Archive for the 'Environmental illnesses' Category

Poison prevention is good all year long

An EPA alert I received Monday for Poison Prevention Month spells out the dangers of some common household items, some that are basic, like lawn and cleaning chemicals to others you may not have thought about, like hair products and nail polish.

When ingested by a small child, they all become hazardous.

Did you know that roughly 40 percent of the calls to U.S. Poison Control Centers involve children under the age of 3? That those calls come every 13 seconds?

The EPA alert offered a Web page of information, tips and links for parents about the dangers of pesticides and household products.

Parents should post emergency contacts, including the Local Poison Control number 1-800-222-1222, in a prominent place near a phone and take other steps to ensure their children are safe. A few suggestions from the EPA:

  • Read product labels of all household items, from cleaning supplies to health and beauty supplies and everything in between.
  • Use the safest possible cleaners and look for the Design for the Environment (DfE) label.
  • Never leave products unattended when you are using them.
  • Never transfer pesticides to other containers; children may associate certain containers with food or drink.
  • Check out this room-by-room checklist to see how to eliminate hazards.

Check out these other sites to help keep your family safe: Poison Prevention; the the American Association of Poison Control Centers; and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

— Linda J.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Kentucky legislature runs on coal, says Wendell Berry, others

By Andy Mead
amead@herald-leader.com
FRANKFORT — In one hearing room, legislators listened to report by a director of the Harvard Medical School warning that coal, from mining to moving to burning, is killing Kentuckians.

One legislator responded by noting that obesity also kills people, and wondered if food should be banned.

Then, a little while later in an adjacent room, a group of environmentalists led by author Wendell Berry said they were fed up with the General Assembly.

“We have petitioned, marched, sung, written, lobbied, testified and pleaded — all to no avail,” Berry said. “But today we declare that business as usual in Frankfort — long intolerable — has now become unacceptable.”

The environmentalists, members of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC), took turns reading a Declaration of Independence-type statement.

It called on the state’s political leaders to break their close ties with coal, remove legislators with ties to coal companies from leadership positions, and call for an end to “extreme and sometimes violent speech” directed at people who speak out against coal in the coalfields.

Their message: Coal production and demand is ebbing, but Kentucky is not taking steps toward new energy sources and jobs.

Environmentalists characterized the declaration as a major step, but its effectiveness is doubtful.

The declaration specified, for example, that Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, should be removed from chairmanship of the House Natural Resources Committee. A “stream-saver” bill that would curtail mountaintop removal mining in Eastern Kentucky is introduced every year, but can’t get a hearing before Gooch’s committee, the environmentalists said.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo later said he had no plans to replace Gooch. Both men have close ties to the coal industry.

In speaking of what they characterized as hostile feelings against them stirred up by the coal industry, several environmentalists mentioned Haven King, the Perry County clerk. He is director of Coal Mining Our Future, an industry-sponsored non-profit that was formed to oppose the stream-saver bill.

A KFTC document listed several instances of hostility, including an unnamed coal company in Harlan County that was forced to shut down because it has put too much sludge in a pond. It laid off workers and gave them the names of people in the community who had complained about the pond, the document said.

King, contacted later, ran down a long list of charitable deeds done by his group, sometimes in concert with KFTC members.

“We’re out here helping the community,” he said. “We’re not trying to intimidate nobody.”

Asked about the report from the Harvard Medical School about the health effects of coal, King said this:

“I have all these people saying these things like global warming, I guess that’s why they’re having this much snow now.”

The report was by Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Harvard school’s Center for Health and Global Environment.

It was presented to the House Committee on Health and Welfare. There was no bill on the issue before the committee. KFTC’s Kevin Pentz said the group would like to see the legislature back a study of the overall costs of coal, but had little faith that would happen.

Epstein’s report said the public health costs of coal are immense.

“Each step of the coal lifecycle — extraction, processing, transportation, burning and waste storage — generates enormous public health burdens.,” he wrote.

The committee gave KFTC 20 minutes to present Epstein’s report and another by a West Virginia researcher, then moved on to other matters.

To read the KFTC documents, go here: http://u.nu/7mtk6

Share/Save/Bookmark

Follow coal plant air quality hearing on Twitter, Facebook

Environmentalists opposed to East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s proposed coal-burning plant in Clark County will be attending a public hearing on an air quality permit for the plant on Thursday, Feb. 4.
The hearing begins at 6:30 p.m. at Clark County Cooperative Extension,
1400 Fortune Drive in Winchester.
A half hour before the hearing, several people will be speaking about pollution and health impacts from the plant. That group includes Dr. Vicki Holmberg, a Lexington physician.

The environmentalists say there will be live updates from the hearing on Twitter (#STOPSMITH) and
Facebook (Group name: No New Coal Plants in Clark County!).

Environmentalists have been trying for years to stop the project, now known as Smith 1. So far, only limited, but potentially significant, success: At the request of Wendell Berry and others, the Kentucky Public Service Commission has opened an investigation into whether the plant is needed.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Environmental groups oppose air permit for coal-fired plant

For months, environmental groups have been questioning the need for a new coal-fired electricity generating plant in Clark County. On Monday, the state issued a draft permit for East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s Smith 1 plant, and the environmentalists jumped on it. Their press release is below.
Environmentalists got a little traction in this fight last month when the Kentucky Public Service Commission agreed to take a look at whether the plant is necessary.

For immediate release: Monday, January 4, 2010
Pollution permit for coal-fired plant threatens air, public health
Officials should consider clean energy as an affordable, reliable solution

LEXINGTON, Ky. – The state’s release of a draft air pollution permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Kentucky poses serious threats to air quality, drinking water supplies and public health, said a coalition of rural electric cooperative ratepayers and environmental and health groups.

The good news, the groups said, is that there still is an opportunity to invest in cleaner solutions to the proposed 278-megawatt Smith plant before the Kentucky Division of Air Quality makes the permit final and allows East Kentucky Power Cooperative to proceed with the $766 million project.

“Medical research shows clearly that air pollution from coal-fired electrical generation plants like Smith causes human diseases and death,” said Philip Curd, MD, a Jackson County physician and member of the Jackson Energy Co-op. “We could prevent a lot of disease and death by building less coal-fired plants and putting more resources into renewable energy and energy conservation.”

Instead of allowing EKPC to saddle its customers with nearly $1 billion in debt to build a plant that’s not even needed, Curd and others in the coalition said state officials have a duty to protect the health of Kentuckians and their air and water by denying the final permit in light of cleaner electricity options.

“I need my co-op to provide electricity to my family and my community, but I want them to do it in a way that won’t make children’s health worse,” said Janet Futrell, teacher and Bluegrass Energy member. “We’ve already got poor air quality from power plant pollution, and the coal burned at the Smith plant will only make matters worse.”

Coal plant emissions include fine particulate matter – or soot – which is linked to respiratory problems like asthma and pulmonary disease, as well as heart problems, and is unsafe at any level. Coal plants also are a major source of mercury, a highly toxic metal that can result in developmental disorders and chronic disease and is especially harmful to children. The Smith plant’s mercury emissions would settle out and accumulate in rivers, lakes and streams in Kentucky and into the food chain through fish.

Other pollutants that will come out of the Smith plant’s smokestacks include sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain; nitrogen oxides, which lead to asthma-causing smog formation; and carbon dioxide, which the EPA announced last month is a danger to human health because of its climate change impacts.

Coal prices have risen steadily in the past several years, and EKPC members have been subjected to frequent rate increases. In November the Licking Valley Co-op got permission from the Public Service Commission to raise its per kilowatt hour rate to nearly 10 cents. Carbon control legislation, necessary for curbing harmful greenhouse gas emissions, would raise the costs of dirty energy even higher.

“There are also huge public health costs associated with burning coal,” said Vicki Holmberg, a Lexington physician. Holmberg pointed to an October 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences estimating that pollution from coal-burning power plants costs the nation roughly $62 billion every year in health care costs. “Kentucky should be moving toward energy solutions that will avoid the health and economic problems that are resulting in the cancellation of permits for new coal plants all over the country.” Nationwide, in 2009, 26 proposals for coal plants were abandoned or rejected, mainly because the plants were too expensive.

By contrast, expert analyses conducted in Kentucky over the last several years have documented the financial, economic and environmental benefits of energy solutions such as weatherization, solar hot water, hydro and wind power. These reports consistently found that such programs help utility members save energy and money.

“Weatherization projects don’t require air permits, and renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro don’t release air pollution that can kill people like coal soot does,” said Miranda Brown of Winchester, who is concerned with the impacts of the Smith plant on her community. “Efficiency and renewable energy programs are just as affordable and reliable as coal. They can help ratepayers save money, and they create more jobs than a single coal-burning plant. I urge Kentucky regulators to look closely at the facts and choose clean energy solutions instead of the Smith plant.”

The Kentucky DAQ has scheduled a public hearing for the permit on February 4th at 6:30 PM at the Clark County Cooperative Extension Office, to which all members of the public can attend to give oral comments. Written comments can be submitted to the Kentucky DAQ within 30 days by email at James.Morse@ky.gov with a copy to the US EPA at Worley.Gregg@epamail.epa.gov.

###

Background information on the Smith power plant and the energy efficiency/renewable energy options can be found at http://www.kftc.org/stop-smith, http://www.kyenvironmentalfoundation.org, and http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/ky/.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Children’s art easels recalled because of lead

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a recall notice for about 10,000 Young Artists Easels, because the chalkboard surface contains high levels of lead.

The easels, manufactured in China for MacPherson’s, of Emeryville, Calif., were sold between July 2004 and June 2009.

Use this form to tell the CPSC about any injury reports or hazards related to this recalled product.

For details about replacements for the easels, contact the company at (866) 319-5335 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, visit the firm’s Web site at www.art-alternatives.com/recall or send email to recall@macphersonart.com.

— Linda J.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Coal costs nation $62 billion a year, mostly in premature deaths, National Research Council says

Posted on Mon, Oct. 19, 2009
Report: Pollution from burning coal costs $62 billion a year
By Andy Mead
amead@herald-leader.com

Pollution from burning coal to generate electricity costs the United States $62 billion a year, according to a report being released Monday by the National Research Council.

The report, Hidden Costs of Energy, attempts to put a dollar value on the true costs of various energy sources. Most costs were calculated in people dying from the pollution, the study’s authors said.

The report was requested by Congress. It concentrates on putting a value on the damage to human health, crops, timber yields, buildings and from major pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

Coal accounts for about half the electricity produced in the country, and more than 90 percent in Kentucky.

The report does not attempt to put a monetary value on coal mining. But it notes the environmental problems associated with underground and surface mines.

Mountaintop removal mining “shares the negative externalities of other types of surface mining and has other externalities as well,” the report says.

It lists a report by the Environmental Protection Agency that looked at more than 1,200 stream segments in the southern Appalachians impacted by mountaintop removal and the associated valley fills.

That EPA report found increased levels of minerals such as zinc and selenium in the water, increased stream flow below the valley fills, slow regrowth of forest because of compacted soils.

The research council report also looks at the dollar impacts of oil, natural gas, nuclear and alternative energy sources.

The report is linked from the article here: http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/983234.html

Share/Save/Bookmark

Sand castles may be harmful to your health. Really.

Planning a visit to a beach this summer? University of North Carolina researchers say you can walk on the sand, but shouldn’t dig into it (don’t know if this applies to Boonesborough Beach on the Kentucky River).

Here’s the UNC press release:

CHAPEL HILL - Children and adults who build castles and dig in the sand at the beach are at greater risk of developing gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhea than people who only walk on the shore or swim in the surf, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Protection Agency.

People who playfully bury their bodies in the sand are at even greater risk, according to the study published online recently in theAmerican Journal of Epidemiology. It also shows children, who are more likely than adults to play with and possibly get sand intheir mouths, stand the greatest chance of becoming ill after a day at the beach.

“Beach sand can contain indicators of fecal contamination, but we haven’t understood what that means for people playing in the sand,” said Chris Heaney, Ph.D., a postdoctoral epidemiology student at UNC’s Gillings School of Global Public Health and lead author of the study. “This is one of the first studies to show an association between specific sand contact activities and illnesses.”

The study is based on interviews with more than 27,000 people who visited seven freshwater and marine beaches in the agency’s National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water Study

(NEEAR) between 2003 and 2005 as well as in 2007. All beaches in the study had sewage treatment plant discharges within seven miles, although the source of sand pollution was unknown and could have included urban runoff as well as wild and domestic animal contamination. Water quality at the beaches was within acceptable limits, Heaney said.

“We have known for some time that swimming in waters polluted by fecal contamination can result in illness, but few previous studies have focused on sand,” said Tim Wade, Ph.D., an EPA epidemiologist and the study’s senior author. “People should not be discouraged from enjoying sand at the beach, but should take care to use a hand sanitizer or wash their hands after playing in the sand.”

People were asked about their contact with sand on the day they visited the beach (digging in the sand or whether they were buried in it). Then, 10 to 12 days later, participants were telephoned and asked questions about any health symptoms they had experienced since the visit.

Researchers found evidence of gastrointestinal illnesses, upper respiratory illnesses, rash, eye ailments, earache and infected cuts. Diarrhea and other gastrointestinal illnesses were more common in about 13 percent of people who reported digging in sand, and in about 23 percent of those who reported being buried in sand.

“A lot of people spend time at the beach, especially in the summer,” Heaney said. “And while we found that only a small percentage of people who played at the beach became ill later - less than 10 percent in any age group, for any amount of exposure - it’s important to look at the situation more closely. If we find evidence that shows exposure to sand really does lead to illness, then we can look for the sources of contamination and minimize it. That will make a day at the beach a little less risky.”

For more information, visit: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org.

Share/Save/Bookmark