Antibiotics with your Tap Water, Madam?
In a recent study by the University of California, antibiotics given to cows were traced throughout their waste stream. Although not the first study to be done on the extensive use of antibiotics, especially on dairy cows, this study found that most antibiotics broke down before reaching ground water. This is good news for individuals who use well-water and live near dairy operations. The study did not look into the effects on surface water, marine life, or other species and areas of the environment impacted by the antibiotics.
Filtering your water and occasionally having it tested can also help keep your tap water safe and clean. The EPA recently released a study that reviewed the safety of municipal tap water. Depending on where you live, contamination risks may differ. The EPA found that water quality (for the US) was disappointingly low and came up with a list of suggestions. So it may be worthwhile to see just what lurks in your tap water!
You can read the summary of the dairy study here.
Energy Use Down Due to Recession
A recent study was done by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that asserts Americans are using less energy in 2009 than in 2008. The main attributing factor: The Recession.
Energy use tends to follow the level of economic activity, and that level declined last year. At the same time, higher efficiency appliances and vehicles reduced energy use even further. As a result, people and businesses are using less energy in general.
Reducing energy use is such an easy way to reduce our monthly bills. It’s a shame that people only use less energy when forced to cut back their spending. Just because we aren’t forced to cut back our costs doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concern with our energy consumption.
Another point that was mentioned in this study is the reduction of coal as a fuel source. Luckily it was renewable energy sources and natural gas that filled the void. There’s no real surprise wind and solar were on the rise with the various energy credits being provided by the government.
We can only hope that as the economy recovers, people will continue to conserve energy and there will be a continued support to move to renewable sources of energy.
Canadian? Watch your BPA Intake
In a recent study by Statistics Canada, 91% of all Canadians had BPA in their bodies. Now this is not a growing issue specific to Canada though, so consider your own Country’s products and your personal rate of BPA exposure and intake.
So just how bad is this and what can we do about it in our own locations across the globe? First, the study provides an important baseline for understanding BPA exposure. But is BPA really bad for you? And since it is so prevalent in consumer products, is this number of concern? Let’s take a quick look.
What and Where is BPA?
BPA, or Bisphenol A, is most commonly used in plastics and to coat things like shopping receipts and food cans. For the scientifically minded out there, it is most commonly used in polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. It is a synthetically-made chemical that does not naturally occur in nature, but due to its persistent use in consumer products, can be found in water, aquatic animals, and humans mainly. The 2002 BPA market saw 2.8 million tons produced globally, and the numbers have only increased until recently. Some of the most common products can be found in our food plastics including baby bottles.
Should I Be Concerned?
According to the American Chemistry Council and industry trade groups, No.
According to health officials worldwide including the FDA and health scientists, Yes.
Take a minute to reflect on the different sources of information.
So, Why the Controversy?
Mainly, different mindsets. The chemical industry and chemical trade groups are taking the approach that until it has not been proven to cause immediate harm to human health. Resulting with the approach that there is little need to address the situation, so business continues as usual. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) originally deemed low rates of BPA exposure as safe. The chemical industry is first to tell you that BPA is highly regulated and tested and has been studied for over 40 years.
Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that is proving that BPA exposure is not safe. Its effects on the brain, diabetes, prostate gland, and in particular the reproductive system and children is of great concern. In February of this year, the FDA made a public announcement encouraging households to limit their exposure to BPA. Now the FDA has not made a formal announcement that BPA should be publicly banned, but countries like Canada have decided to review whether this should be done until we learn can be certain there is absolutely no health risk.
The real health concerns arise when BPA levels increase, and since manufacturers have no control over what their consumers eat and are exposed to in conjunction with their product, the responsibility lays with each of us to decide which approach we will take.
CBS News Video on the 2010 FDA Announcement to Limit BPA Exposure
CBS News Reviews FDA Warning on BPA
Tips for BPA-Free Living
The Mayo Clinic offers these tips for reducing your potential exposure to BPA:
- Choose glass or BPA-free plastic baby bottles.
- Use glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers for hot foods and liquids.
- Avoid plastic containers with the No. 7 and No. 3 recycling label — they’re made with BPA.
- Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Instead, use glass containers designed for microwaving.
- Reduce your use of canned foods — many cans are lined with a BPA-containing resins
Please note that BPA is not required to be listed on food products or consumer goods, so it may be hard to find and eliminate all together. BPA can be flushed out of the body within 6 hours according to current research, so cleansing your body of BPA quickly is an option.
So it is up to you to decide which approach is best for your lifestyle. Either the wait and see method or the precautionary principle. Best of luck with your decision.
Sources include: Reuters, Chemical Market Associates, Inc (CMAI), Mayo Clinic, American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division Business Group
Is Wind Energy Not Worth The Investment?
Robert Bryce from the Wall Street Journal thinks that wind energy could actually be causing more carbon emissions than often advertised. Bryce found research that suggests because wind is not a consistent source of energy, coal plants have to pick up the slack. The research found that it requires more energy to start coal fire generators than if left running. Hist entire piece called Wind Power Won’t Cool Down the Planet can be found on the Wall Street Journal.
Not Thinking Ahead
The major flaw with Bryce’s argument would have to be the fact that he is only thinking about now, without looking ahead into the future. Wind may be the most popular now, but there are so many other sources of energy that we can invest in that could help us eliminate our need for coal and oil. I may be a little naive, but I would hope that America would one day rely on only renewable and clean energy sources.
That could be 50, 75 or even more than 100 years down the road. The fact is that we cannot continue to rely on the current sources of energy that we are without causing further damage to our planet as well as shortage of those sources. The only way we are going to see long term reduction in carbon emissions is if we keep investing and continue to incorporate wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable sources available to us.
The cost of investing in renewable energy is high at the moment, but it could help reduce future energy costs. Research can also be done now to help reduce that cost and help make it more efficient in the future. The cost will be drastically reduced and electricity can be generated a higher percentage of the time.
Another point that he brings up is that natural gas is a solution we should consider. There is enough natural gas to meet our needs, but what happens when that runs out? It’s only a matter of time before we have to go back and start considering renewable energy sources again.
To answer the original question of this post: Yes. Some of the points that Bryce brings up in his article are valid. People may be pocketing incentives from the government and wind energy is currently expensive. The major problem is that all solutions we currently have are only short term. We need to continue investing in renewable energy and get over these initial speed bumps to one day be using a source that will not leave us in a bind in the future.
What are your thoughts?
Nationwide Salmonella Outbreak For Eggs
Major egg producer Hillandale Farms is associated with an outbreak of salmonella in millions of eggs covering 14 states. This is the third recall that has occurred in just under two weeks and really shows the sad state of the egg industry in our country. Almost a half billion eggs and thousands of cases of salmonella can be associated with the eggs coming from these recalls.
Farms like Hillandale follow the same practices, having way too many chickens stuff in small cages with little movement and unsanitary conditions. Is anybody really surprise that this happened and with so many eggs? What’s even worse is that the FDA set new rules to prevent many salmonella cases every year due to eggs. We see how effective that particular regulation was.
What to do?
Salmonella can be prevented by making sure to fully cook your eggs. It’s pretty simple, but the bacteria shouldn’t even be in the eggs in the first place.
An even better solution is to fight against these horrible big egg producers and start buying local and free-range. Only good eggs are going to be produced when you see the chickens running around the farm, fed and treated well. On top of that, you will be getting eggs that taste better and are fresher than any of those sold in any traditional grocery store. The key is if you can actually go to the farm and see the conditions, then you know how the chickens are treated. It’s difficult to do that unless you live nearby the actual farm.
The reason I mention local is that even eggs that claim “Organic”, “Free Range” or “Cruelty Free” are still not even close. They allow the hens to be bunched up inside with very little space. They often can be just as inhumane. Read this interesting article from The Vegetarian Site that goes into further detail.
Consider making a change as it could be putting our families at risk just to save a a few bucks on cheaper eggs.
Green Job Expansion Slows
Photo by {link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonrw/3628570460/}Leonrw{/link}.
Green jobs have been growing at an aggressive rate with large funding from the federal and local governments. That trends seems to be reversing as it looks like there is a lack of funds for green jobs.
The biggest problem with green jobs is that renewable energy is heavily tied on funding from either the governments or from consumers. Both the federal and many local governments have cut back their spending and renewable energy has been an unfortunate casualty. As the title suggests, there is still growth in this particular sector but not as much as in the past few years.
With the jobless rate so high, you would think this would be the best time to provide funding to the renewable energy industry which can support many new jobs. Let’s hope that as the economy begins to recover, green businesses will receive better support to continue creating new jobs.
Book Review: Merchants of Doubt
Where do climate denialists get their information?
How is it that the belief in climate change has plummeted, when the scientific and factual evidence is skyrocketing?
How will we, as a global society, ever expect to address one of the greatest issues of out time if we refuse to recognize it?
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set out to find the answer to the first two questions quite some time ago. In their recent publication Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming they review from a science historian’s perspective, just what has happened. Oreskes is currently on a book tour answering and explaining just how the presence of doubt, not fact, has been enough to derail the most conclusive scientific evidence. The tactic? It’s most often referred to as the Tobacco Scheme since most publicly used by tobacco companies to fight regulation and maintain their market share.
How do these schemes work?
Essentially by taking well known scientists, having them publicly state their doubts on the scientific research (while being funded by think tanks) and then leverage those scientists profiles for lobbying and marketing campaigns. This of course is a rather crude rendition of the careful planning that takes place, but I recommend hearing Oreskes speak to understand just how effective this process has been for so many years.
The catch?
First, these scientists are commenting on research done outside of their field.
Imagine taking advice from an Opthamologist (eye doctor) on how to address your stomach aches. What? They are both doctors, right? Just like scientists are all…scientists. So check your sources.
Second, they are taking advantage of the fact that the general population isn’t familiar with the scientific process for research. Scientific research is different from a Think Tank’s research or a non-profit or a company’s R & D department. Why? Because it must be peer reviewed, and all of the comments and critiques must be addressed. It takes a great deal of time to build the scientific body of knowledge on a subject due to this thorough and necessary process. How long have we known about climate change? Apparently Linden Johnson knew in 1965 it would be an issue, and in the early 1990s it was accepted that anthropogenic sources were the cause in the scientific community based on a great deal of research. To be clear, there is no scientific debate on climate change. Personal, political, corporate, religious, and all other types of beliefs or agendas, not scientific, debates remain.
Third, the public status of the ‘Scientists’ that are casting doubts have given them access to media, lobbyists, politicians, businesses, and other interested parties. But more importantly, their status as a ‘Scientist’ not necessarily a Climatologists, Glaciologists, or other climate change specific study has given them credibility in the eyes of the public. Remember, many people are ‘Doctors’, but you wouldn’t trust any type of doctor with your specific medical condition.
Fourth, the media’s lack of understanding of scientific inquiry, reporting, and the process along with their keen nose for drama (present or imagined) has been its own self-propelling train of misinformation. To be clear, there is no scientific debate regarding whether humans are the source of this increased time in warming. Radiation from the sun has not changed (they know because they measure it), but emissions have, and since we are on glacial and interglacial cycles (meaning we go from ice age to a ‘hot’ age) we know that this rate of warming is unaccounted for (not to mention that we are currently in a ‘cooling’ phase of the cycle…meaning it should be getting colder, not hotter out).
So how did we all get so confused?
Well a concerted effort for casting a doubt, not necessarily a credible doubt, but doubt. If you are in a room of 100 people and you take a vote, and all but one person votes YES, then would you say there was a controversy? Would you give equal media attention to the Yes and No sides of the argument? No. You can report it, but if the vast majority has said ‘yes’, then there isn’t much controversy to report. Unfortunately, in the realm of climate change reporting or mis-reporting, both sides have been given equal press time.
Again, there is no scientific debate about climate change. But ‘Merchants of Doubt’ as Oreskes and Conway title them in their book, are able to override this by casting doubt. And when there wasn’t anymore evidence to try to shred, they attacked the content of character of the scientists themselves, not their work. A great example is ClimateGate. An overblown and somewhat pathetic attempt (if you are reading the science, not the opinion column) to dissuade populations of climate change and give industries more reason to fight regulation.
I highly recommend this book, hearing Oreskes speak, or to watch the video below to help clear the air, persay, about what has happened. The same technique was used to fight the regulation and common belief of negative ties to tobacco, DDT, acid rain, and the ozone hole. It is not new, but it has been effective, to all of our great misfortune.
D-o-u-b-t. It has been their most powerful tool. But Education an be ours.
