A team of international researchers at the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences have discovered a potentially harmful greenhouse gas, known as Sulfuryl Fluoride, within the atmosphere. The bad news is it is 4,800 times worse than CO2, but the good news is it has been caught early enough in the game that the researchers do not think that it is going to be a major problem.
Sulfuryl fluoride is a gas fumigant that has been used -- since the 1950s -- to kill bugs and rodents in indoor structures, such as homes, warehouses, and railroad cars.
Up until recently, federal guidelines prohibited food-related uses of sulfuryl fluoride. This prohibition, however, has recently been rescinded -- due to an intensive lobbying effort from DOW AgroSciences.
Since companies are not required to remove food from the premises before fumigating, fumigations with sulfuryl fluoride produce high levels of fluoride residues "in or on" the stored foods. According to recent regulations approved by EPA, it is now acceptable for fumigations to produce fluoride residues of 70 ppm "in or on" all processed foods (except for the processed foods otherwise specified), 130 ppm "in or on" wheat, and 900 ppm "in or on" dried eggs.
NRC panel member Kathleen M. Thiessen, senior scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc., Center for Risk Analysis, presented clear evidence that water with about 1 mg/L of fluoride or more presents potential risks to the thyroid gland.
"Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with an iodine deficiency," Thiessen said. "The average adult exposure is around 0.03 mg/kg/day, and the levels of exposure at which one sees thyroid effects in some individuals with an iodine deficiency are right around that same range," she said. A low level of thyroid hormone can increase the risk of cardiac disease, high cholesterol, depression, and, in pregnant women, decreased intelligence of offspring, she said.
Over 2,000 professionals have signed a STATEMENT being distributed by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the landmark 2006 National Research Council report on fluoride's toxicology, three officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the Executive Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, leading fluoride researchers, and medical, dental, scientific and environmental professionals from around the world.
Leafless monkey pod and browning Norfolk pine trees litter Ted Seaman's 3.5 acre nursery in the small town of Pahala on the southern edge of Hawaii's largest island.
His skill as a grower isn't to blame. It's the noxious fumes that have been pouring out of the Kilauea volcano in unprecedented volumes since last spring.
"You can only go so far before you say forget it," said Seaman, who has since taken a job trimming trees. The 53-year-old is currently focused on saving enough money to file for bankruptcy.
Sulfur dioxide from the volcano has wiped out multiple small farms and nurseries in the nearby largely rural district of Kau. The gas, which creates volcanic smog when mixed with sunlight and air, threatens the viability of some area flower and vegetable crops.
Roses, sunflowers, protea, lettuce, tomatoes, and even medical marijuana are hurt by the smog.
Many farmers are desperately hoping government grants or other financial help will save their farms. But the recession has depressed state tax revenues, and Hawaii has little money to help farmers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has issued a document called a "Proposed Findings of Fact" in connection with the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian's application under the Clean Water Act for authority to establish water quality standards for surface water within its reservation. EPA is expected to decide on the request later this year. If the agency approves the request, the tribe will develop specific water quality standards for bodies of water within the reservation.
The document describes actual or potential effects on water quality inside the tribe's northern Wisconsin reservation from various activities such as residential septic discharges, farming, filling in wetlands, illegal dumping, construction without a permit, and sand and gravel mining.
EPA is expected to rule on the request later this year. Comments on the "proposed findings of fact" are being accepted until Wednesday, March 18, 2009.
If EPA approves the request, the Bad River Band could carry out the Clean Water Act's water quality standards program on its reservation, just as EPA has approved Wisconsin to carry out Clean Water Act programs for waters outside reservations. Two other tribes in Wisconsin have been granted this status.
Additional information, including a Frequently Asked Questions section, is available on Region 5's Web site.
The Clean Water Act, one of the nation's most comprehensive and successful environmental laws, is celebrating its 35th birthday on October 18, 2007!
And since this is October 18th it would be a great day for everyone to write a letter to their local government and remind those in office of the importance of this bill.
Science Daily published an article yesterday acknowledging that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not been doing all they should to protect certain areas of water around our country. The main area of concern is the Mississippi River. The article says the EPA needs to look at how the Chesapeake Bay watershed has been managed.
"In addressing water-quality problems in the river, EPA and the states should draw upon the useful experience in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where for decades the agency has been working together with states surrounding the bay to reduce nutrient pollution and improve water quality. EPA should demonstrate similar leadership for the Mississippi River."
Currently, there are no water-quality standards for nutrients for most of the Mississippi River. The article states, "To diminish nutrient pollution, EPA should exert the federal leadership that the Clean Water Act allows and work with states to develop water-quality standards that protect the Mississippi River and the northern Gulf of Mexico."
The Clean Water Act, if pushed and followed, can help to rid the nation's waterways of pollution. But we need to remind ourselves and our government of what it is meant to do. It is important that we take action and call for a stronger EPA leadership nationwide.
Like most news reported by the media, facts can be skewed. Bias in news worthy stories is inevitable and should be expected. This is why thinking for yourself and doing your own research is important.
The Chicago Tribune recently did an article about BP. The same themed story was ran by the News-Sentinel as well, but the outcome of each article are quite different.
This is what all the fuss is about. "BP received permission from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be exempt from environmental laws that cap the amount of toxins into the lake. It will be allowed to include in its daily discharges into the lake 54 percent more ammonia (above the current 1,584 pounds) and 35 percent more sludge (above the current 4,925 pounds)."
"The exemption will allow the refinery to continue with a planned $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to handle heavy crude oil from Canada, which requires more extensive processing."
"The oil we get from Canada will be oil we don't need to get from the Mideast."
The good and the bad about this can be weighed and viewed on many different levels. There are always two sides to every story. The environmental implications are quite clear, but who is to judge the environment against the cost of oil to citizens and the dependence on countries who are not necessarily trustworthy.
The Chicago Tribune seemingly left out the part of this deal with Canada. Their implications were purely shedding light on the fact that this allowance for toxins to be dumped into the lake is bad for the environment. Folks, this is a Catch 22 clearly, debatable for many reasons. It's important whether you agree or disagree to always give all components of the story. Without understand the facts you are depriving yourself of valuable information. Sludge waste is NOT being dumped into the Michigan Lakes as the Chicago Tribune will lead you to believe. Emissions aren't as low as we would like and there is excessive silt being dumped into the lakes.
I do not agree with putting more ammonia in the air and I do not agree with allowing more pollution in any body of water. I do however see the debate and am happy that I do not have to make these types of decisions. One can only hope that a fair compromise can be made.
I mean do we really want to continue to depend on the Middle East to supply oil to our country? No, of course not. Do we want Michigan's lakes to be polluted? No, of course not. Fighting about this will not solve the problem, everyone needs to stop being catty and sit down to figure out other possible solutions.
Reducing emissions is something BP is striving to do as are many other companies in our nation. It's one thing in a pile of things that needs to be taken care of and checked off the metaphorical list. If you would like to learn more about BP you can read their fact sheet click through to the BP Whiting Refinery Fact Sheet.
