pdf>, which simply called for
the "urgent deployment of CO2 underground storage." The one-page
report said, "Twenty full-scale plants each storing more than a
million tonnes per year of CO2 need to be operating by 2020
worldwide." And it said, "This conclusion demonstrates that a very
powerful international consensus is building on the urgency of
adopting carbon dioxide capture and storage as a key emissions
abatement option."

A very powerful consensus, indeed: the OECD, the G8, and most
importantly the U.S. Department of Energy all concluding that the best
way to avert global warming is to *process more coal, not less*,
and bury the resulting CO2 in the ground, hoping it will stay there
forever, essentially passing the largest problem we've ever created on
to our children to solve.

This coming July 7-9, the G8 nations will meet in Hokkaido, Japan and
will announce their conclusion -- more than five years in the making
-- that the "urgent deployment" of carbon burial CCS technology is
essential. To save the world from catastrophic global warming, "clean
coal" is the answer, they will say.

This announcement will give CCS considerable credibility and will give
coal a tremendous boost -- and it will put anti-coal activists on the
defensive.

No, *coal is definitely not dead <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_u.s._moves_toward_coal_ban.08021...>* -- and the future of
renewable energy and green chemistry both hang in the balance.

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: New Scientist, Feb. 29, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_zero_emissions_required.080229.htm>

*ONLY ZERO EMISSIONS CAN PREVENT A WARMER PLANET*

By Kate Ravilious

Greenhouse gas emissions will have to be eliminated completely to
stabilise the Earth's climate and prevent temperatures from rising.
That's the conclusion <http://www.precaution.org/lib/zero_emissions_required.080227.pdf> of climatologists in the US who say that our
current efforts to merely stabilise emissions will not be enough.

Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, and Ken Caldeira,
from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, USA, used a
global climate model to study how greenhouse emissions would need to
change in order to stabilise global temperatures over the next few
hundred years. Previous studies have only looked at what happens when
emissions are stabilised.

Humans have been releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in
increasing quantities since the industrial revolution. But to simplify
the simulation, Matthews and Caldeira injected a single pulse of
carbon dioxide into a pre-industrial atmosphere.

Pulse sizes of 50, 200, 500 and 2000 billion tonnes of carbon were
used. The model was set to calculate global temperatures and
atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide levels over a simulated 500
years.

CO2 legacy

At the end of that period, Matthews and Caldeira found that between
20% and 35% of the initial emission pulse remained in the atmosphere -
even for the smallest emission pulse -- with the remainder having been
absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks.

The lingering carbon dioxide means that global warming persisted for
the entire simulation. For the four different emission scenarios,
global temperatures stabilised at 0.09, 0.34, 0.88 and 3.6 ºC above
pre-industrial levels respectively.

So far industrial emissions total around 450 billion tonnes. "Even if
we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global
temperature rise of around 0.8 ºC lasting at least 500 years," says
Caldeira.

One of the reasons for the persistence is the slow response of oceans.
"It takes a lot of energy to heat them up and then a long time for
them to cool back down," he explains.

Technical challenge

Roger Pielke, a climate policy expert at the University of Colorado in
Boulder, agrees with the findings. "This research makes the case that
simply stabilising concentrations is insufficient to stabilise
temperatures. Their argument, if widely accepted, raises the bar on
what it means to mitigate climate change," he says.

Matthews and Caldeira warn that current emissions targets for 2050 are
insufficient to avoid substantial future warming. Instead they believe
that we need to eliminate emissions, or find a way of actively
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"It is technologically challenging, but not impossible. The biggest
challenge will be to get political consensus," says Caldeira.
Potential tools to achieve zero emissions include renewable energy,
electric cars and carbon capture and some countries such as Costa Rica
are already aiming for zero emissions.

Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, thinks
that it is a feasible long-term aim. "If used on a large enough scale
then new technologies like carbon capture could get us to zero
emissions."

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (DOI:
10.1029/2007.GL032388 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/zero_emissions_required.080227.pdf>)

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa29feb29,0,6191299.story>, Feb. 29, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_epa_removes_scientist_who_spoke....>

*OUTSPOKEN SCIENTIST DISMISSED FROM PANEL ON CHEMICAL SAFETY*

Deborah Rice, an award-winning toxicologist, was removed from a group
of experts researching a widely-used flame retardant after industry
lobbyists complained that she was biased.

By Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental
Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a
federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers
of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific
panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was
removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council,
the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-
ranking EPA official that she was biased.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high
volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine
Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca
and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February,
around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the
Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because
scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the
environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as
well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased
advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the
flame retardant.

The EPA is in the process of deciding how much daily exposure to deca
is safe -- a controversial decision, expected next month, that could
determine whether it can still be used in consumer products. The role
of the expert panel was to review and comment on the scientific
evidence.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception
of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for
advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a
conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

EPA officials were not available for comment Thursday.

Environmentalists accuse the EPA of a "dangerous double standard,"
because under the Bush administration, many pro-industry experts have
served on the agency's scientific panels.

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy
group, reviewed seven EPA panels created last year and found 17
panelists who were employed or funded by the chemical industry or had
made public statements that the chemicals they were reviewing were
safe. In one example, an Exxon Mobil Corp. employee served on an EPA
expert panel responsible for deciding whether ethylene oxide, a
chemical manufactured by Exxon Mobil, is a carcinogen.

Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group,
called it "deeply problematic from the public interest perspective"
for the EPA to dismiss scientists who advocate protecting health while
appointing those who promote industry views.

Lunder said it is unprecedented for the EPA to remove an expert for
expressing concerns about the potential dangers of a chemical.

"It's a scary world if we create a precedent that says scientists
involved in decision-making are perceived to be too biased," she said.

Rice was unavailable for comment Thursday.

In addition to her testimony for the Maine Legislature, Rice has been
quoted in media reports saying there is enough scientific evidence to
warrant bans on deca. "We don't need to wait another five years or
even another two years and let it increase in the environment, while
we nail down every possible question we have," she told the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer last March.

In a May letter to an assistant administrator at the EPA, Sharon
Kneiss, a vice president of the American Chemistry Council, called
Rice "a fervent advocate of banning" deca and said she "has no place
in an independent, objective peer review." She told the EPA that
Rice's role on the panel "calls into question the overall integrity"
of the EPA's evaluation of chemicals and that Rice may have influenced
the other panelists in their review of deca.

Top EPA officials met with the industry group's representatives in
June and promised to take action, according to a letter that EPA Asst.
Administrator George Gray sent to the group last month. In that
letter, Gray said the EPA found "no evidence" that Rice "significantly
influenced the other panelists."

Environmentalists are concerned that Rice's removal could result in a
less protective standard.

After EPA officials dismissed her from the five-member panel, they
removed her comments from the panel's report on deca and removed all
mention of her. Three months later, at the request of the chemical
industry group, the EPA added a note to the panel report that Rice was
removed "due to a perception of a potential conflict of interest" and
that none of her comments were considered in their review of the
chemical.

EPA documents show that Rice's comments while serving on the panel
focused on technical, scientific issues. For example, she advised the
EPA to consider the cumulative effects of not just deca, but chemicals
with similar neurological effects.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, said he was disturbed by Rice's
dismissal and the Environmental Working Group's findings about pro-
industry panelists.

"If this information is accurate, it raises serious questions about
EPA's approach to preventing conflicts of interest on its expert
scientific panels," Waxman said.

The conflict of interest policies of another environmental institute,
the National Toxicology Program, also has come under fire. Last March,
a major consultant for a federal center that evaluates reproductive
hazards of chemicals was fired after The Los Angeles Times reported
that the firm had financial ties to 50 chemical companies or
associations.

Rice specializes in neurotoxins -- chemicals that harm developing
brains. Before she went to work for the state of Maine, she was a
senior toxicologist at the EPA's National Center for Environmental
Research, where she had a major role in setting the EPA's
controversial guideline for exposure to mercury in fish.

In 2004, the EPA gave Rice and four colleagues an award for what it
called "exceptionally high-quality research" for a study that linked
lead exposure to premature puberty in girls.

Many toxicologists and other environmental scientists have said they
are highly concerned about flame retardants known as PBDEs,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

In laboratory tests, PBDEs have been found to skew brain development
and alter thyroid hormones, slowing the learning and motor skills of
newborn animals.

Two of the compounds, called penta and octa, were banned in 2004.
Before the ban, amounts in human breast milk and wildlife were
doubling in North America every four to six years, a pace unmatched
for any contaminant in at least 50 years. Now they are decreasing.

Scientists had initially thought that the deca compound was not
accumulating in people and animals as the other PBDEs were. But it
appears that deca turns into other brominated substances when exposed
to sunlight, and now many scientists say it, too, is building up in
the environment worldwide. Deca has similar effects on animals'
developing brains as the banned PBDEs.

The chemical industry contends that low doses pose no danger and that
the compound is necessary to prevent fires in many consumer products.
In addition to TVs and other electronics, deca is used in furniture
textiles, building materials and automobiles. About 56,000 tons were
used worldwide in 2001, mostly in the United States and Asia.

Only Maine and Washington state restrict use of deca; both passed laws
last year that phase out some uses. Similar bills have been introduced
in California but have not passed.

marla.c...@latimes.com <mailto:marla.c...@latimes.com>

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Environmental Health Perspectives <http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-3/focus.html>, Mar. 1, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_synthetic_turf_debate_takes_root...>

*SYNTHETIC TURF: HEALTH DEBATE TAKES ROOT*

By Luz Claudio

In Little League dugouts, community parks, professional athletic
organizations, and international soccer leagues, on college campuses
and neighborhood playgrounds, even in residential yards, the question
being asked is "grass or plastic?" The debate is over synthetic turf,
used to blanket lawns, park spaces, and athletic fields where children
and adults relax and play; the questions are whether synthetic turf is
safe for human and environmental health, and whether its advantages
outweigh those of natural grass. Despite or perhaps because of the
fact that it is too early to definitively answer those questions, the
debate is fierce.

New York City, which buys the largest amount of synthetic turf of any
U.S. municipality, held a hearing 13 December 2007 on the use of
synthetic turf in city parks. There is a clear need for open space in
the city. The 28,700 acres of land constituting some 4,000 parks are
distributed unevenly throughout the city. "Many districts have no
green parks, not even one," said Helen Sears, a city council member
representing the Jackson Heights neighborhood, during the hearing.

New York City Department of Parks & Recreation commissioner Adrian
Benepe wants to address the need for parks and athletic fields by
installing not only natural grass fields and lawns but also synthetic
turf. "With quality recreational facilities -- which means, in some
cases, synthetic turf fields -- we will be able to better confront
this issue," he says. In New York City, he points out, at least 35
synthetic turf fields are or will be a replacement for asphalt
surfaces.

Others oppose the move toward synthetic turf. "Grassroots
organizations have been working hard to have pesticide use reduced or
banned in places where it is unnecessary," says Tanya Murphy, a board
member of Healthy Child, Healthy World, an advocacy organization. "Now
we're going from the frying pan and into the fire when replacing grass
with synthetic turf."

The debate leaves many on the fence. Orlando Gil, an assistant
research scientist at New York University and soccer coach, is
weighing both alternatives: "We want children to play outside,
exercise, and play sports, but with pesticides and fertilizers in
grass and chemicals in artificial turf, I don't know which to choose."

Indeed, a dearth of research on the nonoccupational human health
effects of exposure to the constituents of synthetic turf hampers the
ability to make that choice with any degree of confidence. On the
basis of limited toxicity data, some reports have concluded the health
risks are minimal. Most agree, however, that far more research is
needed before the question can be definitively answered. In the 13
December 2007 issue of Rachel's Democracy and Health News, William
Crain of the City College of New York Psychology Department and
Junfeng Zhang of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
School of Public Health called conclusions of minimal risk "premature.

A Turf History

During the 1950s, the Ford Foundation studied ways to incorporate
physical fitness into the lives of young people, particularly in
cities where outdoor play areas were scarce. Ford joined Monsanto
Industries to create an artificial surface on which children could
play sports. In 1964 the first artificial playing surface was marketed
under the name Chemgrass.

Meanwhile, the first domed stadium was being built in Houston, Texas.
The Astrodome, with its retractable translucent plastic ceiling, let
in enough sunshine to maintain a natural grass field. But after the
first baseball season, it was clear there was a problem. The plastic
panes produced a glare that made it difficult for players to see the
ball. This problem was solved by painting the panes black -- but then
the grass began to die from lack of sunlight. By the beginning of the
second season, the Astros were playing on dead grass and painted dirt.
At this time, production of Chemgrass was limited, but what little was
available was installed in the Astrodome. By the end of the 1966
season, the material had been renamed AstroTurf. The green nylon
carpet was a success.

The popularity of AstroTurf grew steadily during the 1970s and 1980s,
with most of its use in professional sports arenas. However, a
backlash began to unfold when players started to complain about the
surfacing. The English Football Association banned synthetic turf in
1988, mainly because of complaints from athletes that it was harder
than grass and caused more injuries. Similar concerns were growing in
the United States. A poll conducted by the National Football League
Players Association in 1995 showed that more than 93% of players
believed playing on artificial surfaces increased their chances of
injury. This sentiment was famously expressed by baseball player Dick
Allen: "If a horse won't eat it, I don't want to play on it."

The movement against AstroTurf gained traction, and many ballparks
were converted to natural grass during the 1990s. One example was
Giants Stadium in New Jersey, which had used AstroTurf since its
construction in 1976. The stadium was refitted with a system of 6,000
removable trays of natural grass. Even the new stadium in Houston,
built to replace the original Astrodome, was surfaced with grass.

In this story of grass, the balance is tilting once more against the
natural kind. Natural grass, under some circumstances, cannot
consistently withstand the demands of sports where a lot of running is
involved. Parallel to this back-and-forth controversy over which is
best have come new developments in the manufacture of synthetic turf.
Several companies, including the makers of the original AstroTurf,
have come on the market with new playing surfaces.

FieldTurf, for example, is made of a blended polyethylene-
polypropylene material woven to simulate blades of grass. The "grass"
is held upright and given some cushioning by adding a layer of infill
made of recycled tires, rubber particles 3 mm in diameter or smaller.
This crumb rubber infill is sometimes mixed with silica sand. Many
stadiums that switched to grass from AstroTurf have since switched
back to FieldTurf-style synthetic turf.

Figures from the Synthetic Turf Council, a trade organization based in
Atlanta, show that 10 years ago there were 7 new-generation fields
installed in the United States. Today there are 3,500. Says Geoffrey
Croft, president of the nonprofit New York City Parks Advocates, which
promotes public funding and increased park services, "There are
millions of square feet of synthetic turf already installed on fields
around the country, and not one environmental impact statement has
been issued."

Human Health Questions

Given the relatively recent development of new-generation synthetic
turf, there are unanswered questions regarding its potential effects
on health and the environment, with the rubber infill one of the main
sources of concern. The crumbs become airborne and can be breathed in
and tracked into homes on clothes and athletic gear. There are also
questions about dermal and ingestional exposures, and about ecosystem
effects.

For athletes, the little black rubber pellets may seem little more
than a nuisance. Others express more concern, especially when it comes
to children's exposure to the infill. Patti Wood, executive director
of the nonprofit Grassroots Environmental Education, argues, "This
crumb rubber is a material that cannot be legally disposed of in
landfills or ocean-dumped because of its toxicity. Why on earth should
we let our children play on it?"

Recycled crumb rubber contains a number of chemicals that are known or
suspected to cause health effects. The most common types of synthetic
rubber used in tires are composed of ethylene-propylene and styrene-
butadiene combined with vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers, and
antioxidants in different quantities, depending on the manufacturer.
Tire rubber also contains polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, only 8 states have
no restrictions on placing tires in landfills. Most of these
restrictions have to do with preventing pest problems and tire fires,
which release toxicants such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, PAHs,
and VOCs.

Some studies suggest that the same chemicals that can be released
profusely during a tire fire may also be released slowly during
deterioration of crumb rubber. For instance, researchers at the
Norwegian Institute of Public Health presented a report at the 2006
meeting of the International Association for Sports Surface Sciences
on turf-related chemicals in indoor stadiums. The report, Artificial
Turf Pitches: An Assessment of the Health Risks for Football Players,
showed that VOCs from rubber infill can be aerosolized into respirable
form during sports play. The authors calculated health risk assuming
the use of recycled rubber granulate, which releases the lowest
amounts of these chemicals of any type of rubber infill.

The report concluded that, given current knowledge, the use of
synthetic turf indoors does not cause any elevated health risk, even
in vulnerable populations such as children. However, the report
continues, "It should also be noted that little or no toxicological
information is available for many of the volatile organic compounds
which have been demonstrated as being present in the air in the
[indoor stadiums].... [Furthermore], not all organic compounds in the
[stadium] air have been identified." In particular the report called
for more information regarding the development of asthma and airway
allergies in response to exposure to the latex in many tires.

Similarly, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA), in the January 2007 report Evaluation of Health
Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products,
concluded that 49 chemicals could be released from tire crumbs. Based
on an experiment simulating gastric digestion, the OEHHA calculated a
cancer risk of 1.2 in 10 million assuming a one-time ingestion over a
lifetime -- well below the 1 in 1 million di minimis risk threshold.
In a hand-wipe experiment, the OEHHA calculated an increased cancer
risk of 2.9 in 1 million for ingestion of chrysene (a suspected human
carcinogen found in tire rubber) via hand-to-mouth contact with crumb
rubber infill. This estimate assumed regular playground use for the
first 12 years of life and was termed by the authors to be "slightly
higher" than the di minimis level.

In the summer of 2007, Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), a
nonprofit organization headquartered in North Haven, Connecticut,
commissioned a study from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station to determine whether toxic compounds from crumb rubber could
be released into air or water. The report Artificial Turf describes
identifying 25 chemical species with 72-99% certainty using mass
spectrometry-gas chromatography. Among those definitively confirmed
were the irritants benzothiazole and n-hexadecane; butylated
hydroxyanisole, a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor; and
4-(t-octyl) phenol, a corrosive that can be injurious to mucous
membranes.

The Synthetic Turf Council said in a statement issued on 13 December
2007 that "Claims of toxicity [in the EHHI report] are based on
extreme laboratory testing such as the use of solvents and high
temperatures to generate pollutants." But the EHHI stands by its
studies. Artifical Turf author David Brown, EHHI's director of public
health toxicology, says, "It is clear the recycled rubber crumbs are
not inert, nor is a high temperature or severe solvent extraction
needed to release metals, volatile, or semivolatile organic
compounds." Brown asserts that the laboratory tests approximate
conditions that can be found on the field, and that no solvent besides
water was used.

According to Brown, the basic barrier to accurately assessing the
safety of recycled tire rubber is the high variability in tire
construction and the lack of chemical characterization of the crumb
rubber. "Very few samples have been tested," he says. "There is no
study with sufficient sample sizes to determine the potential hazard."
He adds, "Since new tires contain vastly different amounts of the
toxic materials, based on the intended use, it is impossible to ensure
players or gardeners and others that their personal exposure is within
safe limits."

Another debated health issue is that of injuries. Several studies
published in a supplement to the August 2007 issue of the British
Journal of Sports Medicine reported no differences in the incidence,
severity, nature, or cause of injuries in soccer teams who played on
grass versus new-generation synthetic turf. However, injuries may
depend on the type of sport being played. A five-year prospective
study of football injuries among high school teams published 1 October
2004 in The American Journal of Sports Medicine showed that there were
about 10% more injuries when games were played on synthetic turf than
when played on grass surfaces. Conversely, the risk of serious head
and knee injuries was greater on grass fields.

Injuries lead to another concern: infection with methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which is thought to spread especially
easily among athletes because of repeated skin-to-skin contact,
frequency of cuts and abrasions, and sharing of locker room space and
equipment. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and published in the 3 February 2005 issue of the New
England Journal of Medicine showed that, although synthetic turf
itself did not appear to harbor MRSA, the greater number of turf burns
caused by the abrasive friction of this type of surface increased the
probability of MRSA infection, especially among professional athletes
playing on hard surfaces.

There is, however, some evidence to suggest that synthetic turf may
harbor more bacteria. For example, an industry study sponsored by
Sprinturf, a maker of synthetic turf, found that infill containing a
sand/rubber mixture had 50,000 times higher levels of bacteria than
infill made of rubber alone. To address this, the company markets
synthetic turf that is "sand-free" as a safer alternative and offers
sanitation for those fields already installed.

Proper maintenance of synthetic turf requires that the fields be
sanitized to remove bodily fluids and animal droppings; manufacturers
market sanitizing products for this purpose. According to Synthetic
Turf Sports Fields: A Construction and Maintenance Manual, published
in 2006 by the American Sports Builders Association, some synthetic
turf owners disinfect their fields as often as twice a month, with
more frequent cleanings for sideline areas, where contaminants
concentrate.

Different Shades of Green

Cultivated natural grass carries plenty of environmental baggage.
According to "Water Management on Turfgrass," a paper on the Texas A&M
University Cooperative Extension website <http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/>, natural grass sports
fields can require up to 1.5 million gallons of water per acre per
year. The frequent mowing required for natural grass lawns and fields
also results in emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (up to
5% of such emissions in the United States, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency).

Natural grass does offer tangible benefits, however. According to
Turfgrass Producers International, these include increased pollution
control, absorption of carbon dioxide, a cooling effect, water
filtration, and prevention of soil erosion. There are also perhaps
intangible benefits to a field of grass. Crain presents the idea that
replacing grass with synthetic turf can hinder children's creative
play and affect their development. "Today's children largely grow up
in synthetic, indoor environments," he says. "Now, with the growing
popularity of synthetic turf fields, their experience with nature will
be less than ever."

Adds Croft, "Although there is an important need for open spaces, the
issue here is not open space but active recreational facilities. I
don't see the connection between open space and installing synthetic
turf fields."

Synthetic turf does offer certain advantages over natural grass. A New
Turf War: Synthetic Turf in New York City Parks, a report released in
2006 by the advocacy group New Yorkers for Parks, points out,
"Proponents of synthetic turf fields tout the reduction of allergy and
asthma triggers. The removal of natural pollens and grasses may be
beneficial to children and adults with these afflictions."

One of the main arguments used in favor of synthetic turf is that it
can be installed relatively quickly and, once functional, can be used
almost continuously. In contrast, grass fields need time to take root
and must be closed periodically for proper maintenance. For example,
the Central Park Conservancy, a private philanthropy that maintains
New York City's Central Park, closes grass fields all winter; during
the summer and spring, fields are closed on a rotating basis for
restoration. Also, tackle football and cleated shoes are prohibited on
all of the fields, and the fields are closed whenever it rains or they
are wet. According to estimates from the New York City Department of
Parks & Recreation, synthetic fields can be open for use 28% more of
the time in a year than natural grass fields because they can
withstand heavy use, which the department estimates has doubled in the
last eight years.

Lower cost for long-term maintenance is another argument that is made
for synthetic turf, although the degree of the savings is disputed. It
is generally agreed that installation costs of synthetic turf can be
almost double those of natural grass. For instance, a synthetic turf
soccer field can cost almost $1.4 million compared with a natural
grass field at about $690,000. But when the costs are prorated over
the expected lifespan of the field, including maintenance, the
difference in cost narrows to less than $15,000 more for the natural
grass, according to A New Turf War.

Although some, like Benepe, consider this cost savings to be
substantial, others consider it insignificant. As Christian DiPalermo,
executive director of New Yorkers for Parks, puts it, "The amount of
money saved is negligible considering the many unknowns about
artificial turf."

One drawback that both fans and critics of synthetic turf agree on is
that these fields can get much hotter than natural grass. Stuart
Gaffin, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate
Systems Research at Columbia University, initially became involved
with the temperature issues of synthetic turf fields while conducting
studies for another project on the cooling benefits of urban trees and
parks. Using thermal satellite images and geographic information
systems, Gaffin noticed that a number of the hottest spots in the city
turned out to be synthetic turf fields.

Direct temperature measurements conducted during site visits showed
that synthetic turf fields can get up to 60 deg. hotter than grass,
with surface temperatures reaching 160 deg. F on summer days. For
example, on 6 July 2007, a day in which the atmospheric temperature
was 78 deg. F in the early afternoon, the temperature on a grass field
that was receiving direct sunlight was 85 deg. F while an adjacent
synthetic turf field had heated to 140 deg. F. "Exposures of ten
minutes or longer to surface temperatures above 122 deg. F can cause
skin injuries, so this is a real concern," said Joel Forman, medical
director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at Mount
Sinai School of Medicine, speaking at a 6 December 2007 symposium on
the issue.

Many physical properties of synthetic turf -- including its dark
pigments, low-density mass, and lack of ability to vaporize water and
cool the surrounding air -- make it particularly efficient at
increasing its temperature when exposed to the sun. This is not only a
hazard for users, but also can contribute to the "heat island effect,"
in which cities become hotter than surrounding areas because of heat
absorbed by dark man-made surfaces such as roofs and asphalt. From
many site visits to both black roofs and synthetic turf fields, Gaffin
has concluded that the fields rival black roofs in their elevated
surface temperatures.

Although it is often argued that one of the advantages of synthetic
turf is that it does not need irrigation, some installations must be
watered to control the excessive heat. Benepe stated in public
hearings that water misters may have to be installed in some fields to
help remedy the heat problem. According to Gaffin, synthetic turf is
so efficient at absorbing sunlight, that cooling with water is only
temporarily effective. "After a short while of watering, I expect the
temperature should rebound and the surface become intolerably hot
again," he says.

In addition to heat control, the International Hockey Federation
requires that college teams saturate synthetic turf fields before each
practice and game to increase traction, according to an article in the
19 October 2007 Raleigh (North Carolina) News & Observer. The article,
which examined why local universities were watering their synthetic
turf fields in the midst of severe ongoing drought in the U.S.
Southeast, noted that Duke University received a business exemption to
water the fields provided overall campus water consumption decreased
by 30%.

The EHHI study addressed the question of whether synthetic turf fields
can contribute to increased water contamination from rain or from
spraying or misting. The study found that 25 different chemical
species and 4 metals (zinc, selenium, lead, and cadmium) could be
released into water from rubber infill. Moreover, because synthetic
turf is unable to absorb or filter rainwater, chemicals filter
directly into storm drains and into the municipal sewer system without
the beneficial filtration that live vegetation provides. Benepe and
others agree this can be an issue that New York City would need to
address, as water runoff from synthetic turf fields could overwhelm
storm drains, thus contributing to the estimated 27 billion gallons of
raw sewage and stormwater that discharge from 460 combined sewer
overflows into New York Harbor each year.

Finally, what happens to synthetic turf fields when they are no longer
usable? Industry estimates that synthetic turf fields have a lifespan
of 10 to 12 years, whereupon the material must be disposed of
appropriately. Rick Doyle, president of the Synthetic Turf Council,
says the infill could be cleaned and reused; put to another purpose,
such as for rubber asphalt; incinerated; used in place of soil to
separate landfill layers; or otherwise recycled. Typically, however,
it is landfilled.

Alternatives

One of the benefits of synthetic turf is that it can serve as a way to
reuse old tires, a real problem given the 1 billion-plus tires that
are sold every year. Doyle says the synthetic turf industry currently
recycles one-twelfth of the 300 million auto tires that are withdrawn
from use each year. The average soccer field can contain crumb rubber
made from 27,000 tires at a density of about 4 to 15 pounds of infill
per square foot.

Europe has launched an aggressive tire recovery campaign in which
tires that meet quality criteria can be retreaded and reused. End-of-
life tires that cannot be reused are recycled for other uses including
some industrial energy-generating applications, the production of
rubberized pavement, and recycling into materials for the car industry
(in addition to some use in producing synthetic turf). In western
Europe, recovery rates of used tires have increased from 65% in 2001
to almost 90% in 2005.

Whereas end-of-life tires add tons of waste a year for disposal in
many areas, in Europe they are turning into a potentially lucrative
secondary raw material. "There are increasingly numerous
applications," says Serge Palard, head of the end-of-life tire
recovery department at Michelin, one of the largest tire manufacturers
in the world. "In some countries where we did not know what to do with
end-of-life tires a few years ago, now we do not have enough to meet
the demand of all the reprocessors."

In accordance with the European Union's recently implemented REACH
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals)
regulations, which will require more testing of industrial chemicals,
companies such as Michelin are working to reduce the use of harmful
chemicals in tires in order to facilitate recycling into other
products.

European companies are also finding innovative ways to address
concerns regarding recycled tire infill in synthetic turf. In Italy,
for example, there is an effort to market synthetic turf fields that
feature infill made of a new thermoplastic material that is thought to
be nontoxic. Mondo, a manufacturer of floor surfaces, produces
Ecofill, a patented polyolefin-based granule used in synthetic turf.
According to the company, this material disperses heat more
efficiently; is highly shock absorbent; does not contain polyvinyl
chloride, chlorine, plasticizers, heavy metals, or other harmful
chemicals; and is 100% recyclable.

Another alternative is infill made from plant-derived materials.
Synthetic turf manufacturer Limonta Sport produces Geo Safe Play, an
infill made from coconut husks and cork. Company spokesperson Domenic
Carapella says, "There are certainly alternatives to crumb rubber.
There is no longer a reason to sacrifice the playing quality and more
importantly the health of children [playing on synthetic turf]."

Why can't the alternative to bad grass fields simply be well-
maintained grass fields, asks Croft. Certain varieties of turf grasses
have been bred for resistance to stress, ability to withstand
trampling and low water conditions, and other characteristics that
make them appropriate for athletic field use.

But according to Doyle, increased maintenance is not the answer. "More
maintenance cannot overcome overusage of a natural grass sports
field," he says. "And overusage of a natural grass sports field or
usage during a rainstorm or in months of dormancy will produce an
unsafe playing surface." Adds Benepe, "Even the wealthiest
professional sports teams and Ivy League universities have concluded
that grass fields are a losing proposition for intense-use sports such
as football or soccer....There is also the reality that natural turf
fields used for high-intensity sports must be replaced every few
years, unless you severely restrict use."

For now, New York State Assemblymembers Steve Englebright, William
Colton, and David Koon have proposed legislation to impose a six-month
moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf until the state
health and conservation departments have better studied the pros and
cons of natural and synthetic grass. Said Englebright in a 5 November
2007 statement, "Before we take risks with our children's health and
drinking water quality, we need to make sure that the uncertainties...
are fully investigated."

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Washington Post (pg. A1), Mar. 4, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_immune_systems_attack.080304.htm>

*IMMUNE SYSTEMS INCREASINGLY ON ATTACK*

By Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer

First, asthma cases shot up, along with hay fever and other common
allergic reactions, such as eczema. Then, pediatricians started seeing
more children with food allergies. Now, experts are increasingly
convinced that a suspected jump in lupus, multiple sclerosis and other
afflictions caused by misfiring immune systems is real.

Though the data are stronger for some diseases than others, and part
of the increase may reflect better diagnoses, experts estimate that
many allergies and immune-system diseases have doubled, tripled or
even quadrupled in the last few decades, depending on the ailment and
country. Some studies now indicate that more than half of the U.S.
population has at least one allergy.

The cause remains the focus of intense debate and study, but some
researchers suspect the concurrent trends all may have a common
explanation rooted in aspects of modern living -- including the
"hygiene hypothesis" that blames growing up in increasingly sterile
homes, changes in diet, air pollution, and possibly even obesity and
increasingly sedentary lifestyles.

"We have dramatically changed our lives in the last 50 years," said
Fernando Martinez, who studies allergies at the University of Arizona.
"We are exposed to more products. We have people with different
backgrounds being exposed to different environments. We have made our
lives more antiseptic, especially early in life. Our immune systems
may grow differently as a result. And we may be paying a price for
that."

Along with a flurry of research to confirm and explain the trends,
scientists have also begun testing possible remedies. Some are feeding
high-risk children gradually larger amounts of allergy-inducing foods,
hoping to train the immune system not to overreact. Others are testing
benign bacteria or parts of bacteria. Still others have patients with
MS, colitis and related ailments swallow harmless parasitic worms to
try to calm their bodies' misdirected defenses.

"If you look at the incidence of these diseases, a lot of them began
to emerge and become much more common after parasitic worm diseases
were eliminated from our environment," said Robert Summers of the
University of Iowa, who is experimenting with whipworms. "We believe
they have a profound symbiotic effect on developing and maintaining
the immune system."

Although hay fever, eczema, asthma and food allergies seem quite
different, they are all "allergic diseases" because they are caused by
the immune system responding to substances that are ordinarily benign,
such as pollen or peanuts. Autoimmune diseases also result from the
body's defense mechanisms malfunctioning. But in these diseases, which
include lupus, MS, Type 1 diabetes and inflammatory bowel disease, the
immune system attacks parts of the body such as nerves, the pancreas
or digestive tract.

"Overall, there is very little doubt that we have seen significant
increases," said Syed Hasan Arshad of the David Hide Asthma and
Allergy Centre in England, who focuses on food allergies. "You can
call it an epidemic. We're talking about millions of people and huge
implications, both for health costs and quality of life. People miss
work. Severe asthma can kill. Peanut allergies can kill. It does have
huge implications all around. If it keeps increasing, where will it
end?"

One reason that many researchers suspect something about modern living
is to blame is that the increases show up largely in highly developed
countries in Europe, North America and elsewhere, and have only
started to rise in other countries as they have become more developed.

"It's striking," said William Cookson of the Imperial College in
London.

The leading theory to explain the phenomenon holds that as modern
medicine beats back bacterial, viral and parasitic diseases that have
long plagued humanity, immune systems may fail to learn how to
differentiate between real threats and benign invaders, such as
ragweed pollen or food. Or perhaps because they are not busy fighting
real threats, they overreact or even turn on the body's own tissues.

"Our immune systems are much less busy," said Jean-Francois Bach of
the French Academy of Sciences, "and so have much more strong
responses to much weaker stimuli, triggering allergies and autoimmune
diseases."

Several lines of evidence support the theory. Children raised with
pets or older siblings are less likely to develop allergies, possibly
because they are exposed to more microbes. But perhaps the strongest
evidence comes from studies comparing thousands of people who grew up
on farms in Europe to those who lived in less rural settings. Those
reared on farms were one-tenth as likely to develop diseases such as
asthma and hay fever.

"The data are very strong," said Erika von Mutius of the Ludwig-
Maximilians University in Munich. "If kids have all sorts of exposures
on the farm by being in the stables a lot, close to the animals and
the grasses, and drinking cow's milk from their own farm, that seems
to confer protection."

The theory has also gained support from a variety of animal studies.
One, for example, found that rats bred in a sterile laboratory had far
more sensitive immune systems than those reared in the wild, where
they were exposed to infections, microorganisms and parasites.

"It's sort of a smoking gun of the hygiene hypothesis," said William
Parker of Duke University.

Researchers believe the lack of exposure to potential threats early in
life leaves the immune system with fewer command-and-control cells
known as regulatory T cells, making the system more likely to
overreact or run wild.

"If you live in a very clean society, you're not going to have a lot
of regulatory T cells," Parker said.

While the evidence for the hygiene theory is accumulating, many say it
remains far from proven.

"That theory is so full of holes that it's clearly not the whole
story," said Robert Wood of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

It does not explain, for example, the rise in asthma, since that
disease occurs much more commonly in poor, inner-city areas where
children are exposed to more cockroaches and rodents that may trigger
it, Wood and others said.

Several alternative theories have been presented. Some researchers
blame exposure to fine particles in air pollution, which may give the
immune system more of a hair trigger, especially in genetically
predisposed individuals. Others say obesity and a sedentary lifestyle
may play a role. Still others wonder whether eating more processed
food or foods processed in different ways, or changes in the balance
of certain vitamins that can affect the immune system, such as
vitamins C and E and fish oil, are a factor.

"Cleaning up the food we eat has actually changed what we're eating,"
said Thomas Platts-Mills of the University of Virginia.

But many researchers believe the hygiene hypothesis is the strongest,
and that the reason one person develops asthma instead of hay fever or
eczema or lupus or MS is because of a genetic predisposition.

"We believe it's about half and half," Cookson said. "You need
environmental factors and you need genetic susceptibility as well."

Some researchers have begun to try to identify specific genes that may
be involved, as well as specific components of bacteria or other
pathogens that might be used to train immune systems to respond
appropriately.

"If we could mimic what is happening in these farm environments, we
could protect children and prevent asthma, allergies and other
diseases," von Mutius said.

Some researchers are trying to help people who are at risk for
allergies or already ill with autoimmune diseases.

With new research suggesting that food allergies may be occurring
earlier in life and lasting longer, several small studies have been
done or are underway in which children at risk for milk, egg and
peanut allergies are given increasing amounts of those foods,
beginning with tiny doses, to try to train the immune system.

"I'm very encouraged," said Wesley Burks, a professor of pediatrics at
Duke who has done some of the studies. "I'm hopeful that in five
years, there may be some type of therapy from this."

Another promising line of research involves giving patients
microscopic parasitic worms to try to tamp down the immune system.

"We've seen rather dramatic improvements in patients' conditions,"
said Summers of the University of Iowa, who has treated more than 100
people with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis by giving them
parasitic worms that infect pigs but are harmless to humans. "We're
not claiming that this is a cure, but we saw a very dramatic
improvement. Some patients went into complete remission."

Doctors in Argentina reported last year that MS patients who had
intestinal parasites fared better than those who did not, and
researchers at the University of Wisconsin are planning to launch
another study as early as next month testing pig worms in 20 patients
with the disease.

"We hope to show whether this treatment has promise and is worth
exploring further in a larger study," said John O. Fleming, a
professor of neurology who is leading the effort.

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Environmental News Network <http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/32286>, Mar. 5, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_plastic_debris_coats_pacific.080...>

*'PLASTIC SOUP' DEBRIS IN PACIFIC OCEAN*

Here's another reason for retailers to charge for plastic bags. The
swirling debris of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean has now grown to
a size that is twice as large as the continental U.S.

How do we know this? The Alguita Marine Research <http://www.orvalguita.blogspot.com/> team just landed
from a month-long tour of the area, known as the North Pacific Gyre <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre>.
They set out to investigate just how much plastic debris is floating
in the ocean, how this plastic affects marine life, and how this might
affect humans that eat fish found in the area. Specific answers to
these questions will be forthcoming as they evaluate the evidence they
brought back. But past studies <http://www.algalita.org/pelagic_plastic.html> have shown that less than 5% of
plastic ever gets recycled and each American disposes of roughly 65
lbs. of plastic each year. In the ocean, "Degraded plastic pieces
outweigh surface zooplankton in the central North Pacific by a factor
of 6-1. That means six pounds of plastic for every single pound of
zooplankton."

The Algalita Marine Research Foundation <http://www.algalita.org/who_we_are.html>, the environmental non-
profit organization, chartered the oceanic voyage into the floating
trash. Their work is incredibly valuable for demonstrating an even
greater need for retailers and producers to limit the amount of
plastic used in packaging goods.

Return to Table of Contents <#Table_of_Contents>

*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::*

From: Wired Magazine, Feb. 29, 2008
[Printer-friendly version] <http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_sex-changing_chemicals_affect_st...>

*SEX-CHANGING CHEMICALS MAKE MALE STARLINGS SING SWEET SONGS*

By Brandon Keim

Pollutants that turn male fish into females have an unexpected effect
on starlings: they cause the guys to sing sweet songs that lady
starlings find irresistible.

In a study <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:do...> published this week in Public Library of Science ONE,
researchers from Cardiff University studied starlings feeding on
earthworms at a sewage treatment plant.

The earthworms were chock full of endocrine disruptors -- chemicals
that mimic estrogen, a potent female sex hormone, and have been show
to affect the behavior and development of exposed organisms.

The phenomenon has been most extensively -- and graphically --
chronicled in fish, with rates of male hermaphroditism reaching 100
percent <http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/one-fish-two-fi.html> in especially polluted waters. However, little research has
been conducted on the environmental effects of endocrine disruptors in
terrestrial animals, and the latest study suggests that those effects
could be profound.

Male starlings with the highest levels of endocrine disruptors in
their bodies also possessed unusually developed high vocal centers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_vocal_center>,
an area of the brain associated with songbirds' songs. Scientists have
previously shown that estrogen drives HVC development; its mimics
apparently have the same effect.

Accordingly, the polluted male starlings sang songs of exceptional
length and complexity -- a birdsign of reproductive fitness. Female
starlings preferred their songs to those of unexposed males,
suggesting that the polluted birds could have a reproductive
advantage, eventually spreading their genes through starling
populations.

But what if that exposure also damages the birds' DNA? Endocrine
disruptors have been shown to tweak sperm in other species -- and if
this turns out to be damaging, starling populations will suffer.

More research is needed to show whether that is happening -- but even
if the study doesn't draw firm conclusions, it raises troubling
questions. After all, it's not just starlings that are exposed to
endocrine disruptors: people are, too <http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/>.

*Pollutants Increase Song Complexity and the Volume of the Brain
Area HVC in a Songbird* [PLoS ONE <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:do...>]