Featured stories in this issue…
The Carbon Capture Juggernaut Rolls on
If the coal industry’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous as well. A new report explains why the plan cannot work.
Cigarette Bill Treats Menthol with Leniency
Congress is about to regulate tobacco products, but it is giving special lenient treatment to mentholated cigarettes, which are a major killer of African-Americans. The New York Times says Congress would actually like to control mentholated cigarettes but the tobacco companies won’t allow it; there’s simply too much money to be made killing Blacks with mentholated cigarettes.
Climate Policy: From ‘Know How’ To ‘Do Now’
The main question for determining energy policy is simple: “Can we continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without provoking unacceptable climate change?” Scientists overwhelmingly agree the answer is no.
New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.
Nanoparticles Scrutinized for Health Effect
Some scientists are concerned that these seemingly magical materials (products made with nano particles) are hitting the market before their effects on human health and the environment have been sufficiently studied.
Large-Scale Solar Power Plants Could Power the Nation
Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can provide “baseload capacity,” replacing traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Upholding the Human Right of Freedom from Racial Discrimination
The U.S. has signed an international treaty (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), and has therefore agreed to protect us all from racial discrimination and its effects. How are we doing?
__________________________________________
THE CARBON CAPTURE JUGGERNAUT ROLLS ON
[Rachel’s introduction: If the coal industry’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous as well. A new report explains why the plan cannot work.]
The coal, oil, automobile, railroad and electric power industries are planning to “solve” the global warming problem by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and burying it a mile underground, hoping it will stay there forever. The plan is called CCS, short for “carbon capture and storage” (or sometimes “carbon capture and sequestration”).
Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) is thought to be the main human contribution to global warming.
If industry’s CCS plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous as well. As the New York Times reported April 23, 2008, “A large leak of underground carbon dioxide could be as dangerous as a leak of nuclear fuel, critics say.”
Now a new report by Emily Rochon and others, published by Greenpeace International, describes industry’s CCS plan in detail and shows, point by point, why it cannot prevent climate chaos.
Anyone who wants a basic introduction to CCS will want to get a copy of Rochon’s report. It is a thoroughly documented, carefully argued, presentation of industry’s plan, with professional graphics that clarify how CCS is supposed to work.
Rochon’s report is even-handed, often leaning over backwards to present the industry plan in the best possible light. Still, the report concludes that CCS is a “dangerous gamble” that ultimately cannot prevent climate chaos because — even if it works — it will arrive too late to do any good.
In 40 pages, Rochon’s report reinforces five main points:
1. CCS wastes energy. Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10% to 40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for every 4 new power plants that use CCS. Thus CCS requires, on average, 25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power plants by 90%.
2. CCS is expensive. CCS will double the cost of a power plant and will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and 91%, according to U.S. government figures. Worse, CCS will divert funds away from renewable sources of energy and energy conservation projects, which could reduce CO2 emissions faster and at lower cost than CCS.
3. Storing carbon dioxide underground is risky. No one can guarantee that CO2 buried in the ground will stay put forever. Even very low leakage rates could reverse the climate benefits achieved initially by CO2 burial.
4. CCS carries significant liability risks. A large leak of CO2 could kill vegetation, animals, and humans over a fairly large area. Industry is already angling to get taxpayers to shoulder the liability. With some 6000 CCS burial projects required to make a significant dent in the CO2 problem, opportunities for serious mishaps will be ever-present.
5. CCS cannot deliver in time to avert climate chaos. The world’s scientific community is saying CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 and decline thereafter — but even the most optimistic industry plans call for CCS to begin in 2020 — and most industry spokespeople are saying CCS won’t be available until 2030 to 2050.
Despite these fatal flaws in industry’s CCS plan, the U.S. and Europe (and probably China) are counting on CCS to solve the global warming problem. As Fred pearce wrote in New Scientist March 29, “In Germany, only CCS can make sense of an energy policy that combines a large number of new coal-fired power stations with plans for a 40 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020.” And the New York Times reported April 23, “Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent.” The Times reports that “the technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that add to global warming — carbon capture and storage — is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is feasible on a large, cost-effective scale.”
In the U.S., the three remaining major presidential candidates — Clinton, Obama and McCain — are all enthusiastic supporters of coal with CCS tacked on. No matter who wins the presidency, the coal industry will be sitting in the Oval Office promoting CCS.
In sum, the coal industry is putting all our eggs — yours and mine — in a basket that has never been tried before on a commercial scale. It is — as Emily Rochon says with characteristic understatement — a “dangerous gamble.”
Rochon’s report ends by reminding readers that we already know how to solve climate chaos. Energy conservation and renewable sources of energy are already available, are cost-effective, and can do the job far faster than coal with CCS. CCS is not only dangerous, expensive, and too late to do any good. It is also unnecessary. Given all that, why would we choose to take this dangerous gamble?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The New York Times (pg. A1)
May 13, 2008
CIGARETTE BILL TREATS MENTHOL WITH LENIENCY
[Rachel’s introduction: Congress is about to regulate tobacco products, but it is giving special lenient treatment to mentholated cigarettes, which are a major killer of African-Americans. The New York Times says Congress would actually like to control mentholated cigarettes but the tobacco companies won’t allow it; there’s simply too much money to be made killing Blacks with mentholated cigarettes.]
By Stephanie Saul
Some public health experts are questioning why menthol, the most widely used cigarette flavoring and the most popular cigarette choice of African-American smokers, is receiving special protection as Congress tries to regulate tobacco for the first time.
The legislation, which would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to oversee tobacco products, would try to reduce smoking’s allure to young people by banning most flavored cigarettes, including clove and cinnamon.
But those new strictures would exempt menthol — even though menthol masks the harsh taste of cigarettes for beginners and may make it harder for the addicted to kick the smoking habit. For years, public health authorities have worried that menthol might be a factor in high cancer rates in African-Americans.
The reason menthol is seen as politically off limits, despite those concerns, is that mentholated brands are so crucial to the American cigarette industry. They make up more than one-fourth of the $70 billion American cigarette market and are becoming increasingly important to the industry leader, Philip Morris USA, without whose lobbying support the legislation might have no chance of passage.
“I would have been in favor of banning menthol,” said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who supports the bill. “But as a practical matter that simply wasn’t doable.”
Even the head of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, a nonprofit group that has been adamantly against menthol, acknowledges that the ingredient needed to be off the bargaining table — for now — because he does not want to imperil the bill’s chances.
“The bottom line is we want the legislation,” said William S. Robinson, the group’s executive director. “But we want to reserve the right to address this issue at some critical point because of the percentage of people of African descent who use mentholated products.”
Supporters of the tobacco legislation, including the Senate bill’s sponsor, Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, say the bill addresses the potential health risks of menthol by giving the F.D.A. the authority to remove cigarette additives, including menthol, if they are proved harmful.
Menthol is particularly controversial because public health authorities have worried about its health effects on African- Americans. Nearly 75 percent of black smokers use menthol brands, compared with only about one in four white smokers.
That is why one former public health official says the legislation’s menthol exemption is a “cave-in to the industry,” an opinion shared by some other public health advocates.
“I think we can say definitively that menthol induces smoking in the African-American community and subsequently serves as a direct link to African-American death and disease,” said the former official, Robert G. Robinson, who retired two years ago as an associate director in the office of smoking and health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The current lead scientist on tobacco related issues for the C.D.C, Terry F. Pechacek, said the legislation’s exemption for menthol was an issue being discussed in the scientific community. “I would just say this is an area of clear scientific interest and it merits very careful attention.”
The legislation could soon be up for vote in both chambers of Congress, where it has broad support. It is by no means a sure bet — though not because of the menthol exemption.
Despite the support of Mr. Kennedy and 56 co-sponsors in the Senate, the legislation faces some determined opposition from tobacco-state lawmakers who resist industry regulation. And the White House has said it opposes the legislation, arguing that F.D.A. regulation could create the false impression that tobacco is safe.
The legislation is largely a result of negotiations during sessions in 2003 and 2004 between lawmakers, antismoking groups and Philip Morris — the only major American cigarette company that supports the effort to regulate the industry.
“My recollection is that we were able to eliminate the use of flavored cigarettes, strawberry, mocha, and all this stuff that is clearly targeted at young kids and to start them smoking tobacco,” Mike DeWine, the former Ohio senator who helped arrange a series of negotiations between Philip Morris and an influential antismoking group, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a recent telephone interview. “Where the compromise was made as I recall was on menthol,” Mr. DeWine said.
While Philip Morris and other tobacco companies acknowledge the health hazards of smoking, they contend that menthol does nothing to worsen those risks. One of the government’s current top public health scientists on tobacco, however, says there are few definitive answers about the health impact of menthol cigarettes. Still, he points to several studies that suggest menthol smokers may be exposed to higher levels of dangerous compounds than nonmenthol smokers.
“There are multiple lines of evidence, generally consistent, suggesting that there’s reason for concern,” said Dr. Pechacek, the associate science director of the office on smoking for the C.D.C.
Of 45 million smokers in this country, the American Lung Association identifies about 33 million as non-Hispanic whites and 5 million as African-American. Historically, statistics showed that a somewhat higher percentage of African-Americans smoked than whites. Recent figures, though, indicate about the same rate of smoking for both groups — in the 21 to 22 percent range.
But the use of menthol cigarettes is disproportionately an African- American phenomenon, which critics say has been reinforced by decades of advertising aimed at black consumers. Concerns about menthol have circulated since at least 1998, when the C.D.C. reported that menthol “may increase the absorption of harmful smoking constituents.”
Four years later the C.D.C., along with the National Cancer Institute, sponsored a meeting in Atlanta on menthol cigarettes and disease rates in African-Americans. The official report from that meeting said the research up to that point had been inconclusive, but it called for further studies.
In five large studies of menthol to date, only one has found higher rates of cancer among menthol smokers than nonmenthol smokers, and only in men. But a growing body of evidence suggests that menthol makes it harder to kick the smoking habit — a view shared even by many scientists who say that menthol in cigarettes is not itself dangerous.
A tobacco company spokesman, Brendan J. McCormick, said menthol was “an ingredient and a flavor preference that is widely preferred by more than a quarter of adult smokers out there, and it’s got a long history of use.”
Mr. McCormick works for the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, whose Marlboro Menthol is the second-largest menthol brand in this country and also the fastest growing.
Last year, to counter concerns about menthol, a mint extract that can also be made synthetically, Philip Morris scientists published a 26- page paper in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. After examining dozens of studies on menthol, the company’s scientists said they found little evidence that menthol cigarettes were any more harmful or addictive than other types or that they encouraged people to start smoking at younger ages.
Its support of the tobacco legislation has put Philip Morris at odds with other cigarette companies, which generally oppose regulation. As the American industry’sbiggest player, Philip Morris says it is willing to let the F.D.A. oversee tobacco because as the company tries to develop products that are less harmful, it wants a regulatory agency to evaluate and approve those products. The company also says it would prefer national tobacco regulations rather than a hodgepodge of state and local rules. But the company’s rivals complain that the legislation could help Philip Morris, with its best-selling Marlboro franchise, further entrench itself as the industry’s dominant player by placing new restrictions on cigarette marketing, making it difficult for rivals to use advertising to catch up. Besides banning the marketing of cigarettes on the basis of most flavorings — other than menthol — the new rules would also place additional limits on the types and placement of signs and magazine advertising for tobacco products.
Even with the menthol exemption, the legislation is opposed by Reynolds American, whose R. J. Reynolds unit sells menthol brands that include Kool and Salem. Another opponent is Lorillard, which makes Newport, the best-selling brand among African-Americans and the menthol market leader over all.
“Bottom line, the scientific publications to date have not concluded that menthol cigarettes are more hazardous or addictive than nonmenthol cigarettes,” a Lorillard spokesman, Michael W. Robinson, said in a written response to questions. Lorillard is a subsidiary of the Loews Corporation.
Scientists who study smoking have identified various disparities in the health of black and white smokers. National Cancer Institute data shows that African-American men get lung cancer at a rate 50 percent higher than white men — a gap that most scientists say cannot be fully explained by historically higher rates of smoking by black men.
One theory suggests that menthol in cigarettes, by providing an additional pleasurable sensory cue, reinforces addiction.
“There is evidence from different studies that it’s harder to quit menthol cigarettes,” said Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, a pharmacologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco and one of the nation’s leading tobacco researchers. He calls menthol a “public health risk.”
In work published in 2006, Dr. Mark J. Pletcher and colleagues at that same university analyzed smoking behavior for 1,535 people over 15 years. Their findings suggested that menthol smokers were 30 percent less likely to quit smoking and 89 percent more likely to relapse than other smokers.
One African-American woman, Joya Robinson of North Brunswick, N.J., said she began smoking Newport in 1988 and developed a pack-a-day habit. After several unsuccessful attempts to quit, she is now enrolled in a tobacco dependence program. “It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” Ms. Robinson, 46, said.
Dr. Pechacek, the C.D.C. official, said a combination of menthol and genetic factors that predispose African-Americans to certain cancers may be in play for black smokers.
“There is sufficient reason to maintain a strong public health interest in it,” he said.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: CommonDreams.org
May 13, 2008
CLIMATE POLICY: FROM ‘KNOW HOW’ TO ‘DO NOW’
[Rachel’s introduction: The main question for determining energy policy is simple: “Can we continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without provoking unacceptable climate change?” Scientists overwhelmingly agree the answer is no.]
By Herman E. Daly
Recent increased attention to global warming is very welcome. But much of it is misplaced.
We focus too much on complex climate models, which ask things like how far emissions will increase carbon dioxide concentration, how much that will raise temperatures, by when, with what consequences to climate and geography, and how likely new information will invalidate model results. Together these questions can paralyze us with uncertainty.
A better question for determining public policy is simpler: “Can we continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without provoking unacceptable climate change?”
Scientists overwhelmingly agree the answer is no. The basic scientific principles and findings are very clear. Focusing on them creates a world of relative certainty for policy.
To draw a parallel, if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter. And if you take an altimeter, don’t become so bemused tracking your descent that you forget to pull the ripcord.
The next question we should ask is, “What causes us to emit ever more carbon dioxide?”
It’s the same thing that causes us to make more of all kinds of wastes: our irrational commitment to economic growth forever on a finite planet.
If we overcome our growth idolatry, we can then ask, “How do we design and manage an economy that respects the limits of the biosphere so economy and biosphere both will survive?” But we are so fixated on maintaining an ever-growing economy that we instead ask, “By how much will we have to increase efficiency to maintain growth in gross domestic product?”
Suppose we answer, “By doubling efficiency,” and succeed. So what? We will then just do more of all the things that have become more efficient and therefore cheaper, and will then emit more wastes, including greenhouse gases. A policy of “efficiency first” does not give us “frugality second” — it makes frugality less necessary.
But if we go for “frugality first” — sustainability first — with a national tax on carbon, then we will get “efficiency second” as an adaptation to more expensive carbon fuels. Efficiency cannot abolish scarcity, despite what politicians say, but it can make scarcity less painful.
We must throw out our assumption that economic expansion is always good.
There is much evidence that GDP growth at the margin in the United States is uneconomic growth, growth that increases social and environmental costs faster than it increases production benefits.
It is not hard to see how the reality of uneconomic growth sneaks up on us.
We have moved from a world relatively empty of us and our stuff to a world relatively full of us, in one lifetime. In the empty world economy the limiting factor was manmade capital; in the full world it is remaining natural capital.
Barrels of petroleum extracted once were limited by drilling rigs; now they are limited by remaining deposits, or by the atmosphere’s ability to absorb the products of combustion.
But we continue to invest in manmade capital rather than in restoration of natural capital.
In addition to this supply-side error, we have an equally monumental error on the demand side. We fail to take seriously that beyond a threshold of income already passed in the United States, happiness depends not on what we have, but on what we have relative to what our friends, co-workers and neighbors have.
What we need is a stiff severance tax on carbon as it emerges from the well and mine. Besides discouraging everyone’s use of climate-altering fossil fuels, this would enable us to raise enough tax dollars to replace regressive taxes on low incomes. Let’s tax the raw material, not the value added to it by processing and manufacturing. Higher input prices bring efficiency at all subsequent stages of production, and limiting depletion ultimately limits pollution.
Setting policy by first principles still leaves some uncertainties. It will require provision for making midcourse corrections. But at least we would have begun moving in the right direction. To continue business as usual while debating the predictions of complex models in a world made even more uncertain by the questions we ask is to fail to pull the ripcord.
Herman E. Daly, a former senior economist for the World Bank, is a professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. His books include “Steady-State Economics” and “Beyond Growth.” He wrote this comment for the Land Institute’s Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Wall Street Journal (pg. B1)
May 12, 2008
NEW WAVE OF NUCLEAR PLANTS FACES HIGH COSTS
[Rachel’s introduction: A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.]
By Rebecca Smith
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.
NRG Energy Inc. hopes to add two units to the South Texas Project nuclear site. Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry’s suitability to meet growing energy needs.
Nuclear plants haven’t been built in meaningful numbers in the U.S. since the 1980s. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.
The price escalation is sobering because the industry and regulators have worked hard to make development more efficient, in hopes of eliminating problems that in the past produced harrowing cost overruns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, has created a streamlined licensing process to make timelier, more comprehensive decisions about proposals. Nuclear vendors have developed standardized designs for plants to reduce construction and operating costs. And utility executives, with years of operating experience behind them, are more astute buyers.
====================================================
** The News: Estimated costs to build the next generation of nuclear power plants have soared to $5 billion to $12 billion a plant.
** The Debate: Questions are emerging over the affordability of nuclear power, despite its popularity as an alternative to polluting coal-fired plants.
** What to Watch: If Congress taxes greenhouse-gas emissions, nuclear plants, which aren’t emitters, will become more attractive. But if coal and natural-gas prices decline, nuclear-plant economics will get worse.
====================================================
Now, 104 nuclear reactors are operating in the U.S. Most are highly profitable but that was not the case until fairly recently. For the 75 units built between 1966 and 1986, the average cost was $3 billion or triple early estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Many plants operate profitably now because they were sold to current operators for less than their actual cost.
The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.
Moody’s worries that continued cost increases, even if partially offset by billions of dollars worth of federal subsidies, could weaken companies and expose consumers to high energy costs.
On May 7, Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7% interest in two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Ga. Utility officials declined to disclose total costs. A typical Georgia Power household could expect to see its power bill go up by $144 annually to pay for the plants after 2018, the utility said.
Bill Edge, spokesman for the Georgia Public Service Commission, said Georgia “will look at what’s best for ratepayers” and could pull support if costs balloon to frightening heights. The existing Vogtle plant, put into service in the late 1980s, cost more than 10 times its original estimate, roughly $4.5 billion for each of two reactors.
FPL Group, Juno Beach, Fla., estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. It has picked a reactor design by Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., after concluding it could cost as much as $12 billion to build plants with reactors designed by General Electric Co. The joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said it hasn’t seen FPL’s calculations but is confident its units “are cost-competitive compared with other nuclear designs.”
Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear operator, is considering building two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, and said the cost could be $5 billion to $6.5 billion each. The plants would be operated as “merchant” plants and thus would not have utility customers on the hook to pay for them, as is the case in both Florida and Georgia. Instead, they would have to cover expenses through wholesale power sales.
Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear plants less attractive. On the other hand, if Congress decides to tax greenhouse-gas emissions, that could make electricity from nuclear plants more attractive by raising costs for generators that burn fossil fuels. Nuclear plants wouldn’t have to pay the charges because they aren’t emitters.
Some states are clearing a path for nuclear-power development, even before costs are fully known. They are inspired by a growing fear of climate change. “The overwhelming feeling in Florida is that nuclear power is popular and that’s why it’s going to go ahead,” said J.R. Kelly, head of the Office of Public Counsel in Tallahassee, which represents consumers. “Our main concern is the tremendous cost.”
In Florida, state officials are allowing utilities to collect money from customers to cover development and construction costs. In the past, regulators typically required utilities to bear the costs until plants were finished.
Many utilities said they are watching with interest. Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in New Jersey, said his company may not be big enough to build a nuclear plant, even though it is a nuclear operator. “We’re concerned by the rise in construction costs,” he said.
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: San Francisco Chronicle
May 12, 2008
NANOPARTICLES SCRUTINIZED FOR HEALTH EFFECT
[Rachel’s introduction: Some scientists are concerned that these seemingly magical materials (products made with nano particles) are hitting the market before their effects on human health and the environment have been sufficiently studied.]
By Ann Fernholm
Windows cleaned by raindrops, white sofas immune to red wine spills, tiles protected from limescale buildup — new products created from minute substances called nanoparticles are making such domestic dreams come true.
Based on tiny particles 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair, the products are some of the early widespread applications of nanotechnology, the science of manipulating atoms and molecules. Nanoparticles are showing up in everything from fabric coatings to socks to plush teddy bears.
In the best-case scenario, these nanoparticles are harmless and can help spare the environment from the overuse of polluting cleaning agents.
But some scientists are concerned that these seemingly magical materials are hitting the market before their effects on human health and the environment have been sufficiently studied.
If a chemical substance has been commercialized before, on a larger than nano-scale, and is included in the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory, it is considered as “existing” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — and the nano-scale version of the material requires no further testing.
Scientists such as Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council say they think that’s a mistake, and that nanoparticles should be treated as new and different materials.
That’s because the few scientific reports available suggest that nanoparticles can pose a threat to human health and to the environment. For example, fish swimming in water containing modest amounts of fullerenes, soccer-ball-shaped nanoparticles made out of 60 carbon atoms, showed a large increase in brain damage. These are the same types of fullerenes being used in various skin products.
Another study showed that rats exposed to manganese oxide nanoparticles accumulated them in the brain.
Warning on nanoparticles
Scientists also have shown that very small nanoparticles, called quantum dots, penetrate pigskin. Other studies suggest that from the skin, they can travel through the lymphatic duct system to lymph nodes and eventually end up in organs such as the liver, kidney and spleen.
And when inhaled, nanoparticles will go deeper into the lungs than larger particles and reach more sensitive parts. Because of that, scientists are particularly concerned about nanoparticles being used in spray products.
“We have research showing that as a material shrinks in size, it becomes more harmful to the lungs. Nanoparticles tend to be more inflammatory to the lung, and it seems as if the lung has to work harder to get rid of them,” said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington. The project was established in 2005 by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts to ensure that the potential benefits of nanotechnology are realized, at the same time possible risks are minimized.
Insufficient information
“We can do great things with this technology, but there is a lack of information on how to use nanoparticles safely,” he said.
To get a better picture of what kind of nanomaterials are being commercialized, the EPA in January started a voluntary reporting program, the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Two companies have so far submitted data, DuPont and Office ZPI, while 10 other companies have committed to reporting.
Another way to find out which nanoparticles are used in commercial products is to scan the database held by Honolulu’s Nanowerk. The database, which helps manufacturers find suppliers of the nanoparticles they need, contains 1,955 different nanoparticles produced by 135 suppliers worldwide. The nanoparticles represent more than 100 different chemical compositions, at sizes ranging from just 1 nanometer to more than 100 nanometers.
“I think it is the best information source around for nanomaterials you can purchase. These are just the commercial ones. Go into research labs, and the list grows rather quickly,” Maynard said.
Researchers are concerned not only with human health, but the effect nanoparticles could have on the environment, especially silver nanoparticles.
Maynard said the antimicrobial effect specific to silver nanoparticles is dangerous to microbes essential for ecologic systems. In April, scientists at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans tested six different types of socks, all containing silver nanoparticles to minimize odor. Some of the socks released all of the silver nanoparticles they contained when washed in room-temperature water; others leaked no silver at all.
Sewage treatment works cannot clear the water of the substance, so released silver nanoparticles will end up in rivers, lakes and in seawater.
Samuel Luoma, senior research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, is studying how the increasing use of silver nanoparticles can affect the environment.
“We know silver itself is very toxic to plants in the aquatic environment and to invertebrates like clams, oysters and snails,” Luoma said. “Silver is especially toxic to phytoplankton, the base of many food webs.”
Like “normal” silver, nano-size silver will continuously release silver ions, causing adverse effects to water-living organisms. But it’s possible the nanoparticles are additionally toxic due to the small size.
“We know extremely little about silver in the nanoparticle form,” Luoma said.
It also is unknown how nanosilver affects humans. Normally, silver accumulates in various organs, but do no harm.
“Right now, there is an explosion of these products, but we cannot assess the risk in a rational way,” Luoma said. “The simplest thing the government could do is to require information on how much silver is used in each product.”
The EPA considers certain use of silver nanoparticles a pesticide, and they therefore need to be registered according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. But so far, the agency has received no such applications.
“We have not registered any nanopesticides yet,” said Jack Housenger, associate director of the health effects division in the office of pesticide programs.
A report published April 2 by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition draws a parallel between today’s nanotech boom and the 1980s, when manufacturing processes of the electronics industry resulted in groundwater pollution in Santa Clara Country. There is, for example, a lack of data on health impacts and environmental toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials, and there is no technology for monitoring potential nano-pollutants in the environment.
Many good uses
Despite the alarming reports, Luoma said that silver nanoparticles can be quite useful.
They do a great job in hospitals, killing bacteria resistant to conventional antibiotics. And coating artificial hips and shoulders with silver nanoparticles can hinder bacteria from accumulating and causing infection years after implantation.
“It will be a challenge to find that middle road in absence of much scientific information,” Luoma said. “How do we limit the use, what uses should we regulate and what uses should be allowed?”
Maynard, of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said that more funding is needed for research on the safety of nanomaterials. The budget for research related to health, safety and environmental effects of nanotechnology in 2009 is $76.4 million, or 5 percent of the total budget of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative, which is $ 1.530 billion.
“The $76.4 million is what the NNI are claiming, but they may be being generous in their assessment,” Maynard said.
“The bottom line here is that we need $100 million to $150 million per year invested in targeted risk research if we are to have a hope of answering some of the critical questions surrounding developing and using nanotechnologies safely.”
E-mail Ann Fernholm at afernholm@sfchronicle.com.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Environment America
May 8, 2008
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR POWER PLANTS COULD POWER THE NATION
[Rachel’s introduction: Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can provide “baseload capacity,” replacing traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power.]
America could meet all of its current electricity needs with large central concentrating solar power plants according to a report released May 8, 2008, “On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming” by Environment America.
Solar thermal power plants covering an area of 100 x 100-mile area in the Southwest (slightly more than what’s already been excavated for strip mining for coal across the country), could power the entire nation while slashing global warming emissions.
Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can provide “baseload capacity,” replacing traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
“If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and addressing our nation’s energy woes, solar energy must be part of the solution, said Anna Aurilio, Director of Environment America’s Washington DC office. “Tapping this abundant and clean domestic energy source must be a centerpiece of America’s energy, environmental and economic policies,” she added.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential for more than 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of concentrating solar power generation on lands in the southwestern United States alone — more than six times current U.S. electricity consumption. Other areas of the United States, such as the mountain West, the Great Plains and Florida, can also generate significant power from the sun.
“This report confirms what we in the industry have known for a long time-that utility-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) has the potential to provide a clean, reliable energy choice to power America and help us achieve national energy security in the 21st century,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington, D.C. “We agree wholeheartedly with the report’s recommendation to provide the proper incentives to encourage development of CSP plants. Specifically, it is imperative that Congress follows through on passing a final bill to provide a multi- year extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) — a policy with support from over 85 percent of the American public,” he added.
Concentrating solar power development has accelerated dramatically since the beginning of 2007. More than 4,000 MW of solar thermal projects are in some phase of development nationwide and could be completed by 2012. However, solar energy tax credits that are helping make these projects cost-effective are set to expire at the end of the year, putting their future in doubt.
“Federal clean energy tax incentives are spurring investment, creating thousands of “green-collar” jobs, and helping reduce global warming pollution,” said Anna Aurilio. “If Congress lets them expire, clean energy projects will grind to a halt,” she added.
Concentrating solar power plants are increasingly cost-competitive with other power generation technologies that do not produce carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant. The cost of energy from solar thermal power plants is estimated to be competitive in cost with theoretical coal-fired power plants that capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions and with new nuclear power plants.
The report concludes that with leadership at the state and federal level and the right policies, that, putting 80 gigawatts of concentrating solar power in place by 2030 is within reach. This would provide electricity for 25 million homes, would generate between 75,000 and 140,000 permanent jobs, would and cut global warming pollution from U.S. electric power plants by at least 6.6 percent by the year 2030.
Electricity generation accounts for more than a third of America’s emissions of global warming pollution. “Concentrating solar power can make a large contribution toward reducing global warming pollution in the United States, and do so quickly and at a reasonable cost,” concluded Aurilio.
Download the report, “On the Rise:Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming.”
Environment America is the new home of U.S. PIRG’s environmental work. 44 Winter Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02108
Federal Advocacy Office: 218 D Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 E-mail: Info@EnvironmentAmerica.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Opportunity in Action eNewsletter
May 15, 2008
UPHOLDING THE HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
[Rachel’s introduction: The U.S. has signed an international treaty (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), and has therefore agreed to protect us all from racial discrimination and its effects. How are we doing?]
We aspire to be a country that values and protects our rights, but what does that really mean? Of course, most Americans are aware of the rights protected by our Constitution. But fewer are aware of the human rights outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related treaties signed by the U.S. Under one such treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), our country has agreed to protect us all from racial discrimination and its effects, and to report its progress in doing so periodically to the United Nations CERD Committee.
The U.S. Government recently filed such a report. At the same time, experts from around the country were invited to file their own reports on the nation’s progress toward ending discrimination. The Opportunity Agenda joined a range of researchers and social justice advocates, led by the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, to prepare one of these “shadow reports,” Unequal Health Outcomes in the United States (1.2 Mbyte PDF). This report both illuminates instances where the U.S. has failed to comply with the treaty in the areas of health and health care, and suggested steps the country can take to correct this.
The Opportunity Agenda also contributed to the Health Chapter of the New York City CERD “shadow report,” coordinated by the Urban Justice Center’s Human Rights Project and also submitted to the U.N. CERD Committee. The report, Race Realities in New York, details barriers to equal opportunity facing New Yorkers and what New York City and State must do to create true opportunity and equity for all New Yorkers.
After considering both the government’s and advocates’ reports, the UN CERD Committee noted that the U.S. has failed to recognize and remedy certain instances in which current policies contribute to inequalities in health and in health care. Advocates’ critiques and recommendations are now part of this overall record.
The CERD experience is just another example of how advocates can harness diverse tools to bring attention to issues of opportunity in the country. Talking about human rights domestically can give Americans a new way to think about rights, about domestic issues, and about our government’s responsibilities to protect us and promote opportunity for all.
Sincerely,
SPOTLIGHTS
More CERD and Human Rights Tools
Human Rights Public Opinion Research
OurFuture: “Striving for Equality,” authored by Alan Jenkins
The Huffington Post: “Renewing the Promise of Equal Opportunity,” co-authored by Alan Jenkins and Laleh Ispahani
Concluding Observations of CERD Committee
New York Human Rights Initiative
What’s New at The Opportunity Agenda?
New Report on Reducing Health Care Inequality co-authored by The Opportunity Agenda
The Changing Face of American Poverty Alan Jenkins on The Tavis Smiley Show (mp3)
Brave New Laws: Civil Rights in the 21st Century
Health Action: The Opportunity Agenda on Public Radio (mp3)
The State of Opportunity Blog Buzz
Disappearing Food: Inadequate Access to Healthy Food in New York
Baking More Pie: Higher Education for Everyone
Arizona Proposal to Ban Race-Conscious Student Groups
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel’s Democracy & Health News highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren’t the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, “Who gets to decide?” And, “How DO the few control the many, and what might be done about it?”
Rachel’s Democracy and Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
Editors:
Peter Montague – peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague – tim@rachel.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel’s Democracy & Health News send a blank Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net
In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
dhn@rachel.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::