Category Archives: Environment

Governor Gregoire Stops Tilting at Windmills

Governor Gregoire has chosen to do the right thing although not everyone agreed. She has given the go-ahead to the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project to build up to 65 wind turbines on ridges overlooking Route 97 northwest of Ellensburg in eastern Washington.

Back in July Governor Gregoire had asked the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to re-evaluate the project based on concerns of local rural residents opposed to the Project. At the time we felt Governor Gregoire was tilting at windmills and needed to show leadership.

With an emphasis to build them as far away as possible from residences, the go ahead was significant in that it overrode local opposition to the project by the Kittitas Couty Board of Commissioners.

The Seattle Times quotes US Congressman Doc Hastings, a supporter of nuclear power from the TriCities area as saying, “I fear this precedent will embolden energy companies to bypass local leaders and go to the Governor to have projects imposed on communities.”

Funny thing, I seem to remember that this was exactly what the nuclear power industry tried to do in Washington State back in the 1970’s and 1980’s when they were promoting the WPPSS nuclear power plants at Satsop. I doubt you’ll find any similiar quotes from Hastings back then supporting local opposition to those projects.

Washington voters, by passing Initiative 394 back in 1981, said that they didn’t want to be indebted for bonds for large public energy projects without having a vote first. Washington voters last year actually voted to promote more renewable energy use in Washington State with the passage of Initiative 937.

The Kittitas Valley Wind Project represents a significant step in meeting the goals of Initiative 937 to achieve 15% of our energy from new renewable energy resources like wind by 2020. Governor Gregoire has made the right decision by listening to the voters and acting in the public interest.

Bush Blowing Up God’s Mountains for Black Gold

The Bush Republican Administration, beholden to corporate interests over the public interest, has issued draft revisions to surface mining law to increase blowing up mountain tops to strip mine more coal. The draft rules authorize disposal of mine waste in valleys and streams, polluting water downstream, including underground aquifers, with toxic chemicals.

The Bill Moyers Journal last Friday did a special on this issue, covering the action by Evangelical Christians in West Virginia who have organized under the banner of Christians for the Mountains. They are fighting to protect their families, children and communities from rampant air and water pollution, including their drinking water.

Moyers quotes one member of Christians for the Mountains, Judy Bonds:”

There are three million pounds of explosives used a day just in West Virginia to blow the tops off these mountains. Three million pounds a day…To knock fly rock everywhere, to send silica and coal dust and rock dust and fly rock in our homes. I wonder which one of these mountains do you think God will come down here and blow up? Which one of these hollers do you think Jesus would store waste in? That’s a simple question. That’s all you have to ask.”

As John M Broder for the New York Times writes:

“Mountaintop mining is the most common strip mining in central Appalachia, and the most destructive. Ridge tops are flattened with bulldozers and dynamite, clearing all vegetation and, at times, forcing residents to move.
The coal seams are scraped with gigantic machines called draglines. The law requires mining companies to reclaim and replant the land, but the process always produces excess debris. Roughly half the coal in West Virginia is from mountaintop mining …”

The industry political connection, Broder says came about as follows:

“The Clinton administration began moving in 1998 to tighten enforcement of the stream rule, but the clock ran out before it could enact new regulations. The Bush administration has been much friendlier to mining interests, which have been reliable contributors to the Republican Party, and has worked on the new rule change since 2001.

The early stages of the revision process were supported by J. Stephen Griles, a former industry lobbyist who was the deputy interior secretary from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Griles had been deputy director of the Office of Surface Mining in the Reagan administration and is knowledgeable about the issues and generally supports the industry.

In June, Mr. Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years’ probation for lying to a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the heart of a corruption scandal who is now in prison.”

Broder notes that the stream rule referred to is a critical issue:

The rule, which would apply to waste from both types of mines, is known as the stream buffer zone rule. First adopted in 1983, it forbids virtually all mining within 100 feet of a river or stream. …

The Army Corps of Engineers, state mining authorities and local courts have read the rule liberally, allowing extensive mountaintop mining and dumping of debris in coal-rich regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. From 1985 to 2001, 724 miles of streams were buried under mining waste, according to the environmental impact statement accompanying the new rule. If current practices continue, another 724 river miles will be buried by 2018, the report says.

You can get a lot more information on this issue by going to the webpage set up by the Bill Moyers Journal. Go to references and reading.

You can read and give your comments on the proposed rule and draft Environmental Impact Statement by going to the website for the US Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department. There is a 60 day comment period.

The glaring loopholes in this rule are obvious. Their August 24, 2007 press release says:

“All mining activities must still avoid increases in sedimentation and protect fish and wildlife and related environmental values “to the extent possible” using the “best technology currently available.” and “use the most environmentally protective alternative or explain why that alternative is not possible

These rules really set no real conditions at all with such vague language. It’s totally up to those approving the permits. If you have mining industry people running the program as Bush currently does, then getting a permit really means little or nothing.

Got Microwave Popcorn? Got Bronchiolitis Obliterans? Got Milk?

Workers at popcorn plants exposed to diacetyl have developed a rare lung disease known as bronchiolitis obliterans. This has been investigated since 2001 yet the Occupational Health and Safety Administration has not acted to protect workers health by coming up with workplace exposure regulations.

Now this week two cases have emerged of people developing “popcorn workers lung” as it is sometimes called. It can result in the need to have a lung transplant or death. One case was reported by a pulmonary specialist at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver of a 10 year twice a day microwave popcorn eater. The other potential case was of a son of a popcorn worker who received a huge amount of microwave popcorn from his job.

After years of inaction, including secretly seeing the results of an EPA microwave popcorn study last year, the popcorn industry is stampeding to the exits. Last week Weaver Popcorn Company of Indianapolis, Indiana announced that it was removing diacetyl, the suspected toxic ingredient, from microwave popcorn. Yesterday three more companies claim they will be jumping ship. ConAgra Foods Inc, General Mills, and American Popcorn Company said they would be removing diacetyl from their popcorn.

Last week I posted on this issue – “The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal” I noticed soon afterwards that my site , MajorityRulesBlog, had been visited by someone from ConAgra . If you Google on microwave popcorn and diacetyl you will see there is a lot of web activity on this issue.

Diacetyl is not just in popcorn but actually occurs in some food naturally, like milk and wine. The Dairy Industry is concerned of course but their website actually raised more questions.

The IDFA or International Daisry Foods Association notes that

“…diacetyl occurs naturally in some dairy products, and consumers may not realize that eating products with diacetyl poses no health risks. The health risk is associated with inhaling diacetyl that has been heated to temperatures over 100 degrees.

“Because of the nature of our products, dairy foods that contain diacetyl do not present a consumer or worker safety concern,” said Clay Detlefsen, IDFA vice president. “At colder temperatures, diacetyl attaches to the water molecules in dairy foods and never volatilizes or reaches the air.”

When used as artificial butter flavoring, diacetyl may be hazardous when heated and inhaled over a long period — such as in the production of microwave popcorn and some other heated food products. Some workers in factories that make the artificial flavoring have been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterns, also known as “popcorn workers lung,” which causes serious respiratory problems…

Diacetyl also occurs naturally in wine, particularly chardonnay, and is used as an additive in many baked goods, candies and snack foods as well as in some dairy products.”

Several additional questions arise. What other foods, besides popcorn, contain diacetyl and in what amounts? And what is the workplace exposure levels to diacetyl of workers that are preparing foods heated over 100 degrees – like baked goods? And what consumer danger is there from heating foods that contain diacetyl over 100 degrees like in a microwave or oven?

A just released study entitled “Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome in Chemical Workers Producing Diacetyl for Food Flavorings” was published in the Sept 1, 2007 online edition of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The study concludes: “Exposure to an agent during diacetyl production appears to be responsible for causing bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in chemical process operators, consistent with the suspected role of diacetyl in downstream food production.”

Enough scientific evidence is accumulating that there is reason to be concerned about diacetyl in all food products, not just popcorn, that are microwaved or heated to high enough temperatures to vaporize diacetyl. And worker safety levels need to be put in place in chemical plants producing the buttery flavoring diacetyl and well as plants adding the chemical as flavoring for food.

Since the Bush Administration seems not interested in tacking worker and consumer health and safety issues regarding diacetyl, action needs to take place in Congress to investigate and take action. Some states like California are already looking at acting sooner rather than later.

Contact your Representatives in Congress and urge them to take action.

Questions for the EPA

I sent the following e-mail to the Seattle District Office of the EPA today. I’ll let you know what they write back.

To the EPA:

I understand according to recent articles in the Seattle PI that the EPA completed a study last year on the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn. Results were supposedly made available to the popcorn industry, yet not to the public.

Diacetyl is known to cause serious health problems to workers exposed to it. I would like to know what amounts I am being exposed to by microwaving popcorn.

Where and when or how can I receive a copy of this study or see a copy of this study?
When is this study going to be released?
Why has this study not been released yet?
What concerns does this study raise regarding the safety of microwave popcorn?
Have you alerted any other Federal Agencies, Congress or the President regarding the results of this study?

Steve Zemke
MajorityRulesBlog

I did a quick keyword search of the EPA library system and it returned nothing for the words diacetyl and microwave popcorn. Try it yourself at EPA national online library system. For comparison, typing in pcb produced 786 documents and lead 3895.

The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal – Part II

Follow Bill Clinton’s example – don’t inhale. Microwave popcorn releases toxic diacetyl vapors. This is the buttery aroma you smell when you open the bag. Don’t inhale, because the Bush Administration is continuing to cover up the scandal and is not acting to protect your health.

The New York Times today reports that a “Doctor Links a Man’s Illness to Microwave Popcorn.”

“Heated diacetyl becomes a vapor and, when inhaled over a long period of time, seems to lead the small airways in the lungs to become swollen and scarred. Sufferers can breathe in deeply, but they have difficulty exhaling. The severe form of the disease is called bronchiolitis obliterans or “popcorn workers’ lung,” which can be fatal.”

We wrote last week about “The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal.” This is new evidence damning the inaction of the Bush Administration in addressing a serious documented workplace hazard as well as a consumer health hazard.

Bush officials in the Environmental Protection Agency have measured the release of diacetyl from microwave popcorn but have not released the study to the public. The study was completed last year. The results were meanwhile given to the popcorn industry.

With this latest evidence and inaction we are obviously now in the throes of the “Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Cover-up“. The Bush team is obviously more intent on protecting corporate profits than alerting the public to the serious health risk of consumers being exposed to toxic diacetyl vapors.

This is the problem you get when you saturate the Federal bureaucracy, that is supposed to represent the public interest, with corporate and partisan politicians beholden to corporate interests as Bush has done. The Republican “Corporations First” policies of Bush is a disastrous one for our nation. Individual and worker concerns about health and safety are made subordinate to corporate profits.

As the Seattle PI wrote about last week and today, the Bush Administration is not acting on regulating and cleaning up the toxic workplace conditions that exist in industries like the popcorn industry. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health first investigated workers injured and dying in Midwest popcorn plants starting in 2001.

Despite serious life threatening workplace exposure to diacetyl, the Bush Administration, carrying out the conservative Republican Agenda to not regulate corporations, has not taken prudent action to protect worker safety and health. And now it appears that they are also ignoring the consumer health risk.

Consider these two statements quoted in today’s Seattle PI article.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., chairwoman of a work force protection subcommittee:

“The reported case of a consumer diagnosed with popcorn lung underscores the need for our public health agencies to take this hazard more seriously, not only for workers, but for consumers as well. While OSHA is dragging its feet over the numerous reports of workers who have died or suffered serious lung disease from exposure to diacetyl, this new case raises concerns that consumers may be at risk as well.”

As well as this comment:

Dr. David Egilman, an occupation medicine specialist, has examined and testified for many of the workers injured by diacetyl.
“People need to realize that these illness and deaths were completely preventable,” Egilman said. “They occurred because the companies who make these products hid the information on toxicity and control the regulatory process. … An emasculated government public health community that is subservient to corporate profits cannot protect us — even from popcorn”

I urge people to contact their Congressional representatives and urge action be taken to remove diacetyl form microwave popcorn, to put workplace protection in place for workers exposed to diacetyl and to ask that other foods with diacetyl in them that are heated or microwaved be investigated for possible health dangers.

The Seattle PI mentions that diacetyl is also in “potato chips, baked goods and candies, frozen food, artificial butter, cooking oils, beer, dog food and other items”

Tell Congress to take action to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of diacetyl in heated or microwaved foods. Click here to send a message to Congress.

The Great Bush Toxic Popcorn Scandal

Bet you thought the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal Agencies worked for the public good? Wrong again. The EPA under Bush is just another Federal Agency working to protect corporate interests. This time its corporate popcorn profits.

After you read the story in the Seattle PI today you probably won’t want to eat any more microwavable popcorn. Remember the rush of hot moisture and vapor when you open the bag and how it smells “buttery”?

As headlined in the Seattle PI today, the chemical ingredient diacetyl, which is added to popcorn to give it a buttery taste, has been linked to “the sometime fatal destruction of the lungs of hundreds of workers in food production and flavoring factories.”

As the PI correspondent Andrew Schneider writes diacetyl is in thousands of consumer products including microwaved popcorn:

Despite the worker safety findings — and despite scores of jury decisions and settlements awarding millions of dollars to workers who sued after having their lungs destroyed by exposure to diacetyl — neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission have investigated. The FDA years ago declared the chemical safe for consumption. Labels on almost all products containing it call it a flavoring and only rarely do the labels mention diacetyl.
The only government investigators to examine whether consumers are at risk — whether diacetyl is released when consumers pop corn in their home microwaves, and if so, how much — is the Environmental Protection Agency. But to the frustration of many public health workers, the findings of the EPA’s study — which began in 2003 and was completed last year — have been released only to the popcorn industry
.”

The Pi notes that ConAgra, the largest supplier of microwave popcorn in the world told the EPA in 2004 that it had found that diacetyl was released when microwave popcorn bags are opened. It told EPA that “it is imperative that the health and safety of this product be assured to the extent possible within the very near future”

Bush’s EPA seems to have complied with this corporate wish. If the public doesn’t know, then it must be safe. Even though the study was completed last year the public has not been told of the results.

And even if they are, these days with non scientists in the Bush Administration rewriting and controlling the release of scientific studies it will be hard to discern what the actual study results found. And as the PI notes, this particular study was even done with industry involvement. Unfortunately it is also a limited study, not looking at health effects , only amounts of chemicals released.

And these releases to workers have been fatal. As the PI reports further diacetyl in food manufacturing plants “been linked to bronchiolitis obliterans — irreversible obstructive lung diseases — for which lung transplants are often the only way to survive.”

Despite this seriousness, both the Bush Administration Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have declined to act. Corporate profits at any cost including human life reign supreme in the Bush Republican run Federal bureaucracy.

see additional articles:

artificial butter flavorings produced in popcorn factories linked with lung cancer

St Louis Post Dispatch – Popcorn Study showed Chemical was Toxic

Washington Post – Flavoring Suspected in Illness – Calif. Considers Banning Chemical in Microwave Popcorn

IndyStar.com – Microwave Popcorn Maker Takes Initiative

NY Times – OSHA Leaves Worker Safety in Hands of Industry

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Releases August 21, 2007 Primary Endorsements

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club announced their first round of endorsements for the August 21, 2007 Washington State Primary election. Scott Otterson, Chair of the Political Committee of the Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter said that several more endorsements would be announced shortly. We will post additional endorsements as they are released. (updated August 15, 2007)

Snohomish County Council #2 Brian Sullivan
Snohomish County Council #3 Mike Cooper
Camas Mayor Paul Dennis
City Council #4 Charlene Rawson
Everett City Council #7 Jackie Minchew
Lynnwood City Council #5 Stephanie Wright
Mill Creek City Council #6 Ed McNichol
Vancouver City Council #4 Timothy D. Leavitt
Vancouver City Council #5 Larry Smith
Vancouver City Council #6 Dan Tonkovich
Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 1 Jack Block Jr. and Gael Tarleton (dual endorsement)
Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 5 Alec Fisken
King Couty Proposition No. 1 – Regional and Rural Parks Levy – yes
King County Proposition No. 2 – Open Space, Regional Trails and Woodland Park Zoo Levy – yes
Redmond Parks levy, Proposition No. 2 – yes

The Price Relation Between Beer, Barley, Corn, Ethanol and Tortillas

The Denver Post reports that beer prices are rising faster than inflation. Expect it to increase even more by next year. Farmers in Washington State along with those in Idaho, Montana, Minnesota and North Dakota are partly to blame – they have planted 22 percent less barley than last year.

Barley is a key ingredient in making beer and the price of barley has gone up 48% since last year. The impact on beer prices is just starting to show up now since barley contacts usually are bought a year in advance.

Farmers are planting less barley because the expanding market for biofuels like E85 composed of 85% ethanol are driving up corn prices. The Denver Post reports the price of corn futures up 49% since December 2005.

But its not just beer prices that are affected by America’s gluttony for driving. The lack of foresight and action by Bush to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks to reduce America’s need for more fuel, combined with a push for biofuels, has resulted in increased competition for corn. The push by Bush to switch from gasoline to biofuels is not the answer to America being hostage to foreign oil.

Producing ethanol from corn comes at a price. And its more than just beer. Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist in London writing in the Toledo Blade on July 10, 2007 notes that the increased use of corn for biofuels is raising food prices worldwide and will mean starvation for more of the world’s poor.

Dyer notes that “the mania for

“bio-fuels” is shifting huge amounts of land out of food production. One-sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be “industrial corn” destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.
The attraction of bio-fuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming (though the claims are deeply suspect), without actually demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters. The amount of US farmland devoted to bio-fuels grew by 48 percent in the last year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production. In other big bio-fuel producers like China and Brazil it’s the same straight switch from food to fuel. In fact, the food market and the energy market are becoming closely linked, which is very bad news for the poor.”

Dyer is not the first to question the rush to biofuels. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute is an early critic of what he calls the “ethanol euphoria.” In testimony before Congress last month he stressed that

“The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year’s U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world’s leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability. “

Brown very succinctly sums up the impending problem with biofuel from corn:

As more and more fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil-equivalent value in what appears to be the beginning of a long-term rise.
The food and energy economies, historically separate, are now merging. In this new economy, if the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food. If oil jumps from $60 to $80 a barrel, you can bet that your supermarket bills will also go up. If oil climbs to $100, how much will you pay for a dozen eggs?
From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs
.

Which gets us back to fuel efficiency standards for cars – Brown notes that there is a simple answer:

“A rise in auto fuel efficiency standards of 20 percent, phased in over the next decade would save as much oil as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol.”

I suggest you tell your Senators and Representative what you think we should do. They are currently considering and debating new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.

Global Warming and Poison Ivy

Poison ivy is no joke. If you dare, check out some actual pictures of poison ivy rashes here.

Then check out this recent editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Even the Washington Post was impressed enough to reprint it in their editorial roundup. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Recent studies suggest that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are promoting leafier, more prolific, faster-growing – and itchier – poison ivy than ever before. And that could be killing off more trees in the forest, and causing more itches for more of us, than ever before.
Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s crop systems and global change laboratory in Maryland found that today’s CO2 levels are doubling poison ivy growth – and making it itchier than 50 years ago.”

The editorial goes on to say that studies done by Duke University found that carbon dioxide levels projected for the middle of this century due to continuing global warming resulted in a 149% faster growing crop of three leaved poison ivy and one that was much more potent.

I saw this editorial after visiting my own family home in Ohio. I noticed poison ivy seemed to be growing a lot more places. When I was a kid I got a bad case of poison ivy when I pulled some out near my favorite hiding place under the lilac bush. Now it seemed to be popping up in many other places on the two acres we owned.

My aunt asked me if I would help her by trimming up a ground cover area in front of her house and I noticed a lot of poison ivy spouting up in it. She commented that it seemed to be getting worse over time and she had already pulled a lot of it out. She attributed the spread to the local gardening company that last had worked on her lawn. More likely it was really global warming in action. My aunt’s friend also commented on the increased growth of poison ivy on her property when I mentioned it.

Poison Ivy climbs trees just like the English ivy that has spread in Seattle, threatening to choke and kill trees in mass. The editorial notes that “scientists think the woody vine could alter the forest composition around the globe by choking off trees.” Poison ivy also grows in Seattle. It hard enough to try to stop the spread of English ivy – adding more prolific growth of poison ivy to the mix will make things much more difficult.

Death by Plastic- Another Inconvenient Truth

The Seattle City Council last week held a hearing on its new plan to further reduce waste and promote more recycling and reuse. One of the proposals pushed by citizens was to ban Styrofoam use in the city. Another was to require stores to charge for plastic and paper bags to encourage people to bring their own reusable bag.

What the hell, one might ask. What’s the big deal about Styrofoam and plastics? Isn’t Styrofoam just a bunch of small beads of light weight inert plastic particles clumped together to form take out food containers and such? Who ever got killed or even maimed by a Styrofoam food container? Isn’t their benign nature one of the reasons they are used for food?

I remembered reading an article last year on the Internet about Styrofoam particles accumulating in the oceans and being ingested by zoo plankton. Concern was raised about the impact on the food chain.

I decided to look again to see if I could get more information. And now I am much more concerned. The first article I checked out was one that the Seattle Times printed last year in the Pacific Northwest Magazine. The article was entitled “Oceans of Waste – Waves of junk are flowing into the food chain”

It seems that all the plastic flowing into the sea has created a huge garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean , some 1000 miles across, twice the area of Texas and full of plastic. A researcher named Charles Moore described what he found:

In August 1998, Moore and his crew extensively sampled the surface waters of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre with a fine-mesh net resembling a manta ray. “What we saw amazed us,” Moore said in an analysis for the 2001 Marine Pollution Bulletin. “We were looking at a rich broth of minute sea creatures mixed with hundreds of colored plastic fragments — a plastic-plankton soup.” The team collected six times more plastic particles (by weight) than zooplankton.
Moore calls the plastic particles “poison pills” because they absorb and concentrate toxic chemicals, acting like sponges for DDT, PCBs and other oily pollutants. “It’s a serious situation,” he says, “when you’ve got a material that comes in all shapes and sizes, can mimic every type of food in the sea, and is capable of absorbing persistent pollutants that are endocrine disruptors. . . . One hundred thousand marine mammals a year are killed by entanglement (with plastic six-pack rings, fishing lines and nets); I’m not minimizing that. But the actual ability to wipe out the entire vertebrate kingdom in the ocean is with the plastic particles.”

In an interview in Satyya Magazine on line just last month Moore again emphasized the concern:

“…most of this garbage is salt-shaker stuff, the breakdown of plastic products. When we trawl a net, we get a kaleidoscope of different colored little plastic particles, mostly whites and blues. We think the reds are taken by birds and fish because they look like shrimp. And inside the garbage patch we’ve found over six times as much plastic as plankton. While outside it’s over three times as much plastic as plankton. So if you’re a fish trying to choose whether something is food or not, you can easily be confused. Gelatinous plankton feeders are heavily impacted by this. Then they’re eaten by fish, birds and turtles and so it accumulates up the food chain. And [the plastic particles are not] just indigestible, they are also a sponge for toxics, so it’s like poison pills being ingested.”

In a study Moore did for the state of California he found that some 80% of the plastic waste originated from the land. Only 10% originated from industrial sources. The rest is going into the ocean from household and municipal waste and storm runoff. Some 87 % of the particles going down rivers were less than 5mm in diameter.

In an August 6, 2006 LA Times article on our altered oceans they note that industrial spills of larger plastic pellets are also occurring.

“The pellets, like most types of plastic, are sponges for oily toxic chemicals that don’t readily dissolve in water, such as the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Some pellets have been found to contain concentrations of these pollutants 1 million times greater than the levels found in surrounding water.

As they absorb toxic chemicals, they become poison pills. Wildlife researchers have found the pellets, which resemble fish eggs, in the bellies of fish, sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

Over time, plastic can break down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually turning to powder and entering the ocean in microscopic fragments. Some plastic starts out as tiny particles, such as the abrasives in cleaning products that are washed down the sink, through sewage systems and out to sea.

The chemical components of plastics and common additives can harm animals and humans. Studies have linked the hormone-mimicking phthalates, used to soften plastic, to reduced testosterone and fertility in laboratory animals, and to subtle changes in the genitals of baby boys. Another additive, bisphenol A, used to make lightweight, heat-resistant baby bottles and microwave cookware, has been linked to prostate cancer.”

In another recent article entitled “Our oceans are turning into plastic … are we? ” for Best Life Magazine, the discussion continues, noting it’s not just the toxins that adhere to plastics in the ocean that enter our food chain that are of concern, it’s also the toxic chemicals that are used in making plastic that we are exposed to:

“…there’s growing—and disturbing—proof that we’re ingesting plastic toxins constantly, and that even slight doses of these substances can severely disrupt gene activity. “Every one of us has this huge body burden,” Moore says. “You could take your serum to a lab now, and they’d find at least 100 industrial chemicals that weren’t around in 1950.” The fact that these toxins don’t cause violent and immediate reactions does not mean they’re benign: Scientists are just beginning to research the long-term ways in which the chemicals used to make plastic interact with our own biochemistry.”

The health and environmental issues involved in plastic production, use and disposal are serious ones that we need to address. If you are likewise concerned I urge that you contact members of the Seattle City Council to urge that they take action to address the growing plastics problem.

Click here to contact Seattle City Council members

see also:

Residents urge council panel to ban Styrofoam, end proposed landfill, Seattle PI, 6/8/2007

Foam Free Seattle

Policy Options under consideration for possible waste reduction, City of Seattle – 5/21/2007

Forget plastic bags, foam cups if zero-waste strategy adopted, Seattle Times 6/8/2007