other chlorines
Energy-efficient green buildings may emit hazardous chemicals.
Newly renovated low-income housing units in Boston earned awards for green design and building but flunked indoor air-quality tests, a new study shows.
(Reuters Health) - Newly renovated low-income housing units in Boston earned awards for green design and building but flunked indoor air-quality tests, a new study shows.
Researchers found potentially carcinogenic levels of toxic chemicals in the remodeled homes before and after residents moved in. All of the 30 eco-friendly homes in the study had risky indoor air concentrations for at least one chemical.
“Even in green buildings, building materials contain chemicals that we’re concerned about from a health perspective,” said lead author Robin Dodson, a researcher at Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Massachusetts.
“We should not only think about the efficiency of the building but the health of the building,” she said in a phone interview.
The hazards seemed to come both from materials used to renovate the housing units as well as from occupants’ furnishings and personal-care products, the study found.
“Synthetic chemicals are ubiquitous in modern life,” said co-author Gary Adamkiewicz, an environmental health professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
“They’re in new housing, old housing, green housing, conventional housing and high- and low-income housing,” he said by email.
As reported in Environment International, Dodson, Adamkiewicz and colleagues collected air and dust samples from 10 renovated units before occupancy and from 27 units one to nine months after residents moved in between July 2013 and January 2014.
By testing the homes before and after they were occupied, investigators were able to trace the presence of nearly 100 chemicals with known or suspected health concerns to the renovation, the residents or a combination.
Both before and after occupancy, all the tested units had indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde that exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s cancer-based screening level.
The researchers expected formaldehyde, which has been associated with allergy and asthma, might leach out of building materials, and they found evidence that it did. But because formaldehyde emissions remained high after occupancy, the research team suspected that residents also brought formaldehyde in personal-care products.
Researchers also believe that flame retardants, which are suspected of causing cancer and diminishing male fertility, had been added to the building insulation.
To their surprise, they found chemicals used in sunscreen, nail polish and perfumes being emitted from building materials, possibly because they had been added to paint or floor finishes, Dodson said.
Residents appear to have brought into the renovated homes a number of health-disturbing chemicals, including antimicrobials, flame retardants, plastics and fragrances.
Flame retardant BDE-47, which appeared after residents moved in, has been banned since 2005. Dodson assumes residents carried the compound into their homes, possibly in second-hand furniture.
Consumers could improve household air quality by using products free of fragrance and other seemingly innocuous but harmful ingredients, Dodson said. But the onus should not be on consumers, she said.
“Why are manufacturers even allowed to use these chemicals in their products?” she said.
Green building standards should be broadened to prohibit use of hazardous chemicals, she said.
Tom Lent, policy director of the nonprofit Healthy Building Network in Berkeley, California, said the study provides important clues about which hazardous chemicals are being released from building materials so that green buildings can be constructed to be both energy-efficient and healthy.
“There does not need to be a conflict,” Lent, who was not involved with the study, said in an email.
But the conflict between energy-efficient building and the need to reduce toxic indoor air emissions has existed for 15 years, Asa Bradman said by email. Bradman, associate director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California, Berkeley, was not involved with the study.
Adamkiewicz recently completed another study that suggests green buildings can be healthy, or at least healthier, he said.
He studied families who moved from old, conventional housing to new, green public housing units in Boston. The new buildings were designed to save energy and reduce exposures to indoor pollutants.
In the green units, adults wheezed and coughed less and suffered fewer headaches, he found, and children missed fewer school days and had fewer asthma attacks and hospitalizations.
SOURCE: bit.ly/2wZx8zN Environment International, online September 12, 2017.
Keep reading...Show less
Label salon products to disclose risks.
Imagine that your favorite hair product’s label read, “Warning: may cause infertility,” or listed “formaldehyde,” a cancer-causing embalming fluid, as an ingredient.
Subscribe
Sign In
Opinion
Label salon products to disclose risks
By David KleinAugust 17, 2017
Imagine that your favorite hair product’s label read, “Warning: may cause infertility,” or listed “formaldehyde,” a cancer-causing embalming fluid, as an ingredient. Whatever our products contain, you and I remain blissfully ignorant of our exposure and risk because professional cleaning and salon products often do not label their ingredients (although our hair probably looks fabulous).
The Legislature is debating AB1575 and SB258, two bills to improve labeling for salon-grade nail polish, shampoos and hair coloring, cosmetics and skin cleaning products, as well as toothpaste, household cleaning products and automotive industry cleaning products. If you or your loved ones use these products, you should ask your representative to ensure the bills pass. Let me tell you why.
Unlike medications, commercial chemicals undergo little, if any, testing before being introduced into our world. Currently, 9.5 trillion pounds of commercial chemicals pass annually through the United States: enough to dump a new 14-ton sack of industry-grade mystery dust on each American’s pillow each night of each year. Though some may temporarily irritate the skin and lungs, many are endocrine-disrupting chemicals like diethylstilbestrol, or DES, that disrupt our hormone systems and cause disease even in low doses.
The story of DES is one well-studied, notorious example of chemical harms. It was prescribed during the Baby Boom era to prevent pregnancy miscarriage, and is now linked to infertility, obesity and cancer in women who were exposed to this drug in the womb. New data suggest that even the grandchildren of women prescribed DES bear higher disease risks. Chemicals like DES can change the ways that inherited genes are turned on and off, their negative effects to ripple through our genes for generations.
Though industry does respond to public concern, poor transparency remains problematic. Take bisphenol A, or BPA. We know that BPA negatively affects adult fertility and babies’ neurologic development, so “BPA-free” stickers helped companies market their products to safety-aware consumers. While we were looking for stickers, BPA was merely replaced with similar chemicals.
Similarly, the so-called “Toxic Trio” (formaldehyde, toluene, dibutyl phthalate) found in numerous nail polishes prompted companies to claim their product was toxin free. A 2012 report by the California Environmental Protection Agency revealed that these claims were often false.
Some will complain that change is onerous. Surely, products often contain many ingredients, and chemical names read like over-hyphenated alphabet soup. It can be a confusing list. But this is not cause to conceal information. A legal requirement of disclosure will help to ensure the manufacture of safer, faithfully-labeled products.
Moreover, there are solutions. Small pictograms, such as a picture of a pregnant woman with an overlying “X,” will cut through the confusion and convey a message as clear as the modern skull and crossbones. In some cases, that may be appropriate too.
Keep our communities safe and informed. Tell your representative that you vote for transparency.
David Klein is a resident ob-gyn physician at UCSF.
THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS
Local
Solar eclipse shines a light on bogus shades and profiteers
Local
Family feud threatens Caffe Trieste, center of SF’s bohemian
Local
Fleeing repression, Jewish immigrants found success in Gold Rush
Top 100 Restaurants
Top 100 Restaurants 2017: Savor Bay Area's best
TopAbout
Our Company Ad Choices CareersTerms of UseAdvertisingPrivacy PolicyYour Privacy RightsYour California Privacy RightsContact
Customer ServiceFrequently Asked QuestionsNewsroom ContactsConnectServices
ProfileSubscriber Servicese-editionAppArchivesMembershipStoreSubscription Offers
© Hearst Corporation
Keep reading...Show less
These sheets are made with just three things: Cotton, rainwater, and wind power.
Blaynk’s undyed sheets are the color of unadulterated cotton, because they’re not dyed and crafted entirely without chemicals.
It has such a reassuring, healthy ring to it: organic cotton. Falling asleep at night, you imagine that amid organic sheets, you’ll experience a more restful, chemical-free slumber. And while it’s true that the cotton spun into the sheets may have been grown without pesticides, the “organic” label doesn’t cover that which comes after–all the processing, dying, and finishing that injects a fair amount of chemicals into the supposedly pure product.
Blaynk, a new bedding company, says its pushing beyond the “organic” label and creating sheets made from just two ingredients: cotton and rainwater. (Despite the extraneous “Y,” the company’s name is pronounced just like the word “blank.”) Founder Lauren Page’s grandparents opened a foam and fabric business in Rochester, New York in 1879; her first job was working for their company, which launched her career path in consulting for the textile industry. But as Page gained more exposure to manufacturing practices, she grew disillusioned with the idea that any textile produced by mainstream methods could ever honestly bear the designation of organic.
But organic cotton textiles are still a minuscule part of the overall textile market: Just 0.7% of cotton grown globally is done so without chemicals. The remaining 99.3% is the most pesticide-intensive crop worldwide, accounting for anywhere between 16% and 25% of total global pesticide use. For conventional and organic cotton alike, the post-harvest process is where the industry’s chemical footprint deepens: Spinning oils are generally employed to reduce friction as the cotton is converted into yarn, and strengthening chemicals like formaldehyde and flame retardants are added to the material as it’s woven to prevent breakage. Around 20% of the world’s industrial water pollution comes from textile production and dyeing; around 200,000 tons of synthetic dyes from the industry stream into the global water supply each year.
The idea that a quality textile could be produced without relying on chemicals, Page says, “is at the core of Blaynk.” Her company follows in the footsteps of those like Boll & Branch, whose founders similarly became disillusioned with mainstream cotton production and became, in 2016, the first Fair Trade certified bedding company. Blaynk partnered with Chetna Organic, a nonprofit organization, certified by Fair Trade USA, the Global Organic Textile Standard, and Fairtrade International, that works with cotton growers in India to grow non-GMO crops without pesticides.
Blaynk’s sheet sets range from $129 to $299. [Photo: courtesy Blaynk]
Through her research as a consultant, Page came across a textile manufacturer in southern India that was founded in 1947 and runs its operations on 100% wind power; she reached out to them to manufacture Blaynk’s products. To mitigate the water-intensive nature of fabric production, especially in drought-strapped India, Blaynk’s manufacturing partner collects and reuses rainwater to produce the sheets. While standard cotton bedding requires around 20 gallons of water to make, Blaynk takes just two gallons of rainwater, and has developed proprietary methods to spin, treat, and weave the cotton to be soft and durable without relying on chemicals.
The motivation for doing away with chemicals, Page says, was two pronged. On the one hand, Blaynk is tapping into an increase in consumer demand for clean, traceable products; its bed linens and crib sheets are undyed and unpatterned to highlight the cotton’s natural color, and while Page says she recognizes that unique and vibrant sheets are often something consumers seek out, she believes the company’s ethics and methods will attract people interested in eliminating chemicals from their homes. Those same people will also be willing to pay a premium: Blaynk’s sheet sets range from $129 to $299.
Around 20% of the world’s industrial water pollution comes from textile production and dyeing. [Photo: courtesy Blaynk]
The second factor in Blaynk’s production model, Page says, is the health of the workers. “If you think about not wanting chemicals in your home, think about what the constant exposure to chemicals does to people in the industry,” Page says. Studies have linked exposure to formaldehyde and synthetic dyes to high incidences of lung cancer, leukemia, and miscarriages among garment workers; Page hopes that by working with a manufacturing facility that avoids chemicals and provides healthcare and educational programs for its employees, the company will prove that better production practices equate to strong business.
ADVERTISEMENT
Blaynk is still very new: Page began researching alternatives to chemical textile production around a year and a half ago, and the Kickstarter launched August 8. But Page already has a plan in place for when people decide to switch out their current sheets for Blaynk: Every shipment comes with a prepaid label, which customers can affix to a box and mail their old sheets back to Blaynk’s offices, instead of adding them to landfill along with the 13 million pounds of annual textile waste that accumulates there. Page has formed partnerships with textile recycling companies like Miller Waste Mills, that will either upcycle or recycle the sheets. “This is so important to me—we all can recycle our paper and plastic fairly easily, but just because you’re getting new bed sheets shouldn’t mean you have to contribute to the waste,” Page says.
Keep reading...Show less
State attorneys fight EPA delay in cutting methane pollution from oil and gas rigs.
Attorney General Maura Healey on Wednesday joined 14 attorneys general to oppose a federal delay in implementing a 2016 rule designed to reduce methane emissions from new oil and gas wellheads and compressor stations.
A hydraulic fracturing operation underway at a drilling pad in the Marcellus Shale gas play of southwestern Pennsylvania.
A hydraulic fracturing operation underway at a drilling pad in the Marcellus Shale gas play of southwestern Pennsylvania. (Doug Duncan | USGS)
By Mary C. Serreze
Special to The Republican
BOSTON -- Attorney General Maura Healey on Wednesday joined 14 attorneys general to oppose a federal delay in implementing a 2016 rule designed to reduce methane emissions from new oil and gas wellheads and compressor stations.
Healey and her peers submitted formal public comment to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that a proposed two-year stay would be "illegal and harmful to public health."
The rule limits methane emissions by enhancing leak monitoring at all new facilities. The controls are also expected to reduce pollutants such as volatile organic compounds, benzene and formaldehyde.
Atmospheric scientists say methane is a far more powerful agent of climate change than carbon dioxide. The oil and natural gas sector accounts for a third of total methane emissions in the U.S., and leaks at compressor stations and wellheads are among the culprits.
The methane rule became effective on Aug. 2, 2016, and was challenged in court by industry groups. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals promptly ruled that the 90-day delay was unlawful and vacated it.
On June 5, Pruitt announced a 90-day administrative stay, arguing that objections from the oil and gas industry had not been addressed. On June 16, he published two more proposed delays, totaling 27 months.
The EPA does not have authority under the Clean Air Act to delay the rule, according to the attorneys general. Furthermore, when Pruitt was Oklahoma's attorney general, he sued the EPA over the methane rule. As such, his involvement in the matter is improper, the group argued.
"Scott Pruitt's continued attempts to upend these critical clean air protections are not only illegal, but dangerous to the health and well-being of our residents," said Healey in a statement.
A 27-month delay would lead to another 48,138 tons of methane, 13,272 tons of volatile organic compounds, and 506 tons of hazardous air pollutants that could have been prevented, Healey said.
The 14 attorneys general "will hold the Trump administration accountable for rolling back environmental protections and undoing the progress we've made to protect our planet," she added.
Healey noted that Massachusetts played a major role in the fight to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and led a coalition of states in the landmark case of Massachusetts v. EPA. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Concern over methane emissions is not new. Massachusetts, New York and other states in late 2012 notified the EPA of their intention to file a lawsuit. The states claimed that the EPA ignored its mandate under the Clean Air Act to study methane pollution from the oil and gas sector.
Joining Healey are attorneys general of California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. Chicago and the state of Colorado also submitted formal comments.
In Massachusetts, the matter is being handled by Melissa Hoffer, Healey's Energy and Environment bureau chief, and Assistant Attorney General Peter Mulcahy.
Mary Serreze can be reached at mserreze@gmail.com.
Keep reading...Show less
NASA
The tricked-out research planes that fly through wildfires.
The only way to know exactly what’s in a wildfire’s smoke is to sample straight from the haze.
THE ONLY WAY to know exactly what’s in a wildfire’s smoke is to sample straight from the haze. So during the Rim Fire in Yosemite—which emitted so much smoke it formed its own clouds—a NASA DC-8 passenger plane and an Alpha fighter jet each crisscrossed through the plume. On both planes, scientists had created an in-flight lab to measure exactly what the fire was producing.
The answer seems obvious: Fire makes smoke. But smoke isn’t a uniform entity. It’s a variable portfolio of gases, invisible but for the particles they ferry along. “That’s what you’re actually seeing when you see a smoke plume, you know the big white smoke plume. That’s sunlight bouncing off the little particles,” says Bob Yokelson, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Montana. The composition of that smoke matters for human lungs and the climate—which is why Yokelson’s team and NASA’s Alpha jet crew are busy planning their next flights for late summer.
There are a lot of ways to study those pollutants—from the ozone that makes it hard for humans and crops to breathe to the light-absorbing particulate matter that raises atmospheric temperatures. The US Forest Service runs a Fire Sciences Lab in Missoula, where Yokelson has compared burning manzanita to ponderosa pine to see how fires in different ecosystems might burn. But it’s incredibly difficult to capture every component of a burning forest—with variable light, temperature, and fuel conditions—in a lab. So the truest measurements come straight from the airspace above a burning forest.
Sending a lab down a runway and into the sky isn’t easy. Prep can take a year or more, as teams of scientists design and assemble custom gas and particle measurement systems. In research labs, these machines are finicky, sprawling combinations of pumps and tangled wire. For field flights, they’ve got to work at a range of temperatures and pressures, and neatly replace a row of plane seats—or get even smaller.
The Alpha jet was converted from a fighter jet, taking off as a science plane for the first time in 2010. Before that, it had to be quieted down for civilian airspace, and equipped with sensors to measure trace gases in the atmosphere: ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, and formaldehyde. As its two pilots follow a fire’s smoke, the sensors continuously measure the air, according to Laura Iraci, the NASA chemist who runs the experiments. After a two or three hour flight—the next will likely be in late August—they land back at the airstrip with data cards full of numbers to analyze.
When Yokelson and his team outfit a jetliner like the DC-8 that flew to the Rim Fire, they get to renovate the plane’s interior. “We'll take out every other row of seats, and bolt down instruments in their place, so now you have the scientist sitting in front of an instrument and they can monitor the data as we're sampling the atmosphere,” he says. This summer, their team is getting a C-130 jet ready for its close-up–test flights, set for September.
In flight, the scientists on a larger plane like the DC-8, or a C-130, monitor the same trace gases as the Alpha jet. But a bigger plane means more room for equipment. So they can also measure the size of smoke particulates, plus a whole range of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Those nitrogen oxides react with with volatile organic compounds in sunlight to make smog—ozone and particles—so measuring all the ingredients of the reaction is ideal. Larger planes can also collect samples, sucking air into two liter stainless steel cylinders. They sometimes ship hundreds of these canisters back to lab overnight for analysis of dozens more chemicals.
So far, airborne studies like these have highlighted that wildfires burn dirtier than their indoor and prescribed cousins, carefully lit and contained in the forest. Bigger logs and wetter material create even more particulate matter. And as fires smolder longer, they can actually start to release a serious amount of methane, which traps more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
Both Yokelson and Iraci have lots more questions about what else fires dump into the atmosphere, and how the airspace changes throughout the course of a fire. So as soon as the planes are ready, they’ll head back towards the smoke. Their accurate field measurements are the key to good air quality and climate change models—and the EPA would love to predict how wildfire pollutants might descend on neighboring cities and states. “We're really optimistic that our data can provide sort of truth, so they can continue improving their models,” says Iraci. It may take a season or two to pump new data in, but predicting air quality around wildfires could get a lot better in the next few years.
Keep reading...Show less
Despite instability in US health care, health care sustainability is solid.
Environmentally responsible practices aren’t simply “nice to have” add-ons for good times. They’re integral to reducing operating costs and creating better patient outcomes.
Environmentally responsible practices aren’t simply “nice to have” add-ons for good times. They’re integral to reducing operating costs and creating better patient outcomes.
WRITER
Gary Cohen
@HCWithoutHarm
Co-founder and president, Health Care Without Harm
SHARE
Tweet Facebook Share on Google+ Linkedin REPUBLISH
March 17, 2017 — Mercury used to be commonplace in a variety of products used in health care settings, including thermometers, cleaning agents and electronic devices, such as fluorescent lamps and computer equipment. Mercury is a dangerous toxin that can be harmful to humans, including to the brain and kidneys. It can be absorbed through cuts and abrasions in the skin. Studies show that mercury makes its way into our nation’s rivers, lakes, streams and drinking water, jeopardizing human health and the environment. Twenty-five years ago health care leaders across the nation worked to remove mercury from operations, and they have succeeded in significantly phasing out the use of the chemical, replacing it with safe, cost-effective alternatives.
Since then, progress on health care sustainability has continued. Today we’re seeing efforts to tackle root causes and complex, sectorwide problems like climate change and greening the supply chain — reducing health care’s impact on the environment and the environment’s impact on public health.
However, as political winds shift at the federal level, some are questioning whether advancements in sustainability can continue. Can health care afford sustainability when the very business model that funds health care is in flux? Or is sustainability simply a “nice to have” initiative for good times that must be cut when the federal insurance market changes?
The truth is, the benefits delivered from environmental initiatives are far too connected to health care’s mission and operations for the industry to change course. In fact, because sustainability strategies reduce operating costs and create better patient outcomes, many hospitals and health systems are doubling down on them, hoping the gains they reap will position them to weather market changes to come.
Recognizing climate change as one of the greatest health issues of our time, U.S. hospitals are stepping up efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
It is true that some sustainability efforts are expensive, and if cost cutting becomes necessary, they may fall by the wayside. However, many commitments to sustainability in key areas are likely to continue. These include cost-saving initiatives like reducing waste reduction, conserving water, boosting energy efficiency and serving healthy food. The latest data and trends compiled in the 2016 Sustainability Benchmark Report from Practice Greenhealth — an international coalition of organizations, hospitals and health partners I founded and for which I serve as president — show that the push for green health care has never been stronger. Below are a few highlights.
Clean energy moving mainstream. Recognizing climate change as one of the greatest health issues of our time, U.S. hospitals are stepping up efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Our report shows that over the past three years, the percent of facilities that have a written plan to mitigate climate change has nearly doubled.
From a financial perspective, reducing energy consumption nearly always pencils out: Because hospitals operate 24/7, a typical hospital’s annual energy bill runs into the millions, depending on size and location. A growing number of facilities are moving beyond energy efficiency to renewable energy sources to save money and reduce carbon emissions. According to our report, the percentage of facilities that generate or purchase renewable energy has increased 82 percent in the past three years. These hospitals are reaping financial savings over time, and with the advent of power purchase agreements, many hospitals can get a decades-long guaranteed return from renewable energy with no upfront installation costs. By moving away from fossil fuels, these facilities also align with their health missions, reducing direct health care costs associated with asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis and other health problems linked to power plant emissions.
New strategies driving waste reduction. Waste is one of the most visible environmental issues associated with hospitals and health care systems, both in terms of the quantity of waste generated and the complexity of managing it appropriately. Waste reduction will continue to be a key area of focus for hospitals, because it produces substantial cost savings.
Hospitals are realizing cost savings from preventing food waste up front and managing it on the back end through efforts like composting or food donation programs.
Many hospitals have implemented recycling programs that reduce waste and reduce their extremely high disposal costs. (Medical waste disposal costs can be nearly five times those for traditional waste.) According to our data, leading hospitals are routinely achieving a 30 percent recycling rate.
With up to 25 percent of a hospital’s total waste coming from food, a growing number of facilities are targeting food waste. Hospitals are realizing cost savings from preventing food waste up front and managing it on the back end through efforts like composting or food donation programs. Because rotting food in landfills produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas, food waste reduction is also a climate mitigation strategy.
Higher demand for sustainable products. The products that health care providers buy have environmental and human health impacts that often aren’t considered in traditional purchasing processes. Products like furniture, bedding and medical supplies can contain toxins that are harmful to patients when in use and harmful to the environment when discarded. Because of this, we have found more and more hospitals are using “environmentally preferable purchasing.”
The demand for furniture free from toxic flame-retardants is a powerful example. In recent years, several major health care systems have pushed suppliers to provide furniture without this harmful chemical that’s linked to reproductive problems, cancer and developmental delays. This has resulted in a reported reduction in the cost of furniture for some hospitals, while others report that the switch to furniture free from toxic flame-retardants is now cost neutral. In 2016, the percent of hospitals prioritizing furniture and medical furnishings free of halogenated flame retardants, formaldehyde, perfluorinated compounds and PVC grew by more than 55 percent from the previous year.
Our data reveal how deep and wide health care’s efforts in sustainability are, and how embedded these kinds of actions are in the very business model.
As our knowledge of the hazards of certain commonly used chemicals found in traditional medical supplies and products grows, more health care facilities are considering environment and human health in every purchasing decision and allocating a growing percentage of their budgets to sustainable products and services. As result of this demand, we are seeing market transformation — more of these products have become available at the volumes necessary for large buyers to purchase, while costs are going down. Our hope is that just as public health and health care changed the conversation and behavior around tobacco and mercury across multiple industries, health care will now drive change back into the supply chain for other large buyers of products and services, including schools, governments and universities.
Hospitals Will Continue to Lead
Although health care is currently in flux, it isn’t running from environmental stewardship. Our data reveal how deep and wide health care’s efforts in sustainability are, and how embedded these kinds of actions are in the very business model. We believe health care will remain on the forefront of sustainability because it’s good business, it’s good for communities and it’s better for people’s health.
Tweet
Keep reading...Show less
EPA science under scrutiny by Trump political staff.
The Trump administration is scrutinizing studies and data published by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, while new work is under a "temporary hold" before it can be released.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Trump administration is scrutinizing studies and data published by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, while new work is under a "temporary hold" before it can be released.
The communications director for President Donald Trump's transition team at EPA, Doug Ericksen, said Wednesday the review extends to all existing content on the federal agency's website, including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth's climate is warming and man-made carbon emissions are to blame.
Ericksen clarified his earlier statements he made to The Associated Press, which reported that the Trump administration was mandating that any studies or data from EPA scientists undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public. He said he was speaking about existing scientific information on the EPA website that is under review by members of the Trump administration's transition team.
He said new work by the agency's scientists is subject to the same "temporary hold" as other kinds of public releases, which he said would likely be lifted by Friday. He said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review.
Former EPA staffers under both Republican and Democratic presidents said the restrictions imposed under Trump far exceed the practices of past administrations.
Ericksen said no decisions have yet been made about whether to strip mentions of climate change from epa.gov
"We're taking a look at everything on a case-by-case basis, including the web page and whether climate stuff will be taken down," Erickson said in an earlier interview with the AP. "Obviously with a new administration coming in, the transition time, we'll be taking a look at the web pages and the Facebook pages and everything else involved here at EPA."
Asked specifically about scientific data being collected by agency scientists, such as routine monitoring of air and water pollution, Ericksen responded, "Everything is subject to review."
Trump press secretary Sean Spicer appeared to distance the president from the issue, telling reporters the communications clampdown at EPA wasn't directed by the White House.
Trump's nominee for EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, said during his Senate confirmation hearing last week that he disagreed with past statements by the president alleging that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to harm U.S. economic competitiveness. But like Trump, Pruitt has a long history of publicly questioning the validity of climate science.
William K. Reilly, who was EPA administrator under Republican President George H.W. Bush, said what seems to be happening with science at the agency is "going down a very dark road."
The EPA's 14-page scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration, describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency. It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the media and Congress "uncompromised by political or other interference."
The scientific integrity document expressly "prohibits managers and other Agency leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional opinions or inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards." It provides ways for employees who know the science to disagree with scientific reports and policies and offers them some whistleblower protection.
George Gray, the assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush, said scientific studies were reviewed usually at lower levels and even when they were reviewed at higher levels, it was to give officials notice about the studies - not for editing of content.
"Scientific studies would be reviewed at the level of a branch or a division or laboratory," said Gray, now professor of public health at George Washington University. "Occasionally things that were known to be controversial would come up to me as assistant administrator and I was a political appointee. Nothing in my experience would go further than that."
"There's no way to win if you try to change things," Gray said.
The AP and other media outlets reported earlier this week that emails sent internally to EPA staff mandated a temporary blackout on media releases and social media activity, as well as a freeze on contract approvals and grant awards.
Ericksen said Tuesday that the agency was preparing to greenlight nearly all of the $3.9 billion in pending contracts that were under review. Ericksen said he could not immediately provide details about roughly $100 million in distributions that will remain frozen.
The uncertainty about the contract and grant freeze coupled with the lack of information flowing from the agency since Trump took office have raised fears that states and other recipients could lose essential funding for drinking water protection, hazardous waste oversight and a host of other programs.
The agency also took a potential first step Tuesday toward killing environmental rules completed as President Barack Obama's term wound down. At least 30 were targeted in the Federal Register for delayed implementation, including updated pollution rulings for several states, renewable fuel standards and limits on the amount of formaldehyde that can leach from wood products.
Jared Blumenfeld, who served until last year as EPA's regional administrator for California and the Pacific Northwest, compared what is happening to a "hostile takeover" in the corporate world.
"Ericksen and these other folks that have been brought in ... have basically put a hold on everything," said Blumenfeld, who regularly speaks with former colleagues still at the agency. "The level of mismanagement being exercised during this transition is startling and the impact on the public is alarming."
For example, he said EPA employees aren't clear whether they can direct contractors who handle all of California's Superfund sites. Some EPA employees have taken to their own social media accounts to say what's happening inside the agency, despite fears of retaliation.
"There's a strong sense of resistance," Blumenfeld said.
---
Associated Press writer Ellen Knickmeyer contributed from San Francisco.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
