Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label ground contamination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ground contamination. Show all posts

The Anthropocene Epoch — It Has Begun: Human-Made Epoch of Nightmares Is Here: Beyond Global Warming

"The changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," says a study author. "This is a big deal." (Photo: Ligorano Reese/flickr/cc)
"The changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," says a study author. "This is a big deal." (Photo: Ligorano Reese/flickr/cc)

By Deirdre Fulton
There's no question about it. A new epoch—the Anthropocene—has begun.

So says an international group of geoscientists, in a paper published Friday in the journal Science. They point to waste disposal, fossil fuel combustion, increased fertilizer use, the testing and dropping of nuclear weapons, deforestation, and more as evidence that human activity has pushed the Earth into the new age that takes its name from the Greek anthropos, or human being.

Some argue the new era began in the 1950s, the decade that marks the beginning of the so-called "Great Acceleration," when human population and its consumption patterns suddenly speeded up, and nuclear weapons tests dispersed radioactive elements across the globe.

Formalizing the Anthropocene era—a designation that must come officially from a separate body known as the International Commission on Stratigraphy—they write, "expresses the extent to which humanity is driving rapid and widespread changes to the Earth system that will variously persist and potentially intensify into the future." The scientists are likely to present their findings to the Commission later this year.

"What this paper does is to say the changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," Colin Waters, principal geologist at the British Geological Survey and an author of the study, told the Guardian. "This is a big deal."

As Smithsonian magazine notes, "The new study is not the first to propose a formal establishment of an Anthropocene epoch—Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin of the University of College London made a similar recommendation last year—but it is one of the most comprehensive to date."

Among the tell-tale signs that the Anthropocene has started, according to reporting on the study:

  • Über-industrialization. "More than half the earth's surface has been transformed into settlements and cities, agricultural land, mines, waste dumps, baseball diamonds, and beyond," writes journalist Eric Roston at Bloomberg. What's more, he adds, "Mineral mining moves three times more sediment every year than all the world's rivers."

  • Plastics everywhere. "Even most mud samples taken from remote ocean beds now contain plastic fragments," academics Mark Williams and Jan A. Zalasiewicz write for The Conversation. "Buried in sediment, these materials may be preserved over geological timescales, forming new rocks and rapidly-evolving 'technofossils' for our descendants to marvel at."

  • Biologic changes. "We've pushed extinction rates of flora and fauna far above the long-term average," the Guardian reports. "The Earth is now on course for a sixth mass extinction which would see 75% of species extinct in the next few centuries if current trends continue."

  • Nuclear fallout. "Our war efforts have left their mark on geology," notes New Scientist. "When the first nuclear weapon was detonated on 16 July 1945 in New Mexico, it deposited radionuclides—atoms with excess nuclear energy—across a wide area. Since 1952, more explosive thermonuclear weapons have been tested, leaving a global signature of isotopes such as carbon-14 and plutonium-239."

  • Greenhouse gas levels. As Common Dreams has reported extensively, and the geoscientists point out, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are higher than they've ever been. "Depending on the trajectory of future anthropogenic forcing, these trends may reach or exceed the envelope of Quaternary interglacial conditions," the study authors write—in other words, conditions could become more extreme than in previous ice ages.

Still, as damning as this evidence is, observers have cautioned against a simplistic view of geologic shifts. "Anthropocene is...suspect because—to the extent that 'we' wish to name the new epoch after a force, it generically identifies that force as humanity as a whole, rather than the identifiable power structures most responsible for the geological Anthropocene traces," wrote Kieran Suckling, founding director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in 2015.

Indeed, Ian Angus, editor of the ecosocialist journal Climate and Capitalism, argued last year: "An ecosocialist analysis of the Great Acceleration will build on the decisive issues of class and power that are shaping the Anthropocene and will ultimately determine humanity’s future."



Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

Slow Motion Genocide of the Poor in Flint, Michigan?: Water Lead Levels Called 'State of Emergency' — A Year After It Was Declared 'Safe'

The population is 60+ percent people of color, and 41 percent live below the poverty level, according to the US Census Bureau. Residents drank and washed in lead tainted water for over a year after it was falsely declared "safe." Growing children exposed to high lead levels end up with a permanent lowering of brain function, according to the World Health Organization.

Lead Poisoning Dangers


By Carey Wedler
The City of Flint has experienced a Manmade disaster,” said the city’s mayor Monday evening, as she declared a state of emergency over evidently staggering levels of lead in the city’s tap water. Mayor Karen M. Weaver has requested federal assistance to deal with the fallout from over a year’s worth of tainted water delivered to Flint residents and, allegedly, falsely declared safe by government officials.

In September, news broke that lead contamination was on the rise in Flint. Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha of the Hurley Medical Center concluded that since the water supply switched from the Detroit system to Flint River in April 2014, the number of infants and children with elevated levels of lead in their blood had doubled, from 2.1% to 4%. While the rise seems small, it is statistically significant. Even so, Attisha warned: “My research shows that lead levels have gone up. I cannot say it’s from the water. But that’s, you know, the thing that has happened.“

The World Health Organization says “lead affects children’s brain development resulting in reduced intelligence quotient (IQ), behavioral changes such as shortening of attention span and increased antisocial behavior, and reduced educational attainment. Lead exposure also causes anemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioral effects of lead are believed to be irreversible.”

The high levels of lead have been attributed to old pipes and plumbing, which researchers say rubs off more into Flint River water than it does other sources. Because the water itself is more corrosive than other supplies, it erodes the pipes it flows through, picking up lead along the way.

Flint River is one of the filthiest rivers in Michigan. Over the years, it has housed raw sewage, tires, old refrigerators — which residents have attempted to sift out — and lead. In spite of this, officials declared it safe to drink in April 2014, when they switched the supply to the tainted river.

The change was widely attributed to the city’s switch from Detroit’s water system to the Flint River under the leadership of the city’s previous mayor, Dayne Walling. The shift in supply was a result of failed procedures and negotiations to continue purchasing the water.

Shortly after the April switch, residents complained the water emitted a foul odor and was cloudy in appearance, but local and state officials insisted the water was safe. In spite of these assurances, in January 2015, MLive reported the State Department of Environmental Quality had “issued a notice of violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act for maximum contaminant levels for trihalomethanes — or TTHM — a group of four chemicals that are formed as a byproduct of disinfecting water.”

These chemical byproducts are linked to cancer and other diseases, and presented a separate issue from the lead.

The water was so dirty that in October 2014, General Motors announced it would no longer use treated Flint River water at its engine plant out of fears it would cause corrosion.

Amid growing concerns, parents started buying gallons of bottled water to avoid the Flint River supply. Those who couldn’t afford it, as the Washington Post noted, “drank it straight from the tap all the same, knowing that they would be paying for it later. When it came to bathing, some slowly filled bathtubs with pots of boiled water for their children.”

By October 2015, protests, petitions, and public outrage led Governor Rick Snyder to promptly switch the water supply back to the Detroit System, until Lake Huron’s Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline is ready for use. It is estimated to be operating by the end of 2016.

According to the governor’s press secretary, David Murray, an “action plan” created by Snyder amid the protests provides “free water testing, free water filters and the accelerating of corrosion controls in the drinking water system.”

Even so, concerns over lead poisoning remain at the forefront of many resident’s lives. In November, a class-action suit representing tens of thousands of residents was filed against Snyder, the city, the state, and 13 other public officials. It claims that “For more than 18 months, state and local government officials ignored irrefutable evidence that the water pumped from the Flint River exposed [residents] to extreme toxicity. The deliberately false denials about the safety of the Flint River water was as deadly as it was arrogant.” The suit claims officials deprived residents of their 14th amendment rights by deliberately providing them with water they knew to be toxic.

The plaintiffs allege their health complications include “skin lesions, hair loss, chemical-induced hypertension, vision loss and depression.” Four families are described in the complaint, two of which say they ceased using the water and still suffered medical hardship.

Murray said the governor’s office disagreed with points in the suit but declined to comment further.

As a result of the apparent health ramifications, Mayor Weaver anticipates an increased need for certain services in the years to come. In her declaration of emergency on Monday, she argued increased learning disabilities and lower IQs caused by lead will require increased special education services, among other resources. She called for a Special Meeting of the Genesee County Board of Commissioners no later than this month.

Her declaration received mixed reviews from city councilmen. Scott Kincaid praised the move for alerting federal authorities of the dire situation. Josh Freeman, however, warned residents not to expect immediate change because of the mayor’s statement. “We need to find a way to actually fix the problem,” Freeman said. “This declaration does not [fix the problem].“

Either way, one sentiment remains consistent: As the class-action suit alleges, authorities “violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class members by acting in a manner that shocks the conscience and was deliberately indifferent to the those constitutional rights, as well as to the health and well-being of the Plaintiffs."


Reprinted with permission from Anti-Media

40 Percent of Deaths Worldwide Caused by Water, Air and Soil Pollution

Photo by Ian Barbour.
Photo by Ian Barbour.
By Susan S. Lang
About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

David Pimentel, Cornell professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, and a team of Cornell graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation on human diseases. Their report is published in the online version of the journal Human Ecology (available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/101592/, to be published in the December print issue).

"We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases," said Pimentel.

Of the world population of about 6.5 billion, 57 percent is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of a world population of 2.5 billion in 1950, said Pimentel. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of 6 million children's deaths each year but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to such killers as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other life-threatening diseases, according to the research.

Among the study's other main points:
  • Nearly half the world's people are crowded into urban areas, often without adequate sanitation, and are exposed to epidemics of such diseases as measles and flu.
  • With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, killing 1.2 million to 2.7 million people a year, and air pollution kills about 3 million people a year. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, of which more than half are children.
  • Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment -- contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.
  • Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown but spreading of disease microbes and various toxins.

Read More


Sounds Stupid But. . . A Big Time Aircraft Manufacturer Wants to Make Nuclear Powered Aircraft — Calls it 'Non-Polluting'

Consider getting on to an airplane with nuclear-powered engines.

Consider the consequences if an atomic airplane crashes.


Photo by IAEA Imagebank.

By Karl Grossman
The Boeing Company last week received approval from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for an airplane engine that combines the use of lasers and nuclear power.

“Boeing’s newly-patented engine provides thrust in a very different and rather novel manner,” heralded Business Insider.

It’s a leap into mad science—and backwards to a 1950s notion of nuclear-powered aircraft.

The patent approval to America’s biggest airplane manufacturer comes as solar power and green fuels are being shown to be feasible energy sources for flight—as they are for uses on earth.

Last week an airplane using only solar power, Solar Impulse 2, landed in Hawaii after flying across the Pacific. It’s to go on flying around the world. Also last week, in an expansion of the use of biofuels for aviation, United Airlines announced the start of flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco of jets using fuel derived from farm waste. United further said it will invest $30 million in one of the major producers of jet bio-fuels, Fulcrum BioEnergy.

The Boeing scheme would have lasers in an airplane engine bombard deuterium or tritium causing a nuclear explosion with its force providing thrust.

Business Insider features a video on its website page with its article on the Boeing patent that features, Deepak Gupta, founder of PatentYogi, a YouTube channel. Gupta declares: “This is another cool invention from Boeing. Boeing has patented nuclear power aircrafts. The engines of these aircrafts include a unique propulsion system.”

As Gupta explains the process:


“A stream of pellets containing nuclear material such as deuterium or tritium is fed into a hot-spot within a thruster of the aircraft. Then multiple high powered laser beams are all focused onto the hot spot. The pellet is instantly vaporized and the high temperature causes a nuclear fusion reaction. In effect, it causes a tiny nuclear explosion that scatters atoms and high energy neutrons in all directions. This flow of material is concentrated to exit out of the thruster thus propelling the aircraft forward with great force.”

“And this is where Boeing has done something extremely clever,” Gupta continues. “The inner walls of the thruster are coated with…Uranium-238 that undergoes a nuclear fission reaction upon being struck by high energy neutrons. This releases enormous energy in the form of heat. A coolant is circulated along the inner walls to pick up this heat and power a turbine which in turn generates huge amounts of electric power. And guess what this electric power is used for? To power the same lasers that created the electric power.”

“Soon,” says Gupta, “tiny nuclear bombs exploding inside a plane may be business as usual.” He adds: “I would love to use these non-polluting aircraft.”

Is the Boeing scheme really the basis for mon-polluting aircraft?

No way, says Jim Riccio, nuclear analyst for Greenpeace. “Since the supposed ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ [the effort to build more nuclear power plants] is dead in the west, there are some who are stretching to find applications for nuclear power—and this is a very long stretch.”

“Imagine getting into an airplane that has minor nuclear explosions for propulsion,” said Riccio. And “what about the implications of such an aircraft going down? We just saw an F-16 come down over South Carolina, its jet engine landing in someone’s backyard.”

“Meanwhile, we have breakthroughs in solar energy—to the extent of that solar plane showing solar’s potential,” said Riccio. “Solar energy is being used to accomplish things that nuclear couldn’t, as we watch solar costs plummet and nuclear go through the roof. The future is solar, not nuclear, despite Boeing’s attempt.”

Garry Morgan, long experienced in radiation issues including as a nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialist in the U.S. Army, notes that “this is not the first time atomic engines for aircraft have been tried.”

In the 1950s the U.S. military developed nuclear-powered aircraft but ran into the huge problem of requiring “heavy shielding” to protect pilots and crew from radioactivity, noted Morgan. He is now director of community radiation and health monitoring for the Bellafonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team—Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation, initiatives of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

In the military’s Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft project of the 50s, ground tests were conducted of atomic airplane engines. A B-36 bomber was renamed an NB-36—NB for Nuclear Bomber—and made numerous test flights with an onboard reactor operating although not used to power engines.

Regarding the Boeing scheme, the result of the Uranium-238 being struck by neutrons would be some it being transformed into Plutonium-239, said Morgan. Plutonium has long been described as the most toxic radioactive substance, and Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years, thus once created it remains radioactive for 240,000 years.

“I don’t understand how they are going to overcome the emissions problems and how the shielding issue would be handled,” said Morgan.

Read More


What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?

Tehmina Shekh photographed at the Chingari Clinic in Bhopal, India — the location of one of the world's worst chemical disasters. Photo by Flickr user Bhopal Medical Appeal. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0
Tehmina Shekh photographed at the Chingari Clinic in Bhopal, India — the location of one of the world's worst chemical disasters. Photo by Flickr user Bhopal Medical Appeal. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0

By Elizabeth Grossman
February 16, 2015 — The numbers are startling. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more children in the U.S. were diagnosed with developmental disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a decade earlier. During this time, the prevalence of autism climbed nearly 300 percent, while that of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increased 33 percent. CDC figures also show that 10 to 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. have some type of neurobehavorial development disorder. Still more are affected by neurological disorders that don’t rise to the level of clinical diagnosis.

And it’s not just the U.S. Such impairments affect millions of children worldwide. The numbers are so large that Philippe Grandjean of the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York — both physicians and preeminent researchers in this field — describe the situation as a “pandemic.”

While earlier and more assiduous diagnosis accounts for some of the documented increase, it doesn’t explain all of it, says Irva Hertz-Piccioto, professor of environmental and occupational health and chief of the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute. Grandjean and Landrigan credit genetic factors for 30 to 40 percent of the cases. But a significant and growing body of research suggests that exposure to environmental pollutants is implicated in the disturbing rise in children’s neurological disorders.

What, exactly is going on? And what can we do about it?

Chemicals and the Brain

Some chemicals — lead, mercury and organophosphate pesticides, for example — have long been recognized as toxic substances that can have lasting effects on children’s neurological health, says Bruce Lanphear, health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University. While leaded paint is now banned in the U.S., it is still present in many homes and remains in use elsewhere around the world. Children can also be exposed to lead from paints, colorings and metals used in toys, even though these uses are prohibited by U.S. law (remember Thomas the Tank Engine), and through contaminated soil or other environmental exposure as well as from plastics in which lead is used as a softener. Mercury exposure sources include some fish, air pollution and old mercury-containing thermometers and thermostats. While a great many efforts have gone into reducing and eliminating these exposures, concerns continue, particularly because we now recognize that adverse effects can occur at exceptionally low levels.

At early stages of development — prenatally and during infancy — brain cells are
easily damaged by industrial chemicals and other neurotoxicants. Photo by Flickr
user Jason Corey. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0
But scientists are also now discovering that chemical compounds common in outdoor air — including components of vehicle exhaust and fine particulate matter — as well as in indoor air and consumer products can also adversely affect brain development, including prenatally.

Chemicals in flame retardants, plastics, and personal care and other household products are among those Lanphear lists as targets of concern for their neurodevelopment effects.

Chemicals that prompt hormonal changes are increasingly suspected to have neurological effects, says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. Among the chemicals now being examined for neurological impacts that occur early in life are flame retardants known as PBDEs that have been used extensively in upholstery foams, electronics and other products; phthalates, widely used as plasticizers and in synthetic fragrances; the polycarbonate plastic ingredient bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA; perfluorinated compounds, whose applications include stain-, water- and grease-resistant coatings; and various pesticides.

Precise Choreography

As Grandjean and Landrigan explain, the fetus is not well protected against environmental chemicals that can easily pass through the placenta. There’s evidence from in vitro studies, they say, that neural stem cells are very sensitive to neurotoxic substances.
In the past 30 to 40 years, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults.
An infant’s brain is also vulnerable to such contaminants. At early stages of development — prenatally and during infancy — brain cells are easily damaged by industrial chemicals and other neurotoxicants. Such interference can affect how the brain develops structurally and functionally — effects that lead to lasting adverse outcomes.

“The brain is so extremely sensitive to external stimulation,” says Grandjean.

Historically, chemical neurotoxicity was examined in adults — often through cases of high levels of occupational exposure. In the past 30 to 40 years, however, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults. It has also been discovered that very low levels of exposure early in life can have profound and lasting effects. Another important discovery is that understanding how an infant or child is affected by a chemical exposure involves far more than simply calculating potential effects on a physically smaller person. Stage of development — and timing of exposure — must also be considered. Early stages of brain development involve “a very precise choreography,” explains Frederica Perera, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Any chemical that can disrupt [brain] chemistry at this stage can be very damaging,” she says.

For example, explains Deborah Kurrasch, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who specializes in neurological research, during the early stages of brain development — when cells are becoming neurons — “timing determines destination.”

Results of Kurrasch’s latest study investigating neurodevelopmental effects of BPA illustrate what she means. In a study published in January 2015, Kurrasch and colleagues examined the effects on neurodevelopment of BPA and a common BPA substitute, bisphenol S. Specifically, they investigated how exposure to BPA and BPS — at levels comparable to those present in her community’s local drinking water supply — might affect neuron development in zebrafish at a stage comparable to the second trimester of human pregnancy, when neurons are forming and moving to the correct location in the brain.
Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development.
“It’s as if they’re getting on a bus to where they need to be,” Kurrasch says. After exposure to BPA and BPS it was as if, explains Kurrasch, “twice as many neurons got on an early bus and half as many got on a late bus.” The researchers found that these exposures appeared to alter nerve development — neurogenesis — in a way that caused the fish to become hyperactive. Such an alteration, produced in this case by a “very little bit of BPA,” can cause permanent effects, Kurrasch says.

Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development — BPA, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, brominated flame retardants and various pesticides among them — appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development. Among these are thyroid hormones, which regulate the part of the brain involved in a variety of vital functions, including reproduction, sleep, thirst, eating and puberty.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus is not making its own thyroid hormone, says Thomas Zoeller, director of the Laboratory of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Endocrinology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. If an environmental exposure to a substance such as a polychlorinated biphenyl or perchlorate interferes with the mother’s thyroid hormones in this period — as could happen through water pollution, for example — that could in turn affect her child at a critical stage of brain development.

Another thing to consider in the context of endocrine-disrupting chemical exposures, says Zoeller, is that a substantial portion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. have some iodine deficiency that may be suppressing their thyroid hormones. While these deficiencies may not be prompting clinically adverse effects, they may be sufficient to impair fetal neurodevelopment. “Impacts can happen at levels far below safety standards,” says Zoeller. And there are a great many chemicals to which such women may be exposed environmentally with the potential to affect thyroid hormones, among them PBDEs, PCBs, BPA, various pesticides, perfluorinated compounds and certain phthalates.

Something in the Air

One particularly concerning source of exposure to chemicals that are suspected to harm children’s brain development is air pollution, which is a complex mixture of various chemicals and particulate matter.
Research increasingly suggests that airborne contaminants can have subtle but significant effects on early neurological development and behavior.
Perera and colleagues recently investigated the links between exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a fossil fuel–related component of air pollution, and incidence of ADHD in 9-year-olds. Their study found that mothers who were exposed to high levels of PAH during pregnancy were five times more likely to have children with ADHD and to have children with more severe ADHD symptoms than those who did not have such exposure. While this study is the first to make such a connection, it joins a growing body of research pointing to links between outdoor air pollutants, including PAHs, and adverse impacts on children’s brain health and development.

Looking at air pollution’s effects on brain health is relatively new, explains Kimberly Gray, health science administrator at the National Institutes of Health. Research increasingly suggests that airborne contaminants can have subtle but significant effects on early neurological development and behavior, she says. In addition to links between prenatal PAH exposure and impaired brain function, researchers are also now investigating potential connections between black carbon, volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter — among other components of air pollution — and impairments such as autism and lowered IQ.

In a study published in December 2014, Marc Weisskopf, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health associate professor of environmental and occupational epidemiology, and colleagues looked at children whose mothers were exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5, particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller), particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. The study, which involved more than 1,000 participants living all across the U.S., found that these children appeared to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with autism as children whose mothers had only low levels of such exposures. Exposure to larger particles — between 2.5 and 10 microns (what’s known as PM10) — did not appear to be associated with increasing risk for autism.

“This is very important from an epidemiological point of view” because it “places a spotlight on the mother’s exposure,” says Weisskopf. It also highlights the importance of timing and neurodevelopmental effects. Although many other factors may contribute to autism, Weisskopf explains, this study strengthens the suggestion that environmental exposures can play a role. That it appears it is the very small particles that are associated with these effects adds to what other research is finding: What might seem quantitatively small can “be quite important” when it comes to affecting brain development, Weisskopf explains.

Columbia University researchers recently published an additional study linking common air pollutants to cognitive and behavioral impairment in children.

Widespread Exposure

As Grandjean and Landrigan point out, one of the disturbing recent realizations concerning environmental exposure to developmental neurotoxicants is how widespread exposure appears to be and the ubiquity of such compounds. “More neurotoxic chemicals are getting into products,” says Landrigan.

Phthalates, which are used as plasticizers — including in polyvinyl chloride plastics — and in synthetic fragrances and numerous personal care products, comprise one category of widely used chemicals that appear to have adverse impacts on brain development. Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health recently found that children exposed prenatally to elevated levels of certain phthalates had IQ scores that were, on average, between 6 and 8 points lower than children with lower prenatal exposures. Children with reduced IQ scores also appeared to have trouble with working memory, perceptional reasoning and information processing speeds.
“Pretty much everybody in the U.S. is exposed.”
— Robin Whyatt
The phthalates examined in this study, known as DnBP and DiBP, are used in numerous household products, including toiletries and cosmetics, among them shampoo, nail polish, lipstick, hair styling products and soap, as well as vinyl fabrics and dryer sheets. Exposure levels associated with reduced IQ in the study are within the range that the CDC reports finding in its National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationwide ongoing biomonitoring assessment of chemical exposures. “Pretty much everybody in the U.S. is exposed,” says study co-author Robin Whyatt, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Medical Center.

While such a drop in IQ may sound small, Pam Factor-Litvak, the study’s lead author and associate professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School, notes that at the population — or classroom — level, this means fewer children at the high end of the intelligence scale and more at the less capable end. “The whole curve shifts downward,” she explains.

“Five or six IQ points may not sound like much, but it means more children requiring special education programs and fewer that are gifted,” says Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America’s Healthy Children Project director. “The potential economic impact is huge,” says NIEHS’s Birnbaum.

The Stress Factor

What prompts neurological disorders in children is “very complex,” notes Frederica Perera. Adding to the challenge of disentangling the various contributing factors is that while research on — and regulation of — chemicals typically looks at one substance at a time, people are exposed to multiple chemicals concurrently. Further adding to this complexity when it comes to brain development are social stresses that “act on the same part of the brain region,” explains University of Rochester professor of environmental medicine Deborah Cory-Slechta. She and others are finding increasing evidence that nonchemical stressors such as maternal, domestic and community distress can prompt adverse effects on early brain development, either on their own or in combination with neurotoxic chemicals.

Birnbaum says this apparent interaction between chemicals and nonchemical stressors is “very concerning and very important.”

Epidemiological studies, Cory-Slechta explains, typically correct for what are called confounding factors — other conditions that might influence the condition being measured. Many studies, she says, “are clearly not modeling what is going on in the human environment.” What she and her colleagues hope to do is “reproduce in animal studies what goes on in human communities,” particularly in communities that are most vulnerable to adverse social stressors and most exposed to chemical contaminants, including lead, pesticides and air pollution.

Lead and stress affect the same part of the brain, she says, and so can act synergistically very early in life to produce permanent changes in brain structure. These changes can result in lowered IQ, learning and behavioral problems.

Cory-Slechta’s lab is now working on replicating conditions of stress and chronic deprivation in animal models that would mirror those experienced by communities of poverty. The aim is to better understand how these effects cross the placenta and become the fetal basis of lifelong disorders. She and her colleagues are investigating, not only associations between exposures and neurodevelopment, but also the mechanisms by which effects occur.

What to Do?

Assuming we want to stop harming our children’s brains, how do we proceed?

An important step is to improve our ability to determine which chemicals have neurodevelopmental effects. A rapid screening system would be ideal, says Birnbaum, because there are so many chemicals — including newly invented ones — to which people are exposed. While such a program to test large numbers of chemicals quickly using robotics has been launched by NIH, EPA and other federal agencies, there are tens of thousands that may be in use, most of which have not been fully tested for these effects.

When it comes to reducing existing exposures, some chemicals can be avoided through consumer choice. But it’s often difficult, given that many of these substances are used — like BPA on receipts — in products that don’t carry ingredient labels. Others, including air pollutants, are much harder given their ubiquity or lack of available alternatives. And, as Maureen Swanson notes, such choices are not necessarily feasible for people at all economic levels, which raises environmental justice issues.

Grandjean and Landrigan point out that the U.S. system of chemical regulation, which lacks requirements for full premarket toxicity testing, does not do a very good job when it comes to proactive chemical safety. “Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity,” they wrote in an article published in The Lancet.

While some sources of neurotoxicity might appear to have been adequately addressed, they have not. For example, considerable progress has been made in curtailing lead exposure through policy and public health education in the U.S. and elsewhere. However, current understanding is that virtually any amount of lead exposure can cause damage, and harmful exposures continue — especially in countries where leaded paints and gasoline are still used . And in the U.S., CDC funding for lead prevention programs was dramatically reduced in 2012.
When it comes to protecting the exquisitely sensitive developing brain, the measures currently used to assess chemical risk and set safety standards fall short, says Cory-Slechta.
Meanwhile, children around the world — especially in less well-off countries — continue to be exposed to dangerous neurotoxicants released in industrial emissions, from waste sites and through child labor. Examples abound, and include exposures to chemicals released in electronics recycling in various locations in Asia and Africa, to lead and mercury from mining activity, to agricultural pesticides, to products contaminated with heavy metals, including food and candy.

When it comes to protecting the exquisitely sensitive developing brain, the measures currently used to assess chemical risk and set safety standards fall short, says Cory-Slechta. “It should be about primary prevention, but it’s not,” she says.

In the absence of what many environmental health advocates feel is adequate U.S. federal regulation of chemicals, many individual U.S. states have recently passed their own laws to protect children from harmful chemical exposures. Many address chemicals with neurotoxic effects, particularly those of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury. And even though some states are beginning to include language in their legislation to protect pregnant women from chemical hazards, this timing of exposure is left largely unaddressed.

While we now know a great deal about developmental neurotoxicants, more such exposures appear to be occurring than ever before. And there appears to be wide agreement among researchers that these exposures are taking a toll on the world’s children.

“To me it is very clear we have to set up a different system to better protect the brains of the future,” says Grandjean.

___________________
Elizabeth Grossman is an independent journalist and writer specializing in environmental and science issues. She is the author of Chasing Molecules, High Tech Trash, Watershed and other books. Her work has also appeared in a variety of publications, including Ensia, Scientific American, Yale e360, the Washington Post, TheAtlantic.com, Salon, The Nation, and Mother Jones. She tweets from @lizzieg1.


Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.


With EPA Lawsuit, Environmental Groups Step Up Fight Against 'Super-Toxic Chemical Cocktail'

'Our federal regulators have again unlawfully bowed to the chemical industry,' says Center for Food Safety

A new lawsuit is challenging the EPA's approval of herbicides, with key ingredients found  in Agent Orange and Monsanto's Roundup, on farms in 15 states nationwide. (Photo: Mike Mozart/flickr/cc)
A new lawsuit is challenging the EPA's approval of herbicides, with key ingredients found
in Agent Orange and Monsanto's Roundup, on farms in 15 states nationwide. (Photo: Mike
Mozart
/flickr/cc)
By Nadia Prupis
A coalition of health and environmental organizations on Monday challenged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to expand the use of a new herbicide in nine states, which the groups say could endanger wildlife and public health.

The lawsuit (pdf) is the most recent step in a fight to push back against the use of the weed killer, Dow's Enlist Duo, which combines glyphosate, found in Monsanto's Roundup, and 2,4-D, the key ingredient in the infamous warfare herbicide Agent Orange.

As the coalition points out in a press release following its lawsuit, 2,4-D "has been linked to serious illnesses like Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and reproductive problems. It also threatens endangered species that reside in the approved states, like the whooping crane, the Louisiana black bear, and the Indiana bat."

In March, the research arm of the World Health Organization declared that glyphosate was a "probable" source of cancer in humans and should be considered a carcinogen.

The EPA first approved use of Enlist Duo in six states in October, but recently widened that list to include an additional nine. The 15 total states where Enlist Duo may now be used are Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

"Our federal regulators have again unlawfully bowed to the chemical industry, rather than protect our communities, land, and farms," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the groups challenging the EPA's decision. "We will continue to defend them vigorously."

Also in the coalition are Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America. The groups initially sued the EPA in October in response to its first approval, charging that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing the use of those chemicals, but the case was dismissed.

"In expanding its approval for this super-toxic chemical cocktail, EPA has shown an utter disregard for human health, our drinking water, and endangered species like the iconic whooping crane," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, on Monday. "EPA has left us with no choice but to go to court."

As the coalition points out, the EPA approved Enlist Duo to address the rash of glyphosate-resistant "super weeds" infesting tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland. But using 2,4-D to kill the weeds is nothing more than a "quick fix," the coalition said.

"Independent and USDA scientists... predict that the Enlist Duo 'crop system' will only foster resistance to 2,4-D in addition to glyphosate, continuing the GE crop pesticide treadmill," the Center for Food Safety said in a statement.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America, added, "Rural communities rely on EPA to take its job seriously... Communities across the Midwest are furious, knowing that they now face unprecedented levels of 2,4-D drift each summer."




Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

The Real Reason to Worry About GMOs — They Encourage the Massive Use of Herbicides

Monsanto's genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand Monsanto's powerful herbicides.  This herbicide immunity encourages farmers to saturate GMO crops with  herbicides (some of which have been deemed potentially cancerous). The overuse of herbicides promotes the development of weeds that are evolving an immunity to the herbicides, which causes farmers to use even more herbicides - manufactured by Monsanto, of course.—Ronald David Jackson

Photo by Kevin Krejci.
Photo by Kevin Krejci.

By
In a recent column, the New York Times' Mark Bittman makes an important point about the controversy around genetically modified foods. "[T]o date there's little credible evidence that any food grown with genetic engineering techniques is dangerous to human health," he writes. Yet the way the technology has been used—mainly, to engineer crops that can withstand herbicides—is deeply problematic, he argues.


Here's why I think Bittman's point is crucial. The below chart, from the pro-biotech International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, gives a snapshot of what types of GMO crops farmers were planting as of 2012. In more recent reports, the ISAAA doesn't break out its data in the same way, but it's a fair assumption that things are roughly similar three years later, given that no GMO blockbusters have entered the market since.

If you add up all the herbicide-tolerant crops on the list, you find that about 69 percent of global GM acres are planted with crops engineered to withstand herbicides. But that's an undercount, because the GM products listed as "stacked traits" are engineered to repel insects (the Bt trait) and to withstand herbicides. Adding those acres in, the grand total comes to something like 84 percent of global biotech acres devoted to crops that can flourish when doused with weed killers—chemicals that are sold by the very same companies that sell the GMO seeds.

As Bittman points out, almost all of the herbicide-tolerant crops on the market to date have been engineered to resist a single herbicide, glyphosate. And weeds have evolved to resist that herbicide, forcing farmers to apply heavier doses and or added older, more toxic chemicals to the mix.

Read More

The Other Kind of Climate Change Denial — Impact of Expanded Oil Drilling On Climate Change Ignored

Writing about expanding oil drilling without talking about its impact on the climate  indicates a deep state of denial. (cc photo illustration: -POD)
Writing about expanding oil drilling without talking about its impact on the climate
indicates a deep state of denial. (cc photo illustration: -POD)

By
It's gotten to the point that sensible people can agree that climate change is a real problem in the world. But some people manage to write about energy policy and pretend that that problem doesn't exist–which is perhaps a more dangerous kind of climate change denial.

Take Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson. As we noted recently (FAIR Blog, 8/26/14), Samuelson is no longer really a climate denier. But it's hard to tell how meaningful the shift in his views is when you see what he writes nowadays. His column in today's print edition of the Post (9/28/14) is a full endorsement of increasing US oil drilling.

"One of the economy’s good-news stories is the oil boom, a derivative of the natural gas boom," he writes, explaining that fracking technology has been applied to oil drilling and has "yielded similarly astounding results." Samuelson declares: "By all logic, we should be working to sustain the boom." Alas we are not, and his column goes on to explain why it's disappointing that we aren't drilling more oil and exporting it on tankers.

He doesn't skip the downsides of drilling for more oil–he gives them one entire sentence:
Sure, there are concerns: Rail transport of crude oil involves safety issues; there are continuing environmental worries about fracking. Still, public gains outweigh the costs.
Whew. Back on planet Earth, burning more fossil fuels is going to have at least one consequence: It will continue contributing to the heating of the planet. But Samuelson never mentions climate change, which is too often treated as a non-event in coverage of energy (FAIR Blog, 5/15/12; 9/9/14).

In a way, this is merely a different type of climate change denial, one that wishes away the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels. Interestingly, the Samuelson column has a "Read more about this topic" link at the bottom, which takes readers to a Post editorial on the same subject, headlined "Commerce Dept. Should Allow Exports of US Crude." This is notable because the Post editorial page has drawn attention for a series they're calling "A Climate for Change," which is supposed to represent the paper's decision to take the climate crisis seriously. Except, apparently, when the same editorial page is making the case for drilling for more oil.

If climate change represents a profound crisis, the only sensible policy is to leave fossil fuels in the ground (Extra!, 5/13). A media system that has begun to understand the scale of the problem while at the same time advocating for policies that will make the problem worse is still in denial.



Reprinted with permission from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.


Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens

Agent Orange Deformities
Middle aged gentleman stands at the cathedral entrance seeking money while he shows his severe arm
deformity most likely related to agent orange exposure when he was in gestation and his pregnant mother
was exposed to the defoliating chemical, dioxin. It was frequently used during the Vietnam war from 1965
to 1970 and caused many deformities similar to this, to the Asian population of this area. Saigon(Ho Chi
Minh City), Vietnam, SE Asia (Photo by Emilio Labrador)

Big wins can happen in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.


By Christina Sarich
The settlement was approved last year, but details were worked out only weeks ago as to how the funds were to be spent.

The settlement will require Monsanto to do the following:
  • $9 million will be spent to clean dioxin contaminated dust from 4500 homes.
  • $21 million will be spent to test to see if people have been poisoned with dioxin.
  • Citizens will be monitored for such poisoning for 30 years, not just a few months.
  • An additional $63 million is to be allotted if additional tests for dioxin contamination testing is necessary.

Read more



California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Water


State’s drought has forced farmers to rely on groundwater, even as California aquifers have been intentionally polluted due to exemptions for oil industry.

By Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica
California officials have ordered an emergency shut-down of 11 oil and gas waste injection sites and a review more than 100 others in the state's drought-wracked Central Valley out of fear that companies may have been pumping fracking fluids and other toxic waste into drinking water aquifers there.

The state's Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources on July 7 issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies warning that they may be injecting their waste into aquifers that could be a source of drinking water, and stating that their waste disposal "poses danger to life, health, property, and natural resources." The orders were first reported by the Bakersfield Californian, and the state has confirmed with ProPublica that its investigation is expanding to look at additional wells.

The action comes as California's agriculture industry copes with a drought crisis that has emptied reservoirs and cost the state $2.2 billion this year alone. The lack of water has forced farmers across the state to supplement their water supply from underground aquifers, according to a study released this week by the University of California Davis.

The problem is that at least 100 of the state's aquifers were presumed to be useless for drinking and farming because the water was either of poor quality, or too deep underground to easily access. Years ago, the state exempted them from environmental protection and allowed the oil and gas industry to intentionally pollute them. But not all aquifers are exempted, and the system amounts to a patchwork of protected and unprotected water resources deep underground. Now, according to the cease and desist orders issued by the state, it appears that at least seven injection wells are likely pumping waste into fresh water aquifers protected by the law, and not other aquifers sacrificed by the state long ago.

"The aquifers in question with respect to the orders that have been issued are not exempt," said Ed Wilson, a spokesperson for the California Department of Conservation in an email.

A 2012 ProPublica investigation of more than 700,000 injection wells across the country found that wells were often poorly regulated and experienced high rates of failure, outcomes that were likely polluting underground water supplies that are supposed to be protected by federal law. That investigation also disclosed a little-known program overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that exempted more than 1,000 other drinking water aquifers from any sort of pollution protection at all, many of them in California.

Those are the aquifers at issue today. The exempted aquifers, according to documents the state filed with the U.S. EPA in 1981 and obtained by ProPublica, were poorly defined and ambiguously outlined. They were often identified by hand-drawn lines on a map, making it difficult to know today exactly which bodies of water were supposed to be protected, and by which aspects of the governing laws. Those exemptions and documents were signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown, who also was governor in 1981.

State officials emphasized to ProPublica that they will now order water testing and monitoring at the injection well sites in question. To date, they said, they have not yet found any of the more regulated aquifers to have been contaminated.

"We do not have any direct evidence any drinking water has been affected," wrote Steve Bohlen, the state oil and gas supervisor, in a statement to ProPublica.

Bohlen said his office was acting "out of an abundance of caution," and a spokesperson said that the state became aware of the problems through a review of facilities it was conducting according to California's fracking law passed late last year, which required the state to study fracking impacts and adopt regulations to address its risks, presumably including underground disposal.

California officials have long been under fire for their injection well practices, a waste disposal program that the state runs according to federal law and under a sort of license 2014 called "primacy" 2014 given to it by the EPA.

For one, experts say that aquifers the states and the EPA once thought would never be needed may soon become important sources of water as the climate changes and technology reduces the cost of pumping it from deep underground and treating it for consumption. Indeed, towns in Wyoming and Texas 2014 two states also suffering long-term droughts 2014 are pumping, treating, then delivering drinking water to taps from aquifers which would be considered unusable under California state regulations governing the oil and gas industry.

In June 2011, the EPA conducted a review of other aspects of California's injection well program and found enforcement, testing and oversight problems so significant that the agency demanded California improve its regulations and warned that the state's authority could be revoked.

Among the issues, California and the federal government disagree about what type of water is worth protecting in the first place, with California law only protecting a fraction of the waters that the federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires.

The EPA's report, commissioned from outside consultants, also said that California regulators routinely failed to adequately examine the geology around an injection well to ensure that fluids pumped into it would not leak underground and contaminate drinking water aquifers. The report found that state inspectors often allowed injection at pressures that exceeded the capabilities of the wells and thus risked cracking the surrounding rock and spreading contaminants. Several accidents in recent years in California involved injected waste or injected steam leaking back out of abandoned wells, or blowing out of the ground and creating sinkholes, including one 2011 incident that killed an oil worker.

The exemptions and other failings, said Damon Nagami, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in an email, are "especially disturbing" in a state that has been keenly aware of severe water constraints for more than a century and is now suffering from a crippling drought. "Our drinking water sources must be protected and preserved for the precious resources they are, not sacrificed as a garbage dump for the oil and gas industry."

Still, three years after the EPA's report, California has not yet completed its review of its underground injection program, according to state officials. The scrutiny of the wells surrounding Bakersfield may be the start.

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

Stop Using Growth as an Excuse to Pollute — African Activists Say

Extreme flooding hit Dar es Salaam, Tanzania after unusually heavy rains saturated  the East African capital city in April 2014.
Extreme flooding hit Dar es Salaam, Tanzania after unusually heavy rains saturated
the East African capital city in April 2014. (Photo by Peter Stanley. Copyright Demotix)
By Abdoulaye Bah, Translated by Jane Ellis
On World Environment Day (WED) 2014, environmental activists across Africa took the opportunity to caution against forsaking the environment in the rush to promote economic growth. This is not a zero-sum game, they warned.

The theme for the U.N.-sanctioned day this year on 5 June was ‘raise your voice, not the sea level‘ with a focus on island nations facing the treat of climate change. Many regions throughout the African continent are vulnerable to climate change — mainland and islands alike. Blog newsmada.com out of Madagascar explained in a post earlier this year:
With the development of coastal cities in Africa and Asia, the poorest residents are jettisoned to the margins of residential areas, places where the consequences of climate change pose the greatest dangers.

Researchers in sub-Saharan Africa identified the main challenge as compromised food safety due to rainfall pattern changes and the risks of drought and flooding. A temperature increase of between 1.5 to 2°C could cause drought and aridity and render 40 to 80% of agricultural land unfit for cultivation of maize, millet and sorghum by the 2030s.
The Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), an initiative launched by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002, published various studies and articles on the environment over the year. On March of 2014, prior to WED, Dr. Denis Sonwa analyzed the difficulty reconciling forestry protection with the needs of development in an article on the CBFP website:
Contrary to perceptions in the developed world, development and conservation were seen as mutually exclusive in developing countries. Intensive agricultural production seems to be incompatible with forestry. According to a recent report by the World Bank, some of the conditions (remoteness, low level of funding and investment in the agricultural sector, little mining, low energy consumption per household, etc.), which have contributed to maintaining of biodiversity and forest carbon storage in Central Africa, will change in the near future, with a risk of increasing deforestation. Without great will or profound change, such as going outside the biodiversity sector to save it, current efforts are likely to be in vain.
In Mauritania, singer and human rights activist Malouma dedicated a video to WED with lyrics set to images by Frederic Bacuez and published on ornithondar.blogspot.fr. She sings:
Let's stop killing / Let's stop polluting / Using growth as an excuse / Will there be a savior? / The sky, your protector / And the earth, your mother / Plants, your sisters / And the water, your spring / And friends! / Protect nature



Raphael Kafando analyzed the link between food self-sufficiency and climate change on blog cnpress-zongo.ning.com, comparing the concept of green economy to the realities of his own country, Burkina Faso:
In a country where food self-sufficiency remains a priority, industry is still in its infancy and which is keen to attract investors at any price, is the environment the number one concern? In a country where the mining boom is regarded as a godsend and the priority is getting the unemployed into work without actually considering the pollution produced by these industries, can we really talk about the green economy?
Julien Dembele of Senegal wrote impassioned tribute to former United States Vice President Al Gore for his ‘personal crusade’ for the environment. Dembele also wrote a French-language article entitled ‘Top 10 Reasons to Protect the Environment‘ stating:
A healthy environment equates to good health [...] In 2003, the WHO reported that 21% of human diseases were directly linked to the environment. Three main factors have been identified as causing nearly three-quarters of environment-related diseases or poor health. These are – water, sanitation and hygiene – domestic air pollution – physical injury. Action on these three factors would enable a significant reduction of diseases directly and indirectly related to the environment.
He also penned a protest letter addressed to the director of Senegalese Television (RTS-TV) after it broadcast an advert for an insecticide considered unsafe for humans.

Awareness of the environment's importance is certainly on the rise in Africa. But will this mean that countries sacrifice some of their bad habits for a cleaner, healthier future? 


Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...