More on Atrazine, the very bad and the sinful

Back on August 5th I wrote about Atrazine, the herbicide that is used in 80 countries including the US but is banned in the EU.  In 2004 the EU banned it's use because studies showed that Atrazine could interfere with human reproductive processes.  Our EPA said the data was insufficient to determine if atrazine could cause reproductive problems in humans. 

The Very Bad

A new study was just released and it said "The common and highly-used herbicide atrazine can act within the brain to disrupt the cascade of hormone signals needed to initiate ovulation." "Collectively, the results of this study – along with a prior study by the same research group – demonstrate that exposure to atrazine in adults can disrupt the surge of hormones needed to trigger ovulation in rats. This mechanism is similar in rats and humans, suggesting that disruption in humans is at least possible." Environmental Health News, August 20th, 2009.  

The other news out of the study was that as soon as the rats were no longer exposed to Atrazine the disruption of the surge of hormones stopped. 

 

The Sinful

Now armed with that final piece of information, why isn't  Syngenta, the company that manufactures Atrazine, removing Atrazine from the marketplace and siting this study saying that there isn't any long term permanent health problems? Essentially they could take the money and run.  

Lets say we can climb into the heads of the Board of Directors of Syngenta and imagine what they are thinking. My guess, being the cynical environmental watchdog,  is that they are thinking along the following lines.

They might be thinking they can roll the dice and think the dice are fixed.  They can still manufacture Atrazine, make lots of profits and wait until another study proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their product does interfere with the human reproductive system.  (I am not saying in general terms that I think capitalism is bad, I am saying making money and putting people's lives at risk is bad.) And if people complain about the long term effects they can site this current study.  If you believe this might be their reasoning I would suggest to you that the only conclusion is that they are indeed sinful.

The simple truth: Syngenta is manufacturing a chemical that is used to kill organic matter.  It is a weed killer.  Logically if it kills organic matter there is that possibility that it could kill us.  

We don't need it,  plenty of farmers grow food without herbicides and we don't want it, let them roll the dice with their own lives.

greenhomexpress.com

Only Buy Surfboards Made in the US

If you buy a surfboard please either buy a used one or one made entirely in the US. 

Why?

The reasons and my story:  I went shopping for a surfboard the other day.  It has been at least a decade or so since I bought a surfboard, so I was very uneducated about what has occurred in the last couple of years.  Just like all the other purchases we make this one originally seemed simple. Unfortunately, it turned very complicated very quickly. 

First heres some important background information on surfboard manufacturing.  Previous to December 5th 2005, virtually all surfboard foam was made by Clark Foam using polyurethane. TDI was the reactive agent used by Clark foam in making polyurethane. TDI is a Carcinogen. The EPA shut down the company after 45 years in business.  The circumstances surrounding the closing of the plant are very controversial and an important topic to be addressed in another blog.  So after December 5th 2005, if you bought a new surfboard, it was either made using another type of foam other than PU with TDI as a reactive agent or was not manufactured in the US.  

When I was talking to the salesperson at a local surf shop he pointed out that some of the surfboards were in fact made in China.  

The insane irony of this should now jump off the computer screen and smack you in the face.  Why would the US allow the importation of surfboards made using TDI? But not let a manufacturer use TDI in the production of surfboards here in the US.  Does this mean it's "OK" for workers outside the US to be exposed to cancer causing chemicals?  No it is not "OK".  So the US should ban the import of those surfboards.  Very simple.  But they don't.  

The surfboards made in China were, of course, much less expensive than the surfboards made in the US.  But, as I have pointed out before in other blogs relative to other products, the price difference did not include the environmental costs.  In this case not only are there environmental costs due to the carcinogen TDI but also due to the large carbon footprint caused by international transportation of this product.  As I said, this purchase originally seemed simple but turned very complicated.

I ended up buying a used surfboard made in the US after 2005.

Poisoning Dolphins

“The fact that this chemical, (triclosan, a germ-killing chemical), is found in the environment and is being detected in a top level predator, (one-third of the bottlenose dolphins tested off South Carolina and almost one-quarter of those tested off Florida,)  certainly warrants concern,” said Patricia Fair, a research physiologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead author of the dolphin study, which was published online in the journal Environmental Pollution in May.

Triclosan is a germ-killing chemical found in hundreds of products, including liquid hand soaps, toothpaste and deodorants. The amount of Triclosan found in the dolphins has disrupted the hormones and growth and development of other animals that had similar amounts in their blood.

And to those who say we need this chemical otherwise we won't rid ourselves of infectious bacteria. 

"In the first known comprehensive analysis of whether antibacterial soaps work better than plain soaps, Allison Aiello of the U-M School of Public Health and her team found that washing hands with an antibacterial soap was no more effective in preventing infectious illness than plain soap. Moreover, antibacterial soaps at formulations sold to the public do not remove any more bacteria from the hands during washing than plain soaps." August 15th, 2007.  U-M stand for University of Michigan.  Notice the date, 2 years ago. 

The obvious conclusion: We don't need antibacterial soaps or any other products that contain Triclosan.  We are poisoning one of the most intelligent and precious animals on earth with something we don't need now nor have we ever needed.  

As I mentioned before the easiest way to stop this type of insanity is with your pocketbook.  If we don't buy this poison then it will be impossible for someone to sell it.  It will be too late if we wait for the EPA or other similar organizations to react, they wait until the damage is done.  We can decide now.

greenhomexpress.com

More unfortunate news about pesticides

Would rather write about something else since I posted a similar story this morning but the following news story just came out today.

“Rural residents who drink water from private wells are much more likely to have Parkinson’s disease, a finding that bolsters theories that farm pesticides may be partially to blame, according to a new California study.”  Environmental Health News, August 5th, 2009

We really don’t have a choice, it either organically grown foods and environmentally safe products or we suffer the consequences.  

What is a life worth?

On August 3rd I wrote about industrial chemicals that are introduced into our environment even though that have no known natural analogues.  This means they are unlike any natural occurring chemicals, and their effect on us and the environment is unknown.  Testing of these materials takes place, but it is rarely long term or comprehensive enough. So, we are at risk. 

Here is a specific example of one that was let out of the lab too soon and is  now used in 80 countries including the US but was banned by the EU in 2004.  

Atrazine is a herbicide that may cause a variety of cancers and harm human and animal reproductive and hormone systems.  The word “may” in the previous sentence is a relatively small word with only three letters, but it is a very large word for Syngenta.  It translates into billions of dollars for Syngenta, the manufacturer of Atrazine.  Since no governmental or private scientific organization has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Atrazine is carcinogenic or harmful to reproductive systems Syngenta feels they have the right to produce it.  

 What about our rights?  The EU felt the risk was too great 5 years ago so it banned Atrazine.  This was not some arbitrary decision. Studies were done, results were examined, and finally a decision was made. This was a well thought out decision in favor of possibly saving lives. 

Syngenta’s corporate goal is to increase crop productivity, a good thing.  While possibly causing human and environmental harm while doing this, a bad thing.  Simple solution:  Stop doing the bad thing.  Last year Syngenta’s sales were 11.6 Billion.  So they make a little less and possibly save some lives; sounds like a more reasonable course of action then what they are doing now. 

The irony in all of this is quite scary. Syngenta works to increase crop productivity to better feed an ever increasing world population. Also possibly decreasing world population by introducing a herbicide that could disrupt our reproductive systems. 

In the meantime I’ll stick to organically produced products.

greenhomexpress.com

Our bodies can't figure out what we are doing

"This is the dilemma. Our sentry system through evolution has been designed to spot dangers in a certain range, like a snarling animal. We have no perceptual system for subtle molecular level impacts on nature or temperature change on a global scale. We literally don't know the consequences of what we do." Daniel Goleman, author of the book Ecological Intelligence, from Scientific American April 2009.

We think we are smarter than or are not paying enough attention to evolution.  Why do we allow industry to use approximately 100,000 industrial chemicals that have no known natural analogues?  Do we really need these chemicals?  The processes that use these industrial chemicals do not benefit us, they only benefit those that make money from them otherwise they wouldn't exist. In the meantime our bodies are trying to figure out what they are.  

Our brains are constantly working to protect us from scaring ourselves to death. My goal is certainly not to work against that survival technique but I do think we should be aware.  We really do need to take a very active role in what is allowed in our environment.  100, 000 "new" chemicals floating around in our environment is just too many. I personally think that one "new chemical" is one too many. Many chemicals that were once used in our environment have been banned because there was conclusive proof that they caused cancer.  I say, lets not wait for conclusive proof. 

The easiest and quickest way we can eliminate the new and unknown is to use our wallets.  We can start with the simplest purchases, items we buy on a daily basis. Food!!  Only buy organically grown food.  We don't need food grown using "new" chemicals.  Bodies like ours have been digesting food grown without unknown substances for hundreds of thousands of years, we don't need them.

Next, things you buy on a weekly basis, products you use to clean up the mess you made cooking and eating the food.  Look at the labels on these cleaners.  Do you recognize the ingredients?  If not, don't buy them. We also have been cleaning up after ourselves for a long time without these super cleaners, we don't need them either. 

Next week start with some other products you buy, clothes, etc. Take it one simple step at a time and you will be amazed how "green" you can get.

greenhomexpress.com

Reverse the brainwashing

Buying a very high milage car, new or used, i.e. Prius, Civic Hybrid, or a high milage non-hybrid car isn't the key to happiness but either is owning a SUV.

The reasons you have convinced yourself not to buy one.

(Assuming you have the "appropriate" funds and need to buy a car.)

Waiting for the car manufacturers to come up with a miracle as in a plug-in hybrid or a fully electric vehicle that is "practical and affordable."

Kept calculating the costs of your current car vs the costs of the "Prius" without calculating the actual and very real environmental cost differential caused by the significant difference in MPG.

Convinced yourself you need the "whatever" that another car with a much higher MPG can't give you, i.e. enough seats for 8, (even though you almost always drive alone), enough horsepower to tow a small house, enough speed to win the Indy 500, enough status to get you a movie deal and enough of whatever the advertises think you might need to make you feel happy.

Owning a "status" car will not make you happy. (I know you are thinking that even a Prius has become a status car but even that will also not make you happy. But it will lower the negative environmental impact of most people's driving habits.) You are not genetically hard wired to achieve happiness from owning a "status" car. As I previously mentioned you were brainwashed by advertisers to think owning a "status" car will bring happiness. Before the 19th century cars didn't even exist and people still found happiness. In fact, I know this might not exactly be a practical idea since our entire transportation system would need to change but I believe that most of us would be happier if we could just toss our car into the recycling bin.

This previous explanation holds water with many other products besides cars. You don't need chlorine bleached toilet paper, surfactant filled dish washing liquid, artificially perfumed hand soap to bring about internal bliss. But...how do you feel when a beautiful butterfly glides by? Brings a sense of wonder and elation, doesn't it.

greenhomexpress.com