Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

There is No Such Thing as Clean Coal

August 11th, 2009

I’ve touched on some of the various health statistics associated with coal in other articles, but did not really get into the reasons why coal fired power plants cause the issues, or what the specific problems are.  To recap, there are more than 23,000 deaths in the US every year that can be attributed to emissions from coal fired power plants.  The main problems caused by the emissions are respiratory issues, such as asthma and chronic bronchitis.  DOE Air Quality Research also shows that there is a “positive correlation” with heart disease and lung cancer.

“Positive correlation” is another way of saying that we know the emissions cause illness, but it’s extremely difficult to scientifically prove a direct link.  Other studies show that emissions from power plants are the primary source for Mercury exposure in humans, in the form of Methylmercury, which can cause neurological symptoms.  More specifically, the EPA says, “Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother’s consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby’s growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.”

The health effects of coal power plant emissions are well known and well documented.  However, they are often either completely overlooked or even ignored when the US Coal Industry uses the term “clean coal.”  The primary argument used to justify the name “clean coal” are chemical scrubbing of *regulated* pollutants and Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).  Coal plants have been required to scrub emissions from regulated pollutants since the Clean Air Act, and the only thing new since the launch of the “clean coal” campaign was the hope of CCS.  Mercury has only recently been regulated.  On March 15, 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which established gradually decreasing caps.  Emissions from coal fired power plants still contain toxins that are not currently regulated, so until everything is captured, they cannot be clean.

Even IF all emissions from coal fired power plants are eliminated (will never happen), and everything is captured and sequestered, the waste needs to be stored.  The volume of the waste is too large for any permanent storage, and toxic spills like the one in the Tennessee Valley will continue to happen.  Mining coal is dirty, burning coal is dirty, and disposing of the waste products are dirty.  Power from coal will NEVER be clean.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Organic Food Study Results Misinterpreted

August 6th, 2009

There have been a lot of recent coverage on reports, like herehere, herehere and many more, that state that organic produce is no better for you than conventionally farmed produce.  The recent report by the UK Food Standards Agency came out that stated organic produce has no *nutritional* benefit above and beyond other crops.  Coverage of this report was blown out of proportion, and the interpretation by main stream media was that there is no reason to buy organic.  I can personally believe that there’s no nutritional benefit because the widespread use of fertilizer should be adding nutrients to plants (in addition to other things).

There are still other health reasons to buy organic, which are not related to nutritional content.  Many reports on pesticides used in the US focus on cancer only.  If you read the results carefully, they state that there is no proof that they cause cancer, not that they do not cause cancer.  These studies do not tell the full story for a few reasons:

  • It is unethical to try to give humans cancer in trials
  • It is *extremely* difficult to prove a direct link to any disease
  • It is hard to cause cancer immediately, as cell defects take time to grow into something harmful
  • Many harmful effects are a result of bioaccumulation
    • There are no long term exposure studies
    • Studies focus on *acute* toxicity, or only high doses all at once
  • Cancer is not the only problem caused by pesticides

One of the ongoing problems due in part to pesticides is male infertility.  Many pesticides are responsible for endocrine disruption because they mimic estrogen in the body.  One major highly publicized example in the past was high instances of sterility among fruit plantation workers in the Phillipines, caused by the pesticide Nemagon, which was manufactured by Dow Chemical Company.  The most serious incident related to direct impact from pesticides was on December 3rd, 1984 in Bhopal, India, where more than 2,200 people died and more than 500,000 people were exposed to toxic gases.

Advocates for the pesticide industry would like everyone to believe that events like this could never happen again, but the fact is that the sale of many harmful pesticides were only banned for sale in the US.  Banned pesticides can still be manufactured in the US, or by US companies, if they are sold to other countries with fewer restrictions.  While traditional farming is not the pesticide industry, they are the largest customer and cannot be dissociated from previous disasters.

Every generation of pesticides is supposedly safe for everyone, until long term effects are discovered from use, not in the lab.  The most recent generation has not been found to directly cause cancer, but they still cause infertility and birth defects . . . . but hey, it’s not cancer, right?

(Update: I have intentionally omitted environmental impact.  That post would be long enough on its own)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Comments: GreenPoint Rated Homes Not Healthy

August 1st, 2009

We got some comments on the Green Does Not Always Mean Healthy post that were worth calling out.  Apparently GreenPoint rated new homes have higher levels of formaldehyde than the notorious FEMA trailers.  New construction can be the worst because offgassing declines over time, and air circulation eventually clears it out.  The products to either avoid, or pay special attention to the materials used, are pressed wood products.

Thanks, Nat, Becky and Linda!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Green Does Not Always Mean Healthy

July 29th, 2009

The prime example of how green doesn’t always mean healthy is that of energy efficiency in building.  In the 1970’s, when energy prices spiked, building practices in the United States changed drastically.  More insulation was used, and more attention was paid to the thermal envelope so that heating and air conditioning energy was not wasted by allowing air to leak out of the building.  While it did save energy, preventing the air from flowing out of the building also prevented airborn toxins, dust and particles from being let out.

The rate at which air was replaced indoors dropped drastically, and as a result indoor air quality got worse, resulting in a rise in asthma and respiratory problems.  In order to stay healthy, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems need to fully replace the air after a given period of time.  Recommended rates may vary, but for residential buildings, replacing the air once an hour should be sufficient.  As replacement rates go up, so does energy usage, so the more efficient systems have heat exchangers allow the hot/cold air to transfer from the outgoing air to the incoming air.  To remain healthy and efficient, HVAC systems need to balance air transfer with energy usage.

Other common examples in building are insulation itself, and flooring.  Formaldehyde is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that can be found in a lot of building materials, including fiberglass insulation, and as a binding agent in wood flooring.  Insulation without formaldehyde can be used, and there are wood products with different binding agents.  When building green, you just need to be sure that what you are buying is also healthy.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon

Lost Coal Jobs Mean Lives Saved, Congratulate the Unemployed for Saving Lives

July 23rd, 2009

In a recent House session, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) expressed her objections to the the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Climate Bill).   Her main objection is that by 2020, Wyoming would lose up to “15,000 high paying jobs” that can’t be replaced by green energy jobs if the bill were passed, as the nation moves away from coal fired power plants.  That’s an average of about 1500 jobs a year lost, and she apparently believes that the jobs in her district are more important than the health and lives of the rest of the country.

If the bill passes, Wyoming jobs would be particularly hit hard because there are a disproportionately large number of jobs dependent upon coal.  Coal mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana produce more coal than any other area of the country, even the entire Appalachian region. Compared to the rest of the country, Wyoming does not have to burn as much coal because it is not a population center, and that means health effects from emissions are disproportionately low.

In the rest of the country from power plant emissions *every year*, there are more than 23,000 deaths, 21,000 hospital admissions, 26,000 emergency room visits for asthma, 38,000 heart attacks, 16,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 554,000 asthma attacks, and 3,186,000 lost work days (Source: Harvard Environmental Management, pdf p23).

I have not heard Rep. Lummis speak about responsibility, but I did hear Steven Leer, Chairman and CEO of Arch Coal speak about their mining operations in the Powder River Basin. It was clear that the people that mine coal, but do not burn it, completely abdicate themselves of any responsibility for coal fired power plant emissions.  We cannot let the deliberate distortion of the truth and intentional omissions continue to cause problems for the rest of us.

Rep. Lummis wants you to feel bad for the 1500+ workers and their families that will lose their jobs each year because of the Climate bill.  Apparently, she does not want you to feel bad for the 23,000+ people that die every year, or their families, because she feels it’s not the mining that’s responsible.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon