Urban Ecoist

If you are a city dweller, an Urban Ecoist if you will, you may have some stuff in your backyard of which you may not be aware.

Lead

Lead may be in your backyard, especially in older neighborhoods, as the houses at one point, more likely than not, had lead paint on the exterior. The lead paint may have flaked off and fallen into the soil around the house, and the lead from the paint on the exterior may have leached into the soil as well. Most lead contamination around residential homes are within a few feet of the house.

If your house is on a busy street, you may have lead in the yard from car’s long ago that ran on leaded gasoline. Even if you are a not-so-city-dweller, and instead opted for the ‘burbs, if your house is on former orchard land, the pesticides used in the past, in the form of lead arsenate, may be in your soil.

Born in the ’70’s? No wonder you don’t read so well.

Hmm. Lead. Doesn’t that cause developmental problems in children? Doesn’t severe lead poisoning lead to seizures and possibly death? Yeah, that’s lead. Heck, it even affects adults in the form of memory loss and hypertension.

The US Environmental Protection Agency considers garden soil contaminated if it has 400 parts lead per million parts of soil.

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Soil and Plant Tissue Testing Lab, which charges $9 a sample, normally receives about 10,000 soil sample requests a year for soil to be tested for a suite of contaminants, including lead. This year, the lab is on track to get about 16,000. Lab director Steve Bodine said he does not know exactly why people are sending in more soil samples, but believes it is at least in part because of an increased interest in vegetable gardening. Typically, about 10 percent of the homes tested show unsafe levels of lead. — Boston Globe

First…what can you do about lead in your backyard?

Really, not much. If it is a major problem, you can have your soil dug up and replaced, which is pretty pricey. Hopefully, if you do have lead in your yard, it won’t be above the EPA limit for what is safe. Except if you grow vegetables. Read on.

A good number of urbanites rent their homes, and if that is the case, there is a regulation that if the house you will be renting has lead contamination, the landlord must notify you of that fact. The same disclosure rule is in effect if you plan on selling or buying a house. However, there is no regulation that landlords or sellers have to test their properties. Nice loophole, huh?

Not sure about lead in your rented backyard? If it is an older home, you may want to assume that there is some lead. You can have it tested, but just to be sure, plant all vegetables in pots or raised-bed gardens. Lead doesn’t usually leach up into soil, so a raised garden will alleviate even a small amount of lead contamination.

Oh, yeah, and avoid bare soil in your yard. Tracking it inside does no good for anyone. Also, pets tend to seek out soil, so give them few opportunities. Even a good, deep layer of mulch can help in that department.

lead, contamination, residential, home, house, yard, backyard, soil, poisoning, gasoline, pesticides, children, lead poisoning, EPA, rental, landlords, buyers, sellers, disclosure

If you have not heard or read about it, you may not know that frogs and amphibians are in trouble. Reports of declining numbers are coming in from all parts of the Earth, and if it helps, think of an amphibian as a canary in a coalmine. Amphibians are good bio-indicators of ecological health. This is mostly due to the fact that frogs and amphibians have permeable skin, and having such, amphibians tend to “soak up” pollutants and other chemicals more easily. The pollution also bio-accumulates in amphibians, so effects of said chemicals can be more palpable than in other creatures. Amphibians also spend their lives in both water and on land, so they get the, er, worst of both worlds. In other words, frogs are rather fragile, and when the world becomes too dry or polluted, they die.

So why not turn your little plot of potential wildlife habitat of a back or front yard into a frog sanctuary.

It’s easier than you think. But you will need to put in a pond. Ponds can be simple or you can go crazy. But if you ever needed a reason to put in a small pond in the backyard, this is it. Do it for the frogs.

Frogs like fresh water and lots of cover. If you have a bigger pond, you can have both fish and frogs, but for the most part, you may have to choose frogs over fish. You see, eggs and tadpoles are like candy to fish, so frogs won’t move in if fish are around. If you have one of those two-tier ponds, you could have frogs in the top and fish in the bottom. Or you try to create a barrier in your pond with rocks, which frogs also happen to enjoy.

Other things to keep in mind. Frogs need gently sloping walls, not straight ones. Also, make sure to include some aquatic plants in your frog pond. Keep your water clean, and as frogs are voracious insect eaters, you shouldn’t have to worry about mosquitoes, but of course, keep the water fresh and clean all the same.

If you are using city water, you may want to let the chlorine blow off of your water before adding it to your pond. Chlorine blows off fast when the water is left out in the sun. Frogs are sensitive to chlorine, so try not to add water out of the tap into your pond. Let it sit out in a bucket or four for a few days.

Outside the pond, have lost of groundcover plants and shrubs around the yard. Frogs don’t like a lot of direct sunlight, so if you have a shady garden, you are one step in the right direction already. Frogs also like rocks and logs around which to make their homes.

backyard habitat, wildlife, frogs, amphibians, insects, healthy, bio-indicators, ecology, ecological health, environment, urban garden, pond, plants

Recently, I purchased a bottle of Clorox’ new line of so-called eco-friendly cleaning products by the brand name of greenworks, a cute pun to also make you feel better about buying the product.

The bottle has the reassuring stamps of approval of the EPA and the Sierra Club. It says “natural” in 18 point font above the 12 point “dishwashing liquid”, so it has to be good.

Then I looked at the other side.

Granted, the Greenworks dishwashing liquid works really well. The suds last for quite some time, thus reducing my need to apply more soap to a sponge. I seem the be going through the bottle slowly. The fragrance is rather light, or perhaps that is simply my impression due to allergies. The bottle is easily recyclable (being a #1 plastic bottle), and the bottle states that it contains a minimum of 25% post-consumer recycled plastic. That is great, could be better, maybe, but still pretty good.

However, looking over the listing of ingredients does not quite alleviate my concerns for this product being a wise, ecologically-friendly choice for dishwashing detergent.

Here’s the list:

Water. That’s fine. Citric acid. Sure, even the fragrance with essential oils sounds okay.

Wait, “fragrance with essential oils.” That is an odd use of words. Why not just essential oils? Unless it doesn’t use simple essential oils, but something else? What makes up the something else?

Now onto the not-so-good. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is one of those chemicals that the jury is still out on. According to Cosmetic Database, there are studies going back to 1950’s indicating problems such as skin and eye irritations, animal studies in which mutations occurred as well as problems in both the reproductive and endocrine systems. But it was approved of as safe for both cleaning products, cosmetics, and as a food additive. That kind of creeps me out, that I can use it to create lather as well as puff up marshmallows.

The International Chemical Safety Card goes so far as to say that SLS can be absorbed by the skin and through the lungs. So it is not as if you have to drink the stuff to be exposed. I, for one, don’t use gloves when washing the dishes, but I think I may start.

Just when I think it can’t get any worse, I turn to the Material Safety Data Sheet on sodium lauryl sulfate (also known as sodium dodecyl sulfate) and it says that SLS actually increased the permability of your skin. So the more you are exposed, the more your skin can absorb.

Not sure how “green” greenworks is.

I could not find much info on the alkyl polyglucoside or the coco dimethyl amine oxide. A website for a company called Organix South, Inc. defines alkyl polyglucoside as…

Alkyl Polyglucoside- A mild surfactant base derived from a reaction of cornstarch glucose and a natural fatty alcohol (decyl polyglucose).

And I could find nothing on the coco dimethyl amine oxide, although I did run across a warning about sodium lauryl sulfate when it bonds with an “amine” — a study showed a link to cancer. So with the coco dimethyl amine oxide…oh, I’m sure it’s safe. I am not going to think about it anymore. La la la la la.

Oh, yeah, and corn-based ethanol has been exposed for the fraud it is. Corn is technically a wash when it comes to being a sustainable resource that can replace a carbon based fuel/alcohol. Still I guess it is better than petrochemicals in the soap.

clorox, greenworks, ingredients, natural, eco-friendly, ecofriendly, sodium lauryl sulfate, EPA, Sierra Club, recyclable, dishwashing liquid, soap, detergent, chemicals, International Chemical Safety Card, alkyl polyglucoside, coco dimethyl amine oxide, Material Safety Data Sheet, corn, ethanol

Greenpeace has just released it’s updated ninth edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics. As this site is not Flash-enabled, I cannot embed the neat-o graphic to give you a quick view of which companies are making the grade in responsible manufacturing as well as disposal and recycling of their obsolete gadgets.

© Greenpeace / Will Rose

Oddly, as I traded in a Nokia (which leads the rankings) for a Motorola cell phone, I find myself on the lower end of the responsibility scale. Same with my Xbox 360. Luckily, the Dell laptop I use and the Apple desktop are in the middle in the rankings, but that really doesn’t make me feel any better. I hate my Dell, but I love my Xbox. What is an ecoist-nerd to do?

Let’s first look at Motorola. Here is the Greenpeace summary of the company’s efforts.

Motorola drops to 15th place, scoring 3.7 points, losing points because although its models of chargers are certified as Energy Star compliant in March 2007 – this is not since the latest energy efficiency standard for chargers (v.1.1) came into effect, which was in January 2005; it therefore scores no points on this criterion. In the U.S, all Motorola’s mobile phone chargers exceed ENERGY STAR Tier 2 requirements by more than 50 percent in sleep and standby/no-load modes – but what about chargers sold outside the US? On the other energy criteria Motorola scores relatively well for disclosing greenhouse gas emissions, committing to cuts and reporting a 5.4% renewable energy use (as proportion of all electricity purchased) in 2007. Motorola scores better on the chemicals and e-waste criteria. The company has launched 55 models of mobile phone with BFR free circuit boards. However, Motorola is the only mobile phone brand to still fail to commit to eliminating all BFRs and PVC with a timeline, in all of its products. On waste issues, Motorola provides a take-back and recycling service in 73 countries, representing over 90% of global mobile phone unit sales. It reports a global take-back rate of 3% of total handsets sold in 2005.

I do have to wonder how the “take-back” percentage is figured out. Is it just what Motorola itself takes back or any of the phone recyclers? I know that when I switched over to Credo Mobile, I was sent an envelope to recycle my old phone. Let’s say that is also a Motorola, but if I am sending it to a third-party recycler, would that phone be counted by Motorola in it’s “take-back” numbers?

Now, Microsoft.

Microsoft is in 17th position with a miserable score of 2.2 points, mainly on toxic chemicals criteria. The company provides a timeline of the end of 2010 for eliminating phthalates. On e-waste, Microsoft scores only on its weak support for Individual Producer Responsibility. On energy, the company only scores for reporting its total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, from its own operations and although it now has a Climate Change Policy it makes no reference to specific reduction targets for greenhouse gases.

Perhaps Microsoft has been spending too much of its efforts in its lame ad campaigns, instead of making the company more environmentally responsible? The Seinfeld ad was just stupid, and watching Bill Gates “adjust” himself was just disturbing.

Good thing I have put off buying that Wii. Check out Nintendo’s scoring.

Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria. The company has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out. Nintendo discloses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations and commits to cutting CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. However, Nintendo admits that an increase in business led to a 6% rise in CO2 emissions in 2006.

If you would like to explore the Guide to Greener Electronics yourself, you can visit the Greenpeace website here.

This guide and many like it underscore the problems with the end-life issues with the electronics that we all have and love. I will discuss more about the problem with e-waste in the next few days.

© Greenpeace / Natalie Behring

Greenpeace, Guide to Greener Electronics, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Wii, Nintendo, Xbox, Xbox 360, e-waste, toxic substances, recycling, environmentally responsible computing, cell phone recycling, take-back

Something that would make me laugh if I were not one of the millions of guinea pigs in the experimentation is how so many items that we use in our day-to-day lives are presented as safe until years later new research proves quite the contrary.

One thing I do not understand is how the government agencies that are in charge of protecting the public seem to overlook proper and long-term testing of certain chemical compounds. Everyday it seems that there is a new chemical that is starting to show it’s true dangerous nature, and this week, Bisphenol-A, has made the news. Unfortunately, despite new and growing evidence that plastic #7 can be detrimental to your health, the Food and Drug Administration has decided to wait until more proof of possible danger before the agency will ban the chemical or even limit it’s use.

Here’s the thing. The FDA says that the bisphenol-A present in many of the plastics marked #7 and in the plastic lining of cans is in such low amounts that it cannot harm us. Huh. You would think that any amount of potential harm would throw up a red flag as if the research cannot determine the health risk, how can the same research prove what a safe level is?

Last year, I did a little research on Proctor and Gamble’s environmental and health record. It seems that P&G had been under fire for nail polish that contains dibutyl phthalate. P&G claimed that it only used the phthalates in low enough levels that posed no human harm. Besides, phthalates don’t bioaccumulate so you simply pass them in your urine. I know that should ease my mind, but it just doesn’t.

And the same thing is going on with bisphenol-A.

Here’s a breakdown of the bisphenol-A (BPA) debate going on right now. New research shows a connection between BPA and such maladies as heart disease and diabetes. Granted, our society has high occurrences of both diseases in our general population, but another study showed that BPA can affect a hormone that protects humans from diabetes.

My opinion usually runs along the lines of better safe than sorry. BPA is widely used in those re-usable water bottles as well as bottles used to feed babies. Also, BPA is used in the lining of aluminum cans for soda, and even other canned goods. Many manufacturers of baby products are starting to phase out BPA. Start phasing out the use of BPA in your own life, just to be sure. In case years from now, the FDA does finally find conclusive proof that BPA is dangerous at any level.

Graph: BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)
(Courtesy of Environmental Working Group)

Ways to avoid BPA (condensed from a US News article):

A word from the Environmental Working Group.

Nestlé, makers of Good Start and Mam brands, repeatedly told EWG researchers that its powdered formula cans contain no BPA. Nestlé’s emails to parents repeat this claim, but the company has failed to document this in writing or provide information on their alternative to EWG, despite our numerous requests to the company. In any case, EWG cannot recommend Nestlé baby formula due to the company’s long history of ethically suspect infant formula marketing practices in the developing world. Nestlé’s claim that it uses BPA-free packaging, if true, would be welcome news, because it suggests that other manufacturers could switch to safer packaging materials and reduce babies’ BPA exposures.

Powdered formula sold by Enfamil and Similac are reduced-risk choices, because only the metal tops and bottoms of their packages – not the cardboard sides – are metal and lined with BPA-based plastic. Earth’s Best Organic and PBM (which make dozens of store brands) are more of a concern: they are sold in an entirely metal can, which means the formula has more contact with a BPA-coated surface.

bisphenol-A, BPA, plastic, #7, baby bottles, baby formula, canned goods, health, heart disease, diabetes, FDA, hormone, Environmental Working Group, Nestle, Enfamil, Similac, Earth’s best Organic

The wonderful thing about Urban Ecoists is that we are not only concerned about the immediate eco-system around us, but we see the macro-system as it is all inter-related. Healthy forests and rivers means healthy cities. Despite the fact, that we urbanites live in cities, we love our wilderness. And we love the myriad creatures that inhabit those places. We see protecting that wilderness and the organisms that dwell there as a sacred (not a word I use often) responsibility.

Too bad we don’t have an open season for this species…

In such, do you know what your lame duck president and his hench men are trying to do before they leave office? Well, I could never cover it all in this little blog, but today I will urge you to submit your comment during this next week to the Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne regarding proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. The public comment period ends September 15, 2008.

The changes in a nutshell are a good start at gutting the very things that have made to the Endangered Species Act a success. I will not bore you with all the details, I will let the Center for Biological Diversity do that for me, but essentially, the ESA works because any federal agency, such as the Office of Surface Mining, would have to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure that any new mine approved by the OSM would be environmentally-sound and not pose a danger to any, well, fish and wildlife. Do you like how I chose agencies whose names tell the story for me? A good writer is an efficient one, ask Hemingway. Not that I am comparing myself to Hemingway, oh, never mind. I’m lazy, there I said it.

Anyhoo, the new rules could lighten up on having “interagency checks and balances.” Also, the period for scientists to evaluate a project is cut by a third and automatically okay’d if the science doesn’t make the deadline. There are some other scary changes, too, like re-defining or limiting what effects would be considered harmful, and the like. Check out the Center for Biological Diversity’s website to find out more and to take action by emailing in a pre-written letter to Secretary Kempthorne and the Department of the Interior. I always like to email the [sic]President as well when it comes to these sorts of things. He whose name must not be named’s email is comments@whitehouse.gov.

Endangered Species Act, Dirk Kempthorne, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Fish and Wildlife Service, Center for Biological Diversity