I decided to write this post about batteries because I feel that their environmental effects are relatively unknown or confusing.  Quite honestly, I knew very little until I began the research for this post!

I won't bother going into detail about how batteries work, as few of you readers are/were chemistry majors, but it is important to know about the different types of batteries.

There are 2 main types with which people are most familiar:

• Lead acid
• Dry cell

Most lead acid batteries are found in cars, and those that aren't are used in emergency and industrial situations.  Lead acid batteries are particularly advantageous when large amounts of power are needed from a battery and weight is not an issue.  Anyone that has ever picked up a lead acid battery before realizes how heavy it actually is because of the lead.

Because lead acid batteries have lead in them, they are extremely toxic.  When they deposited into landfills, the contents can leak out and run into rivers or other areas where water collects after rainfall.  Lead is a toxic substance and causes neurological problems for birds, fish, and humans as it enters their water supplies and has even been shown to hinder plant growth.  The good news is, 96% of lead acid batteries are recycled and reused.

The other type of battery I will address is dry cell batteries.  Dry cell batteries are the most common type of battery and include your typical 9-volt, D, C, AA, AAA, button cell, and rechargeable batteries.  These batteries were also incredibly toxic up until 1996, when mercury was no longer permitted in battery production.  Remember our mercury discussion about fluorescent bulbs?

Most dry cell batteries (9-volt, D, C, AA, AAA) are now made with alkaline or a carbon-zinc mixture.  Alkaline are by far the most cost-effective, which is why they are most prevalent.  These batteries are one-use, cannot be recharged, and are to be thrown away.  Direct contact with the contents of dry cell batteries is in fact toxic, but the current concentrations at which the contents spill into landfills is not considered to be toxic.

The table below compares the cost per energy output of each battery as well as the energy available energy per weight of each battery.  Lower the cost, higher the energy, the better!  Notice alkaline's low cost and high energy output.

Battery Type	Cost $ per Wh		Joules/kg
Lead-acid	$0.17		146,000
Alkaline long-life	$0.19		400,000
Carbon-zinc	$0.31		130,000
NiMH	$0.99		340,000
NiCad	$1.50		140,000
Lithium-ion	$0.47		460,000

NiCad, as seen above, is used to make rechargeable batteries.  NiCad stands for nickel-cadium, a combination of metals that has the unique ability to be recharged after use.  They do lose their charge after a while, but are marketed as energy and resource-saving batteries, which they are.  Cadmium, however, is a heavy metal and extremely toxic.  It should never be thrown away!  In this sense, rechargeable batteries can ironically be more environmentally harmful than normal dry cell batteries.

NiMH and lithium-ion are also used as rechargeable batteries, most notably in the Toyota Prius.  They are marketed as less harmful, and are less toxic that NiCad, but still potentially dangerous.  Each type has its advantages over the other and is used in various applications for their strengths.

 

So what do we do?!

In general, it is best not to throw batteries, especially the rechargeable ones.  Don't have time to make another trip to drop off batteries somewhere?  Have a box shipped to your house, for free.  Fill it up, mail it back, pre-paid.  How easy can it be?  Seriously.  It's the least you can do.

http://www.call2recycle.org/collection-kit/

Many people also use electronics that have rechargeable batteries (hi college students with laptops!).  Most computer companies will recycle your laptops and give you a financial incentive to do so.  Apple will pay you for your old laptop if you send it to them for recycling purposes.

http://www.apple.com/recycling/

 

Sources:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-batteries-bad-for-the-environment.html

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/battery.htm

http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/12-21/battery-recycling-article.htm#Rechar...

Organic

As stores like Whole Foods begin to grow and the word organic even infiltrates grocery stores that had never before mentioned it, many people begin to wonder what the word organic actually means and whether its important.

Organic, as defined by the USDA (US Department of Agriculture), is food produced in an environment where "synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used."

Furthermore, the USDA also states that this food has "has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity."

 

So that's organic, what's everything else?

Every food that is not organic is called conventional. Conventional food essentially means that the use of synthetic fertilizes, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering are a possibilty.  Conventional food has dominated the food market lately because conventional agricultural practices allow farmers to grow a profitable amount of food cheaply.  Because this practice is cheaper, the use of synthetic fertilizers etc. are often probable, rather than possible.

Why organic?  What's wrong with conventional?

Organic food has become popular because of the concerns that conventional farming practices raise.  Pesticides have especially been targeted because of the fact that some pesiticides don't wash off of fruits and vegetables.  I won't bother listing these pesticides, but their presence has been noted by those studying the long-term effects of pesticides on the brain, reproduction, and the increase in cases of cancer.

The presence of pesticides on conventionally grown foods is so great that some sources even recommend eating a variety of fruits of vegetables because the same types pesticides are used continuously on specific kinds of plants.  Acute, meaning direct, pesticide poisoining does exist amongst the population as well.

How do I know if food is organic?

The only official label of organic is made by the USDA (see the USDA organic seal above).  Farms that produce organic foods must undergo significant examination by the USDA in order to classify it as organic, per the definition described above.  Other 3rd parties can also designate a food as organic, but the USDA label is the only standardized way of labeling food as organic.

Also, there are many common misconceptions about the word natural.  The word natural literally means nothing in the way of food qualifications.  Many companies take advantage of this word because it tends to conjure up ideas of organic, but the USDA does not issue labels for natural foods because natural foods can comprise genetically modified foods and foods grown with pesticides.

So organic has no pesticides at all?

Almost.  Technically, in order for a product to qualify as USDA organic, it has to be at least 95% organic.

What's the advantage of organic food?

Besides the health issues potentially associated with conventional foods, organic food has generated significant revenue for companies that can obtain the organic status.  After talking to a farmer in Vermont who converted his farm from conventional to organic, I learned that this status allowed him to list his products at more than twice the price that he could previously, simply because of the market.

Organic food is absolutely a social trend, but its a social trend because people are starting to wonder about where their food comes from.  Organic certifications assure consumers that their food was produced safely and humanely, and they pay for the assurance too.

Organic food is so expensive, this has to be a joke?

Organic food is expensive, absolutely no doubt about that, and not everyone can easily afford it.  Welcome to the subject of environmental justice (future blog post!).  The way I see it, our current sources of food offer low quality food that is even potentially dangerous at lower costs, due to increasing demand from the growing population.  It is important to realize that there are a lot of politics at play, even in the food market.

Few people realize that the US government, among other governments, can regulate food production, storage, safety, and distribution with a heavy hand.  This has had notable effects on the food market over the years, including reduced food costs.

That being said, organic food has seen a sharp increase in production and consumption over the past decade:

Lastly, can organic food sustain us?

To keep it short and simple, yes.  Organic agricultural methods actually often yield greater food production than conventional methods.

Here's a great diagram that compares conventional and organic:

 

Sources:

http://nikolasschiller.com/images/usda_organic_logo. png

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

http://www.puristat.com/standardamericandiet/pesticides.aspx

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/produce_at_market_flickr. jpg

http://blog.zoysiafarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pesticide. jpeg

http://cdn.organicprairie.com/images/comparison-chart. png

http://www.ams.usda.gov/images/nop/NOPbags. gif

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/systemic-pesticides-zm0z10zr...

http://www.organicvalley.coop/uploads/tx_ovproducts/chs_del_1lb_Vt_xshrp_pdp. png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy

http://www.wikinvest.com/images/3/39/Orgsales. jpg

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTfact. gif

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a chemical that consumers have been told to fear and avoid, yet few people understand its toxicity and what's being done, or not done, to remove it from current products.

BPA created a stir on the national news in 2008 due to scientists' concerns that the chemical disrupts the endocrine system and, though not consequently, causes cancer.  Further studies have shown that 95% of the US population's urine tests positive for BPA, showing its presence in our society.  An FDA study in 2010 also proved that infants and children are at a more significant health risk than adults.  Reports of prostate cancer, early/abnormal sexual maturation, and abnormal neurological development were recorded in those that were exposed to BPA in comparison to those who weren't.  One study reported an increase of 85% in cases of prostate cancer from 1975-2002.

These results prompted companies to manufacture BPA-free plastics, especially companies such as Nalgene, whose entire line of waterbottles contained the chemical.  Noting the effects on infants and children, many manufacturers of baby bottles also began to manufacture BPA-free options targeted to infants and children.

Studies focused on BPA and continued to question its toxicity to humans, yielding mixed results that didn't give the EPA or any other organization a strong argument to call for a ban of BPA.  Scientists began to argue that the labs reporting mixed results were not properly analyzing data because they were recruited by non-academic institutions conducting biased research.  This mélange of arguments essentially left BPA-free advocates without a real platform to argue with.

Studies were conducted on animals starting as early as 1997, that demonstrated health hazards of BPA:

BPA's presence in infants (breast vs. bottle fed) to adults was also examined:

Canada, in late 2010, was the first country to declare BPA a toxic substance, banning it from all of its products.  The European Union quickly followed suit and adopted to same principles.  The US, on the other hand, continued to study BPA.  Because of BPA's significant presence in manufacturing industries, simply banning it with "mixed" scientific results was not logical or economically viable.

After the many reports and studies, the EPA reviewed BPA as a toxin under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and defined a daily maximum standard, which is often exceeded with many food and beverage products.  The Environmental Working Group, a strong opponent of the use of BPA, argues that the EPA's daily maximum standard is based on outdated, high-dose studies, rather than long term low-dose studies.  These low-dose studies best mimic the current exposure of BPA to humans.

The EPA's plan of action was to "consider initiating rulemaking" under TSCA to "identify BPA on the Concern List as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment on the basis of its potential for long-term adverse effects."  As of now, no rule has been initiated against BPA.

Furthermore, the EPA acknowledged the rarely mentioned fact that the BPA that humans consume is also widely present in the sewage system, which contaminates ecosystems, some of which are very sensitive to endocrine disruptors like BPA.  Over 1 million pounds of BPA leaks into ecosystems each year, reported the EPA.

(Cuyahoga River, 1969, a very contaminated ecosystem)

 

Yikes, enough talk...

 

So where is BPA?

BPA is mainly used in #7 plastics, which do leach the chemical.  #7 plastics are those hard plastics used in Nalgenes, some food-storage containers, and sippy cups.  BPA is also very much present in canned foods because the slimy liner inside of nickel cans is often made with BPA.  As many of you may know, BPA is esepcially leached when these plastics are heated or come in contact with hot liquid or food.

And should we fear BPA?

If Canada and the European Union have banned it for health concerns, we should take note.  A panic isn't necessary, but remember BPA when you or your family member have children.  If you are concerned, do what you can to replace most commonly used plastic items in your household with BPA-free plastics (reusable water bottles [college students!], heated tupperware, microwaveble bowls).  Nalgene, as well as many other waterbottle companies, inform you when their products are BPA-free.  Additionally, if a company does not say its products are BPA-free, assume they are not. Products listed as "microwaveable" are also not necessarily BPA-free!  BPA can also be present in metal water bottles as they are often lined with BPA, as nickel cans are.

(Rubbermaid BPA-free products)

Unfortunately, this is another instance when you have to uphold your knowledge in order to look out for your health.  Because neither the FDA nor the EPA requires BPA to be advertised on products or advises companies to not use it, BPA is highly prevalent.  Nalgene, for instance, still uses BPA in many of their plastics, citing FDA standards as to why BPA can be present in their products.

 

On a more visual note:

I made a wordle, below, that shows you the presence of BPA in canned foods.  For those not familiar with wordle, the largest words are those with the greatest amounts of BPA and the smallest words are those with the least amounts of BPA.  The smallest amount, in this instance, was baby formula at 33%, meaning that 33% of all baby formula contains BPA.  100% of canned pastas, on the other hand, do contain BPA.

How toxic are these levels?

(Copyright: The Environmental Working Group)

I've also attached a great chart about the hazards of all plastic types, including other chemicals besides BPA that are also hazardous.  One of these is styrene (styrofoam), which I will save for a future post.

This is a great summary:

 

Sources:

http://www.ewg.org/node/20937

http://www.ewg.org/node/20940

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100421/full/4641122a.html

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/bpa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

As many of you may know, cows have multiple stomachs and digest what they eat (mainly grass) using bacteria through fermentation.  This type of digestive is characteristic of a group of animals called ruminants. Other animals that make use of this type of digestion include sheep, goats, and even buffalo.  The name ruminant comes from part of the second stomach, seen in the diagram below, called the rumen.

Fermentation, like any biological process, requires certain chemical components in order to occur and has specific byproducts.  I won't compare fermentation to cellular respiration because most of you aren't science nerds like myself, but just know that it is a way for bacteria to break down glucose (sugar).  Humans use the byproducts of fermentation for many foods, the common ones being alcohol, soy sauce, sourdough bread, tempeh, yogurt, and vinegar.

Here is a great diagram comparing the digestion processes of humans vs. ruminants:

As evident in this diagram, which is the basis of this post, methane is a byproduct of the fermentation that occurs in the cows' stomachs.  With the number of cows in the world, there is significant methane production from our bovine friends.  Keep in mind, cows serve many purposes in the food market and each division has a different share of its methane production.  Scientists have attempted to collect the methane produced by cows in hopes of using it for energy, but the current attempts are not necessarily logical or effective largescale.  Methane can, however, be captured from the manure of cows, which also produce methane.

Below, the "rectal methane-collecting backpack" (yes, you can laugh):

So how much methane do cows actually produce?  In America, cows account for up to 20% of methane emissions.  Globally, cows rack up 28% of methane emissions.  Cows emit almost 5.5 million metric tons of methane every year in the US.  Cows emit anywhere from 100-400L of methane daily, depending on which scientist you ask.

 

The top 4 methane producers/emitters in the country:

1. Natural gas production/systems

2. Ruminant livestock (cows, sheep, goats, etc.)

3. Landfills (future post!)

4. Coal mining

 

Is this methane production a problem?

Well, yes, of course it is.  Scientists are studying ways to reduce the production of methane, some of which can be achived through dieting changes.  Diet changes might not necessarily be the most cost efficient option and have therefore not been strongly considered by farmers.  Changes to alfalfa instead of grain have reduced methane production by 25% in some ruminant species.

Alfalfa:

In 2003, New Zealand proposed a tax on cows, but public outcry quickly defeated this proposal.  In 2009, with news that the EPA would regulate greenhouse gases, the US senate and house approved an amendment that prevented the Clean Air Act from regulating livestock methane production.  This leaves the ruminant methane production untouched, essentially due to controvery and difficulty in regulation, which is probably best considering that there are many other sources that can be regulated more reasily.

Research shows that cows do indeed produce more methane than cars, but cars also release other notorious volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as nitrous oxide.  Manufacturers have worked to reduce the release of methane through combustion in cars, which is evident in the EPA's data, even as numbers of cars have increased.  This reduction is mostly due to the fact that methane production is regulated in cars.  Below is a wonderful hand-written diagram I found about car emissions:

As the number of people on the planet increases, so will the number of cows, so will the amount of methane.  Methane emissions from cows is called nonpoint source pollution.  In other words, its hard to pinpoint exactly how to regulate and control the emission.  The sheer characteristic of methane emission in cows will probably prevent its regulation, but scientific advancements could reduce cows' methane production in the future.  For now, its best to focus on the larger producers that can actually be controlled, like petroleum based fuels.

 

 

(The data for this topic has varying ranges online; data on this post came from the EPA to standardize).

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/02/tech/main713257.shtml

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/mammals/methane-c...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cow-tax-epa-clean-air-policy...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/scientists-attach-rectal-methane...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ruversin. jpg

http://sciencerevolution.net/cowstomach. gif

http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html#2

http://www.bluegranola.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/CowGas

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html#where

http://thehorsehealthzone.webs.com/alfalfa-hay-close. jpg

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, has been a significant topic of conversation lately, but few people actually understand what fracking is or why it is so frowned upon by the environmentalist community. 

Fracking, simply put, is a way of obtaining natural gas.  Though it seems to be radical and unique process, it is basically a recently developed method of drilling that companies found to be effective at extracting more natural gas than previous methods.  Fracking has been shown to extract natural gas from locations where the most common drilling techniques are no longer yielding gas.

So how does it work?  The process is straightforward, but somewhat complicated, so I want to explain it simply and logically.

1. A drill is used to drill 6,000-8,000 feet or greater into the ground.  Often times, horizontal drilling also occurs from the ends of these holes in the earth in either direction.  This drilling occurs in areas of rock, often shale, where natural gas is known to be located.

2. At this point, a solution of chemicals is then poured into this drilled hole and put under extremely high pressure.  The drill holes are lined with steel to ensure that the chemical solution targets the specified shale.  This pressure creates fizzures within the shale, releasing natural gas.

3. The natural gas that is released during this process is then collected above ground as it seeps out of the shale, through the well, and back to a capture device.

4. Anywhere from 15-80% of the chemical solution is then removed and stored in open pits or tanks.

This diagram is for clarification:

 

Why all the environmentalists up in arms?

1. Any sign of dependence on petroleum-based fuel is frustrating for environmentalists pushing for sustainable energy.  After Obama's promise to focus more on sustainable energy, fracking is a frustrating indication that dependence on petroluem-based fuel is not waning.

2. The "chemical solution" pumped into these wells is extremely hazardous.  Companies participating in fracking argue that it is made mostly of sand and water, which is true, and is therefore not hazardous, but the other chemicals that do comprise this solution are dangerous to ecological systems and human health.  I will spare you with chemical names and leave those interested with a link in my sources to research, but there is a list of 71 chemicals used in fracking that are known to cause 10 or more significant health issues.

3.  This pressurized chemical solution is leaking into aquifers, where drinking water comes from.  The EPA completed a study in 2004 that showed concentrations of the specific chemicals used in fracking as anywhere from 4-13,000 times a safe level for drinking water.  This study looked at aquifers near fracking sites.

4. As of right now, the chemicals used in fracking are not regulated, nor do they have to be disclosed.  Due to a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act, as reformed by Bush in 2005, natural gas drilling is not regulated due to concerns with drinking water.  Companies performing fracking therefore have no legal responsibilities if there chemicals pollute drinking water.

5. Natural gas is not being properly captured and is often leaking in large amounts into the atmosphere.  After a recent announcement by NASA that global warming is mostly caused by humans, methane (natural gas) being released into the atmosphere is a significant concern.  Methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2012/01/nasa-global-w...

6. The disposal of the chemical solution used in fracking is improper and causing ecological concerns.  It is left uncovered and rarely monitored and serves as a hazard to any organism living in the area, including humans.  The fumes and chemicals that leech from these waste centers are very dangerous.

7. Fracking is causing earthquakes due to the shattering of rock underground, which is shifting plates in the Earth.  Recent events and consequent research in Ohio has proven that the fracking occurring in Ohio was causing earthquakes, leading to the end of fracking in Ohio.  Oklahoma has reported similar occurrences.

 

If you made it down this far, I'll leave you with a few more thoughts.

I encourage you to watch Gasland, a film about natural gas production and fracking in the US.  It is quite informative and puts the issue in perspective.

Fracking is very common!  It seems like an obscure method of obtaining natural gas, but 9 out of 10 companies in the US that drill for natural gas use fracking.

What can be done?  There are many political activist pushes to ban fracking in US.  Right now, this is being tackled through the legal system as scientists are discovering fracking chemicals in the water, giving the cases against these companies standing.  If these cases are successful, the EPA can get involved, which can help to end fracking.

What can you do?  Support any of your political leaders that have recognized fracking as an issue.  In some states, such as those where fracking occurs, this might be difficult.  But for those states that do have senators and representatives to oppose it, they are your voices.

To insert part of my opinion: it is not feasible to simply abandon natural gas and argue for solar power and wind power as an immediate solution, but fracking exists as a terrifying instance in which humans and ecological systems are knowingly being harmed.  This can be stopped and I would encourage your participation in support of safer ways of obtaining natural gas and petroleum-based fuels!

Be knowledgeable!  Great resource here: http://nofracking.com/#regional

 

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Fracture_monitoring

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking#frackingprocess

http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#CHEMICALS

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/fracking-may-have-already-caused-5...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ohio-earthquake-likely-cause...

http://sciencewithnizam.blogspot.com/

http://www.denverpost.com/keefe/ci_17931693

http://inhabitat.com/epa-finds-fracking-chemicals-in-wyoming-groundwater-oil-...

http://cleanwateraction.org/feature/dont-drill-delaware

https://www.propublica.org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-national

http://www.waterdefense.org/the-problems/fracking

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is probably one of the most targeted chemicals by environmentalists but relatively least known among general consumers.  SLS has many names and can appear in consumer products as sodium dodecyl sulfate, hydrogen sulfate, or sodium monolauryl sulfate.  Don't let these names complicate the matter; sodium lauryl sulfate is how it most often appears and is all you need to recognize.

 

SLS is used in soaps, shampoos, body washes, detergents, and toothpastes.  The common theme?  Bubbles.  Manufacturers use SLS in their products because it easily creates foaming products.  SLS is also used to degrease automobile engines because its chemical properties allow it to break apart oil molecules.  In the same way that it breaks apart oil molecules on engines, it also breaks apart oil molecules on your body, helping you get your body clean!

SLS is the most common substance used to create foaming products because it is cheap.  It is an effective chemical that manufacturers can put in a variety of products.

So what's the problem with SLS?  There are a few reasons why it has been targeted by environmentalists, so bear with me while I explain in a hopefully understandable way.

First, its ability to break down oil can at times cause significant irritations and rashes on the skin.  In some studies, low concentrations of SLS have been found to irritate the skin after SLS staying on the skin for long (> 1 hour) periods of time.  Alone, this is not a significant problem since most products containing SLS do not stay on the body for a long time.  SLS has also been proven to denature proteins, however, meaning that it can break apart proteins, rendering them useless until they are put back together.  This denaturing of proteins makes the skin more sensitive to other toxins, irritants, and pathogens by unconvering skin tissue that is normally protected.

Second, SLS is absorbed by the skin.  This is probably how SLS poses its most significant risk to humans.  Studies have investigated the consequence of this absorption and have found correlations between SLS absorption and breast cancer, decreasing male fertility, and weakened immune systems.  SLS has not been found to be a known carcinogen, but its ability to denature proteins and break apart oils especially raises concern as it is now known that SLS can concentrate in heart, liver, lung, and brain tissue.  The result of the concentration is unknown, but this is one of the reasons why SLS is being studied further.

 

So what are the alternatives?

There are unfortunately a lot of risks associated with many of the alternatives that manufacturers now put in these same products.  One of the most common is sodium laureth sulfate. There is only a slight chemical change, as noted by the slight nomenclature change, but I won't bore you with organic chemistry involved with the change.

Sodium laureth sulfate (SLeS) is manufactured differently from SLS.  It's production often yields a chemical called 1,4-dioxane.  1,4-dioxane is a federally recognized possible carcinogen, but the government does not regulate it, stating that its concentrations in products with SLeS are not harmful.  Though 1,4-dioxane might not cause cancer itself, there are a handful of known carcinogens (don't worry, more posts coming on that!) that can collectively contribute to increased risks of cancer.

Other products associated with 1,4-dioxane include polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, and cocamide DEA, which are are surprisingly prevalent if you look for them!

1,4-dioxane is also dangerous because as it enters the sewage it can enter ecosystems and drinking water sources, leading to further concentration of the chemical, making it even more dangerous for humans and animals.  Sewage treatment plants screen for 1,4-dioxane, but it is not always absent in tap water.

 

But really, what ARE the alternatives?

The most important thing to note is that there is no industry or federal standard for advertising SLS and SLeS.

It is, unfortunately, quite difficult to find alternatives to SLS and SLeS.  The best thing is to find products without SLS, SLeS, or the mentioned polyethylene derivatives.  These products are commonly labeled "sulfate free," but you must read labels to be certain.  Sulfate free products are generally more expensive and few are far between at major grocery stores. Some reputable companies I know include Burt's Bees, Kiss My Face, and Greenworks.  If you are serious about SLS in your products, you have to become a label reader.  Just because a product is natural doesn't mean, well, anything really! 

Since I realize that most people cannot afford to buy all new SLS free products, I recommend that you at least become aware of the risk and understand why it's important.  If you want to take it a step further, replace a few items in your house that come in direct contact with your body, such as toothpastes and soaps, and do so for those most at risk, such as children and those with more sensitive skin.

 

Sources

http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/sodium-lauryl-sulfate.html

http://www.jasoncosmetics.com/sodium_lauryl_sulfate.html

Paper or plastic? 

Though the choice to some may seem clear for various reasons, the topic is actually heavily debated.  For the post, I'd like to address plastic and paper bags as well as reusable shopping bags.  That way all of you readers can make a more educated decision on what you feel is the most appropriate, rather than switching between paper and plastic every other week just to keep things interesting.

Plastic bags have been a staple for commercial businesses since the mid 1900's when stores such as Sears and J.C. Penney began to use them for merchandise.  By the late 1990's, 4 out of 5 grocery bags given to customers were plastic.

Plastic bags are generally made of polyethylene, a type of plastic that is often produced using natural gas.  Polyethylene is an extremely advantageous material for making plastic bags because it can be shaped, sized, and colored easily, is watertight, and are easily printed on.  Plastic bags can also be recycled, though not multiple times.

Recycling plastic bags, however, is not a common occurrence.  The EPA reported in 2005 that only 5.2% of plastic bags were recycled.  The remaining plastic bags end up in the landfill, and with 500 billion to a trillion plastic bags used yearly worldwide, that amounts to a significant amount of plastic bags in the landfill.

Plastic bags also lead to significant environmental pollution.  This pollution disturbs ecosystems as well as harming species that find the plastic bags in their habitats.  These bags often enter marine environments as well.  The fact that these bags enter both land and marine environments is important because it highlights how significant plastic pollution can be.  Plastic bag collection in landfills and the pollution they cause is an important point for critics.

Plastic bags are unfortunately not biodegradable, but are rather photodegradable.  UV light from the sun gradually breaks up the polyethylene in the bags, making smaller molecules that then enter the soil.  How long this process takes is uncertain, but has been estimated as near 500 years.  Since they've only been around for 50 years, we don't really know exactly how long it takes for a plastic bag to biodegrade.

Recent improvements in plastic bags have made them biodegradable, but there is an extremely important point that is often overlooked: biodegradation occurs sparsely in landfills.  Because landfills are often dumping sites for everything but the necessary components of biodegradation (soil, nutrients, microorganisms, etc.), biodegradable plastic bags are not a solution to plastic bag pollution unless they are actually biodegraded properly.

In some instances, plastic bags are burned in order to get rid of them.  This is, however, potentially very dangerous because the burning of plastic bags releases dioxins.  Dioxins are thought to cause cancer, interrupt prenatal development, and damage the human immune system.  The EPA recently released its intent to determine dioxin standards in the environment in order to determine how dangerous the presence of dioxins is.

In most stores, paper bags are also offered as an option for those who don't want to use plastic bags.  Paper bags are made from, well, paper, which comes from trees.  This paper is also often printed on with petroleum based inks, though vegetable based inks have recently gained popularity.  Paper bags are often criticized because of their use of wood, which many argue is also overharvested.

In contrast to plastic bags, up to 20% of paper bags are recycled.  This an improvement over plastic bags, but paper bags harm the environment in a different way than plastic bags do.  They require 40% more energy to produce, result in 80% more solid waste, yield 94% more water pollution during production, and cause 70% more atmospheric pollutions.  These numbers are staggering and worth noting when comparing paper and plastic.  The increase in energy and pollution most likely results from the fact that obtaining, shipping, processing, and creating pulp from trees is more energy and resource intensive than plastic bag production.

Paper bags are biodegradable, which seems like a huge advantage over plastic bags.  As I mentioned, however, biodegradation is scarce in landfills, meaning that paper bags struggle to biodegrade just as much as biodegradable plastic bags might.  Paper bags have also been criticizied because their biodegradation encourages the production of methane in landfills, a known occurrence that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Besides paper and plastic, there is one remaining option that has gained popularity among stores and environmentalists across the country: reusable bags.  Reusable bags are often made of canvas, cotton, nylon, or an otherwise sturdy material that can withstand continued use.  The idea is to buy a few of these bags, bring them with you when you shop, and never have to make the dreaded paper/plastic decision again.

Reusable bags, of course, have not eluded criticism.  Reusable bags have been pinpointed as prime germ and bacteria carriers.  Some of the more cheaply made reusable bags have also been found to contain lead.

Though they cost a few more dollars, reusable shopping bags are by far the best way to use shopping bags.  The criticism against them that they harbor germs and bacteria is fair, but these bags can often be washed to eliminate this problem.  Reusable bags that contain lead were recalled immediately.

When buying a reusable shopping bag, I highly recommend that you do your research and buy online, rather than succombing to an impulse buy.  These impulse buys are often the cheaply made reusable bags that might contain lead and will definitely not last as long as quality bags.  Quality reusable bags will last years and years if taken care of properly and don't cost that much more.  Many stores are now offering small discounts when you use your reusable shopping bags.  If businesses don't have to produce as many bags, that's a savings for them as well!

 

Some ideas:

http://baggubag.com/#Shop (~$8/ea)

http://www.bagthehabit.com/ (~$15/ea)

http://www.envirosax.com/ (~$30/ea)

 

This post would not have been possible without the following blog's information:

http://blog.greenfeet.com/index.php/paper-vs-plastic-the-shopping-bag-debate/...

(Used with permission)

First off, let's outline Keystone XL's origins.  Keystone XL is a new pipeline based off of its younger brother pipeline called the Keystone pipeline, which you can see below in the diagram as a red line.

Keystone is owned by TransCanada, an oil company based in Alberta, Canada, that transports crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to Patoka, Illinois and Cushing, Oklahoma while passing through multiple other cities on its way.  Patoka and Cushing are the main sites of refinery for the crude oil from the Keystone pipeline, but the many cities that the pipeline intersects also refine crude oil or transport some of the pipeline's oil to other refineries in the area.

ConocoPhillips initially took a 50% stake in the pipeline, but TransCanada soon withdrew its offer and bought back the entire pipeline, which cost $5.2 billion to lay out.  The Keystone pipeline transports 435,000 barrels of oil each day, and with crude oil at somewhere between $90-100/barrel (Dec. '11), that's a hefty incentive to get oil into the US.

The oil comes from an area of Canada called the Athabasca Oil Sands, a well known source of oil that Canada makes use of to profit from oil exports, including Japan, France, and even China.  The area is thought to contain 1.7 trillion barrels of oil under 141,000km of land.  With this figure, Canada modestly estimates its oil reserves to be approximately 2 billion barrels, 8 times that of Saudi Arabia; but the International Energy Agency lists their reserves at 178 million barrels.

Picture of Athabasca Oil Sands mine:

The Keystone XL pipeline is essentially a modification, upgrade, and expansion to the Keystone pipeline.  It would more than double the current pipeline's transport capacity, bringing it up to 1.1 million barrels each day.  As the map shows, the Keystone XL pipeline will deliver oil to more cities and refineries within the US.  This would, of course, increase TransCanada's profits and make the pipeline more profitable over time.  Keystone XL is expected to cost $7 billion.

Anyone who is reading this knows, however, that the Keystone XL pipeline has garnered significant environmental controversy.  The pipeline has been controversial, especially for Middlebury's own Bill McKibben, because of Keystone XL's path through numerous areas in which if an oil spill occurred, the results would be utterly diastrous.  Many environmentalists also do not support the pipeline because of its further support of petroleum based energy, but I will mainly discuss the environmental threats that the pipeline poses for now.

One of the most significant threats is Keystone XL's crossing of the Ogalala Aquifer.  The Ogalala Aquifer is one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world; it spans 8 states, supplies 82% of the surrounding area's drinking water, and 30% of the nation's ground-derived irrigation water.  Environmentalists argue that if the pipeline were to break over this aquifer, the aquifer would be severely polluted, damaging the ecosystem and poisoning the people who use its water to drink from.

Ogalala Aquifer:

Another environmental threat that the Keystone XL pipeline poses is its crossing of the Sandhills of Nebraska, an important area for wetland.  Over the years, wetlands have been cleared and damaged due to commercial or residential development.  Wetlands are easily damaged ecosystems that are difficult and often impossible to restore when disturbed.  By the same argument as the Ogalala Aquifer, environmentalists assert that if the pipeline were to fracture over the Sandhills, the rare wetland would be permanently damaged.

Wetland area in the Sandhills:

Finally, environmentalists also point out that the Keystone XL pipeline crosses over an active seismic region that had a 4.3 earthquake not long ago (2002).  Environmentalists state that it would not make sense to build a pipeline over an area that is known to be seismic, which would undoubtedly threaten the structural integrity of the pipeline at some point.

TransCanada and those involved in the production of the crude oil coming into the US argue that the economic benefits far outweigh the environmental threats as oil becomes more and more scarce.

That being said, why has the Keystone XL pipeline gathered so much political attention?

The pipeline was proposed in 2008 and immediately gathered attention because of upset environmentalists. In March of 2010, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated that the pipeline "undermined the US committment to clean energy economy."  After this statement, 50 Congress members and Hillary Clinton also began to speak out against the pipeline, arguing with the same basis as the NRDC.

Later in 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman, a known environmentalist, condemned the pipeline as a way to increase our consumption of dirty energy.  The EPA then stated that TransCanada's environmental impact statement, required of all federally supported projects, was inadequate.  TransCanada released its impact statement in August of 2011 that stated that the pipeline posed no significant environmental threat.

TransCanada's environmental impact statement was confronted with numerous protests, notably the most recent one at the White House where 10,000 people showed up and many were arrested.

After the significant amount of protests, the issue was brought directly to White House, where President Obama was to make the final decision on its progress.  Obama delayed the decision to 2013, arguably to save his political persona from criticism, which would come from either pipeline supports or environmentalists, depending on which way he decided.  Environmentalists considered this a significant victory, even though there was no final decision.  From my perspective, it allows environmentalists to gain further support and produce an even stronger anti-Keystone XL movement.

Most recently, Republicans attached a rider to the recent bill that forces Obama to decide within 60 days whether to approve or reject Keystone XL's progress.  The bill has not yet passed, but Obama has threatened to immediately veto if it does indeed pass. 

The Washington Post reported that the Republicans' move is inadvertently slowing or even stopping the pipeline's construction.  If the pipeline is rejected, Keystone XL is no more.  If the pipeline is approved, however, the Washington Post cited in article, it will immediately be met with lawsuits from environmentalists arguing that the environmental assessment were either inadequate or not seriously considered.  This could take years and years to resolve and could ultimately stop the pipeline or hinder its proposed effectiveness.

Looks like a waiting game my friends, stay tuned.

 

Cheers to drinking water,

jn

 

Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-gop-could-accidentall...

 

Congress encountered significant controversy with its proposal to ban incandescent light bulbs.  The proposal was initiated by Obama in an effort to make sweeping energy standard reform.  This reform, among many other things, included lighting efficiency standards that made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.

Incandescent light bulbs create light by heating a metal filament in a vacuum, contained by the glass bulb.  The heating of this filament creates light, a significant enough amount to have made it the lighting standard beginning in the early 1900's.  The composition of these filaments and the chemicals used to coat the filaments were gradually improved to make a light bulb last for the modern standard of 750-1,000 hours.  "Long-lasting" bulbs can now last up to 2,500 hours.

Incandescent light bulbs are considered inefficient, however, because a significant amount of energy is required to heat this filament.  In addition, 90% of the energy used to heat this filament dissipates as heat, rather than actually generating light.

There are many alternatives to incandescent light bulbs, including compact fluorescent and LED.  Compact fluorescent light bulbs have been the focus of an alternative light bulb source because LED powered bulbs are currently too expensive in comparison to both compact fluoresecent and incandescent.  Due to cost, compact fluorescent bulbs have been considered the alternative to incandescent light bulbs over LED.

The process by which compact fluorescent bulbs produce light is more complicated than incandescent light bulbs.  Within a glass tube, an electrode and a small amount of mercury is surrounded by argon (a gas) under very low pressure.  Electrical current runs through the electrode and excites electrons that collide with the mercury in the bulb, creating light.

Compact fluorescent bulbs are often not considered by consumers because of their high cost relative to incandescent light bulbs.  Compact fluorescent light bulbs, however, consume less electricity and last up to 10-15 times longer than incandescent light bulbs.  This makes them much more efficient than incandescent light bulbs and even saves the consumer money in the long run.

Here is a chart comparing compact fluorescent and incandescent bulbs:

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/lighting/bulbs.html

The government's lighting efficiency standards were set at a level above the efficiency of incandescent light bulbs, meaning that if the government passed the lighting standards, incandescent light bulbs would have to be phased out, banned, and replaced by more efficient light bulbs, beginning with compact fluorescent and potentially LEDs later on.

As of December 15th, 2011, however, Congress halted the proposition that would ban incandescent light bulbs.  The GOP were staunch opponents of the lighting efficiency standards, arguing that the government should not control what kind of light bulbs people purchase and use in their homes.  Democrats supported the lighting efficiency standards, citing impending consequences of global warming caused by the high energy demands of the country.

It should also be emphasized that compact fluorescent bulbs do contain mercury.  Though compact fluorescent bulbs are much more energy efficient, the amount of mercury that would enter landfills when compact fluorescent bulbs are disposed woud be significant. 

It should be considered, however, how much mercury a coal-fired power plant produces to power a light bulb.  Though other types of power plants do exist, coal-fired power plants still comprise 45% of electricity production.

Assuming approximately 50% of the energy used to power light bulbs comes from mercury emitting coal-fired plants, 1.45mg of mercury are emitted to power a compact fluorescent bulb during its lifetime, whereas 6.5mg of mercury are emitted to power an incandescent light bumb.  Considering the fact that each compact fluorescent light bulb contains 4-5mg of mercury, this makes the relative production of mercury from each bulb about the same.  The only difference is that compact fluorescent light bulbs can release mercury directly into a landfill.

Ideally, LED light bulbs could be developed more to make them cheap enough to compete with compact fluorescent light bulbs by the time that Congress passes the lighting efficiency standards.

Until then, make sure you turn off the lights when you leave a room!

Green love,

jn

Welcome to One World. 

The goal of this blog is to educate anyone who wants to better understand environment threats and hazards.  I want the readers of this blog to suggest topics and issues because ultimately I am not doing this blog for myself, even though I will learn a lot from it as well.

You ask a question, I'll do the research and the diagrams and report back with a clear and understandable explanation.

There is not a stupid question and there is not an irrelevant question.   I want to cover everything from global climate change to using cold water to do your laundry.  Mountain top removal, the pipeline Obama recently delayed, resuable shopping bags, organic food, simply everything!  Ask away.

In the end, I don't want anyone to be able to say they don't understand why those environmental wackos do what they do.

So if you're reading this, can you help me to accomplish this task?  Comment below and let's get this party started.