Earth Talk is a service by
The Environmental Magazine that is offered freely to all
CountryWatch users.
Earth Talk covers important ecological topics and emerging environmental issues – from complex phenomenon, such as climate change, to quotidian actions, such as recycling.
Earth Talk examines these matters by looking not only at the global implications but also at the effects on a daily basis.
June Installment of Earth Talk Friday, June 29, 2007
Earth Talk is a service by The Environmental Magazine that is offered freely to all CountryWatch users. Earth Talk covers important ecological topics and emerging environmental issues – from complex phenomenon, such as climate change, to quotidian actions, such as recycling. Earth Talk examines these matters by looking not only at the global implications but also at the effects on a daily basis.
EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Are mothballs safe to use? If not, are there any environmentally friendly alternatives?
-- Anna Wiener, Dearborn, Michigan
Even though they are not as popular as they once were, mothballs are still used by many people to keep stored clothes, furniture and carpets free of hungry pests like moths. But the very ingredients that make mothballs so effective as household pesticides—namely naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDB)—also make them dangerous to any person or animal who breathes the fumes or ingests them directly. Such chemicals are often listed as primary offenders when household air is tested for indoor air pollution.
Exposure to naphthalene or PDB can induce relatively minor human health problems such as nausea, vomiting, headache, coughing, burning eyes and shortness of breath. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer considers both naphthalene and PDB to be hazardous carcinogens as well. These chemicals, which are also found in some dry cleaning agents as well as household air fresheners and solid toilet-bowl deodorizers, have been found to nearly double the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a cancer of the blood—for those who come into frequent contact with them.
So what’s a conscientious homemaker to do? For starters, removing all mothballs and their flakes from the home is a good first step. Experts suggest donning gloves and even perhaps a mask before manually removing intact mothballs. Affected clothing can be machine-washed and dried several times, preferably on high heat settings. If the smell of mothballs continues to linger, any such clothes can be ironed—also with high heat settings, which tend to break down the active chemicals quicker. Sunlight also breaks down naphthalene and PDB, so leaving any affected items outside on hot sunny days may also help.
Carpets and upholstery co-mingled with mothballs should be vacuumed thoroughly, with vacuum cleaner bags containing mothball traces emptied immediately outdoors. If the mothball smell lingers after vacuuming, a professional cleaning might do the trick, although such services can introduce other harmful chemicals, such as the carcinogen perchloroethylene, into the household as well. (ChemDry and Zoots both offer in-home carpet and upholstery cleaning services that do not rely on harmful chemicals.) After any kind of mothball removal effort, the cleaned house or closet should be aired out, ideally with one or more fans blowing as much fresh outdoor air through as possible.
As to alternatives for keeping moths and other critters away from clothes and other valuable fabrics, Care2.com’s green home guru and author Annie Berthold-Bond suggests using home-made sachet pillows filled with a dried herb mixture combining two parts each of rosemary and mint, one part each of thyme and ginseng, and eight parts whole cloves. The herbs can be mixed and combined in the center of a bandana or handkerchief that is then tied with a ribbon and placed among the stored items. Also, Richards Housewares makes “Moth-Away Herbal Moth Repellant,” a pre-packaged product that makes use of a similar formula. It’s available from planetnatural.com and other online environmental product websites.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Napthalene page, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html; PlanetNatural Moth-Away page, www.planetnatural.com/site/moth-away.html.
Dear EarthTalk: Why do some people complain about fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste? I thought it was beneficial for dental health?
-- Becky Johnston, Shoreline, WA
Communities began adding fluoride to water supplies in the early 1940s after decades of studies into why some Colorado residents were exhibiting a discoloration or “mottling” of the teeth but at the same time very low rates of actual decay. The culprit turned out to be high concentrations of a naturally-occurring fluoride that was running off into the water from Pike’s Peak after rainfalls. Research later concluded that adding small, controlled amounts of fluoride into public water supplies would act as a form of community-wide cavity prevention without causing the undesirable mottling known at the time as “Colorado stain.”
Today, supporters of fluoridation cite research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that the very inexpensive fluoridation of drinking water has since correlated to significant reductions in incidences of tooth decay (15-40 percent) in communities across the country. But skeptics worry we may be getting too much of a good thing. While small amounts of fluoride will prevent tooth decay, excessive amounts can lead not only to irreversible tooth discoloration (today called “fluorosis”) but also to other health issues, including an increased risk of bone breakage and osteoporosis.
The problem, says Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which is opposed to fluoridation, is that the very water supplies that are treated for dental purposes are also used in the making of many common food products—from baby formula and cereal to juices, sodas, wines, beers and even fresh produce. And with most toothpastes also adding fluoride, many people are ingesting far more fluoride than they should.
The main concern for most people is the discoloration of children’s second teeth once the baby teeth are gone. Besides being embarrassing, there is no cure. And some doctors worry that excessive fluoride may actually be promoting tooth decay rather than preventing it—and harming kids in other ways, particularly as they get older. FAN cites studies showing how low-to-moderate doses of fluoride can lead to eczema, reduced thyroid activity, hyperactivity, IQ deficits, premature puberty and even bone cancer.
On the other side of the debate, concerns have risen that our increased reliance on non-fluoridated bottled water instead of tap water may be leading to increases in tooth decay (some bottled waters have added fluoride). However, speaking in a May 2002 UPI Science News article, John W. Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, said, “It’s very important to realize that there are many sources for body fluids…The fact that one may be consuming variable amounts of bottled water seems to me to be insufficient reason to be concerned about a fluoride deficient diet.”
Avoiding fluoride is difficult for those whose local water is fluoridated. And the only filters that can strain fluoride out of water are expensive ones that employ reverse osmosis, activated alumina or distillation. Switching to unfluoridated toothpaste—many varieties are available from natural health retailers—is one way to cut down on fluoride intake, especially for those who swallow toothpaste when they are brushing.
CONTACTS: Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov/oralhealth; Fluoride Action Network, www.fluoridealert.org.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
Week of 1-21-07 EARTH TALK Installment Monday, January 22, 2007
Topics discussed below:
1) Classroom dissection's impact on wildlife and the environment.
2) Fish farming: Can it help rescue the oceans?
EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Are the animals used in classroom dissection taken from the wild? If so, wouldn't this be endangering their populations? Are there other environmental issues associated with classroom dissection? -- William Conway, via e-mail
According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), most animals used in dissection--including amphibians, birds, snakes, turtles, fish and invertebrates--are taken from the wild, even though many have been declining in population. Smithsonian Institution researchers who surveyed 14 major dissection supply catalogs found only one that offered “farm-raised” amphibians; none of the others verified their sources.
Researchers from the World Conservation Union reported in 2004 that a third of all amphibian species around the globe, including frogs, were threatened with extinction. Although habitat loss, pollution and climate changes are the primary causes, demand for dissection specimens only makes matters worse. Analysts estimate that as six million wild frogs are destroyed each year in the U.S. alone for dissection.
Taking frogs from the wild also increases insect populations, including those that carry disease. Frogs eat more than their weight in bugs every day. Farmers the world over have long relied on frogs to keep crops pest-free, but a lack of frogs in recent years has led many farmers to switch to pesticides. Concerns about this prompted India to ban frog sales in 1987. India had been earning $10 million yearly on frog exports, but was spending $100 million importing insecticides, according to the group Mercy for Animals.
The use of formaldehyde in preserving animal specimens is also a concern. Classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a “hazardous air pollutant, water pollutant and waste constituent,” formaldehyde can cause nausea, headaches and breathing difficulties in people, and has been linked to cancer in animal studies. Teachers and students involved in frequent dissections are exposed to it regularly. Further, schools discard millions of formaldehyde-laden classroom specimens each year, raising questions about its effects on the larger ecosystem as well.
Animal advocacy groups and some educators also question dissection on both practical and ethical grounds. While it is intended to interest students in science, they say, it may be having an opposite affect while also encouraging cruelty to animals outside class. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a 1997 study of seventh graders found that fetal pig dissections fostered callousness toward animals and dissuaded students from pursuing science careers. PCRM also cites surveys where as many as 90 percent of students said they should be able to opt out of dissection.
A number of computer-based teaching tools now on the market provide alternatives to live animal dissection. Digital Frog International’s award-winning “Digital Frog 2” allows a student to “dissect” a computer-generated frog with a digital scalpel. The non-profit TeachKind provides a comprehensive online listing of such resources. Nine U.S. states--Florida, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, Virginia, Oregon and New Jersey--now have laws that allow students to beg out of cutting animals and to use such alternatives. Other states have implemented policies that serve a similar purpose.
CONTACTS: HSUS, hsus.org/animals_in_research/animals_in_education; PCRM, www.dissectionalternatives.org; TeachKind, www.teachkind.org/dissectalt.asp.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: What are the pros and cons of marine aquaculture, of raising ocean fish instead of catching them in the wild? -- Jeanne L., Norwalk, CT
Marine aquaculture, an age-old practice in parts of Asia, has grown in popularity in western countries in recent years in response to dwindling supplies of wild fish in the world’s oceans. According to the Pew Oceans Commission, a blue-ribbon panel of fisheries and marine biology experts, high-tech fishing practices, such as drift netting, have led to a potentially irreversible decline in populations of key seafood species. Some shark, tuna and cod species have declined as much as 90 percent in the past few decades.
Most marine biologists agree that, as human population continues to grow worldwide, there will not be enough wild-captured fish to meet demands for seafood. Aquaculture, “the propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected environments,” as defined by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is seen by many as the best way to fill the gap. Currently aquaculture supplies about 30 percent of the world’s seafood, up from just four percent 30 years ago.
James McVey of NOAA’s Sea Grant program says aquaculture can reduce the need for seafood imports and provide jobs for coastal communities. “The U.S. currently brings in $10 billion in seafood from other countries,” he says. “With increased production capacity, our higher yields from aquaculture will bring down this trade deficit, and improve food security--where we’re not as reliant on other nations for food.”
But aquaculture’s down sides give many scientists pause. Studies indicate that, despite the promise of reducing pressures on wild fish, aquaculture requires two pounds of wild-caught fish to use as feed to make one pound of farmed fish. Further, says SeaWeb, breeding farms--where thousands of fish, and their waste, are concentrated--breed diseases that can then escape and contaminate wild fish populations.
To control such outbreaks, many fish farmers treat their stocks with antibiotics that can also make their way into the oceans and wreak havoc. The farmed fish themselves also escape from their pens and interbreed with and take over habitat traditionally occupied by wild populations. Another major problem with aquaculture, according to SeaWeb, is its destruction of natural habitats. The group blames shrimp farming, for example, for destroying coastal mangrove forests in the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere.
But many scientists do feel that aquaculture has the potential for helping the world’s marine ecosystems rebound--if it is done conscientiously. Among other things, SeaWeb recommends that fish farmers avoid using drugs to fight disease and that governments do more to regulate and police aquaculture operations to make sure otherwise pristine waters are not fouled and sensitive coastal ecosystems are not damaged.
According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s “Seafood Watch” program, the greatest power to end irresponsible aquaculture rests with consumers. The organization’s website offers tips on which kinds of farmed seafood to buy and which to avoid. While no one person’s choices will improve the environment dramatically, collectively consumers can play a role in how producers treat the ecosystems they utilize.
CONTACTS: NOAA, www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/; SeaWeb’s “Ocean Briefings: Marine Aquaculture,” www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/aquaculture.php; Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Regional Seafood Guides, www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_regional.aspx.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/; or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
Note: CountryWatch Inc. is not responsible for the content of this material.