Rachel's Precaution Reporter #82
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
From: U.S. Geological Survey .............................[This story printer-friendly]
March 8, 2007
MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF FISH WARRANTS WORLDWIDE PUBLIC WARNING
[Rachel's introduction: Scientists call for worldwide public warning about the dangers of eating mercury-contaminated fish: "Methylmercury exposure now constitutes a public health problem in most regions of the world."]
Madison, Wisc. -- The health risks posed by mercury contaminated fish is sufficient to warrant issuing a worldwide general warning to the public -- especially children and women of childbearing age -- to be careful about how much and which fish they eat. That is one of the key findings comprising "The Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution" published today in a special issue of the international science journal Ambio.
Developed at the Eighth International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant last August in Madison, Wis., the declaration is a synopsis of the latest scientific knowledge about the danger posed by mercury pollution. It presents 33 principal findings from five synthesis papers prepared by the world's leading mercury scientists and published in the same issue of Ambio. The declaration and supporting papers summarize what is currently known about the sources and movement of mercury in the atmosphere, the socioeconomic and health effects of mercury pollution on human populations, and its effects on the world's fisheries and wildlife.
Five other major findings in the declaration were:
** On average, three times more mercury is falling from the sky today than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago as a result of the increasing use of mercury and industrial emissions.
** The uncontrolled use of mercury in small-scale gold mining is contaminating thousands of sites around the world, posing long-term health risks to an estimated 50 million inhabitants of mining regions. These activities alone contribute more than 10 percent of the mercury in Earth's atmosphere attributable to human activities today.
** Little is known about the behavior of mercury in marine ecosystems and methylmercury in marine fish, the ingestion of which is the primary way most people at all levels of society worldwide are exposed to this highly toxic form of mercury.
** Methylmercury exposure now constitutes a public health problem in most regions of the world.
Methylmercury levels in fish-eating birds and mammals in some parts of the world are reaching toxic levels, which may lead to population declines in these species and possibly in fish populations as well. "The policy implications of these findings are clear," said James Wiener, a Wisconsin Distinguished Professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse who served as technical chair for last summer's conference. "The declaration and detailed analyses presented in the five supporting papers clearly show that effective national and international policies are needed to combat this global problem."
Published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Ambio (www.ambio.kva.se) is widely recognized as an important international forum for debate on scientific, social, economic and cultural issues affecting the human environment.
Wiener said the Madison Declaration summarizes a year-long effort by many of the world's leading mercury scientists, assembled into four expert panels, to review and synthesize the major mercury science findings. Every member of all four scientific panels endorsed the declaration, he said. Wiener added that all 1,150 participants at the conference were invited to express their confidence in the experts' findings, and the vast majority of those who did so agreed with the experts' conclusions.
Other major findings in the declaration include:
** Increased mercury emissions from developing countries over the last 30 years have offset decreased emissions from developed nations. There is now solid scientific evidence of methylmercury's toxic health effects, particularly to the human fetus.
** New evidence indicates that methylmercury exposure may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly in adult men.
** Increasing mercury concentrations are now being found in a number of fish-eating wildlife species in remote areas of the planet.
** The actual socioeconomic costs of mercury pollution are probably much greater than estimated because existing economic analyses don't consider mercury's impacts on ecosystems and wildlife.
The concentration of methylmercury in fish in freshwater and coastal ecosystems can be expected to decline with reduced mercury inputs; however, the rate of decline is expected to vary among water bodies, depending on the characteristics of a particular ecosystem.
###
Besides Wiener, conference organizers included James Hurley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Sea Grant Institute, David Krabbenhoft of the U.S. Geological Survey and Christopher L. Babiarz of the UW- Madison Water Science & Engineering Laboratory. Wisconsin Sea Grant, USGS and UW-La Crosse were among the major sponsors of the 2006 conference.
CONTACT: David Krabbenhoft, U.S. Geological Survey, (608) 821-3843, dpkrabbe@usgs.gov; or James Hurley, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, phone (608) 262-0905, email hurley@aqua.wisc.edu
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Monday Magazine (Victoria, B.C., Canada) ...........[This story printer-friendly]
March 14, 2007
TOXINS ON THE MENU
Fish full of mercury are just one symptom of a poisoned planet
[Rachel's introduction: Victoria [British Columbia] member of parliament Denise Savoie says it is hard to trust the argument that there are "safe levels" for mercury and other contaminants. "Is there any safe level for things like that?" she asks.]
Now it's the fish that are poisonous. The Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution -- based on a conference in Wisconsin last summer and released this week -- says children and women of child-bearing age should avoid certain kinds of fish because they are high in mercury.
Mercury is a toxin that can have various effects, depending on how it is taken into the body. Exposing a fetus to mercury, according to the Madison report, will impair the child's development and is associated with learning difficulties. It's long been known that mercury poisoning can cause a lack of coordination, memory loss and mood swings even in adults.
In short, it is nasty stuff that you don't want in your body. And as the Madison report authors point out, there is a lot more of it in the environment now, thanks to burning coal. The scientists acknowledged the level has increased three-fold in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, but they stopped short of calling for cleaning up the mess. Instead they advised people to change their consumption patterns, picking fish like salmon or sole over predators like tuna and shark that are further up the food chain.
Environmentalist and author Guy Dauncey argues we shouldn't ignore the source of the problem and should act accordingly to reduce the amount of mercury to which we and other species are exposed. "It's another nail in the coffin of coal-fired power," says Dauncey. "It's not coming from fluorescent light bulbs and thermometer tubes; it's coming from air pollution."
Victoria member of parliament Denise Savoie describes the Madison report as, "Really worrisome. Not surprising, but worrisome." She says, "This was just much more specific and maybe a little more alarming." For populations that rely on fish as a mainstay of their diet, she adds, the report is really bad news.
She points out that in Victoria mercury is one of the metals present in sufficient quantities at both Macaulay Point and Clover Point sewage outfalls to warrant a "contaminated site" designation.
In 2005 the Capital Regional District, which is responsible for the region's sewage, announced that over the previous seven years it had reduced the amount of mercury going into the ocean with our wastes by 70 percent. The region achieved the reduction mainly by requiring dental offices, which use a mercury amalgam for fillings, to capture the metal instead of flushing it down the drain.
Still, though reduced, mercury continued to enter the ocean with our sewage and large amounts of the metal that had been flushed over the years remained on the ocean floor. The 2006 report An Evaluation of Sediment Quality Conditions in the Vicinity of the Macaulay Point and Clover Point Outfalls, found levels of mercury that were five times what you would typically expect in ocean sediments.
MP Savoie says it is hard to trust the argument that there are "safe levels" for mercury and other contaminants. "Is there any safe level for things like that?" she asks. Over time, she says, scientists and regulators keep reducing the level of mercury and other contaminants deemed acceptable in the environment. "Why do the thresholds keep going down? Maybe it's because we know there are no safe thresholds."
She adds, "There are some products that shouldn't even be in circulation."
The problems caused by higher levels of mercury in the environment are indeed part of a much larger story. As Dauncey explains it, we emerged from World War II into the 1950s era where people really believed chemistry and industry would help them live better. By the 1980s, he says, the problems were obvious. "Ozone layer, oops. Climate change, oops. Cancer, oops."
After four years of work, Dauncey and two co-authors are putting the final touches on a new book, Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic. Not enough public attention goes to the environmental and chemical causes of cancer, he says. The incidence rates of many types of cancer are steadily rising in the industrialized world, he says, and it can't be explained by better diagnosing. "At some point you think this is wrong. This has to be wrong."
We should be acting on the precautionary principle, he says, and not allowing the widespread use of chemicals when we know little about their effects on human health and other species. We know even less, he says, about how chemicals work together in our bodies, and since we live in a chemical soup, it's something we should be concerned about. "We are exposed to hundreds simultaneously."
It's not enough, says Savoie, to say avoiding toxins is a matter of consumer choice. Yes, you can choose not to buy tuna or not to put pesticides on your lawn, but when harmful chemicals are spread throughout the environment that affects future human generations and innumerable other plants and animals. "That's no longer consumer choice," she says. "We're more than consumers. We're part of that web."
On the whole, though, governments aren't acting cautiously to control toxins. The NDP [New Democratic Party] pushed a bill in recent months that would have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides throughout Canada, but it didn't get enough support from the other parties. "I find that frustrating," she says. "I think there's movement on some of these issues, but we're going very, very slow."
Dauncey predicts that the environmental causes of cancer and other diseases are going to be more and more on the public agenda, much the way it took decades before governments committed to act on climate change. He says, "Cancer is the next big one that's going to wake up with a bang."
Copyright Copyright 2007 Monday Magazine
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Province (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) .............[This story printer-friendly]
March 19, 2007
VICTORIA TAKES SIDES AGAINST RESIDENTS IN POWER-LINE BATTLE
[Rachel's introduction: In Canada, indigenous people have gone to court to try to stop a high-voltage power line using precautionary arguments -- but they are being betrayed by the government of British Columbia.]
Tsawwassen residents opposed to plans to put high-voltage power lines through their neighbourhood can rightly complain that the provincial government is selling them out.
The residents hoped to overturn a B.C. Utilities Commission ruling that approved the controversial project.
Their appeal court date is just days away.
But now they have learned that the B.C. government intends to intervene on the side of the BC Transmission Corporation.
The Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines (TRAHVOL) has already spent nearly $300,000 fighting this project.
It calls Victoria's last-minute intervention "unbelievable" -- and that is not far off the mark.
The residents' case was strengthened when the B.C. Court of Appeal granted them a second grounds for appeal.
This was based on the principle that where science cannot agree whether or not something may be harmful to health -- such as electromagnetic fields from high-voltage power lines -- a precautionary approach must be taken.
But the B.C. government doesn't think that the precautionary principle should be a question of law in decisions by the Utilities Commission.
In other words, the Campbell government gives power lines a higher priority than people's health.
Such an approach hardly fits with the government's earnest new commitment to preserving the environment.
Copyright The Vancouver Province 2007
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: South Florida Sun-Sentinel ..........................[This story printer-friendly]
March 16, 2007
OP-ED: BIG CYPRESS THREAT GOES BEYOND PANTHERS
[Rachel's introduction: This op-ed says the National Park Service management principles embody something close to the precautionary principle. We have searched the web for these management principles but so far have come up empty. Can any of our readers help us find them?]
By Matthew Schwartz
March 16, 2007
The recent article on the National Park Service's decision to re-open off-road vehicle trails in the Bear Island section of Big Cypress provides a good discussion. However, no matter how important the panther is to the story, it is far from the only objection the environmental community has to this poorly thought-out decision.
According to the terms of the July 2000 Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan (which regulates ORV use within the preserve), most of these lands were deemed off limits to ORVs even without the presence of panthers. Far from being "dry and forested," much of the newly opened area consists of vast tracts of low-lying, wet prairie, inundated for most of the year.
Prairies are identified by the management plan as the "vegetation community most effected by ORV use." The plan goes on to list effects such as the loss of vegetation, exposure of underlying soils, rutting, compaction and the very likely spread of invasive plant species. Dispersed use due to a lack of natural obstacles is also cited. As stated in the September 2000 Record of Decision, "Environmentally sensitive areas, such as prairies, will be closed to ORV use."
Another objection to this decision relates to the length of the trails. While the management plan calls for approximately 30 miles of ORV trails in Bear Island, the new alignment provides for more than 34 miles of designated trails plus an additional seven miles of "secondary" trails. Although secondary trails are permitted by the ORV management plan, they are required to have a specific destination such as a campsite. In Bear Island, the only destination given by the NPS for the re-opened secondary trails is that they provide access to a "hunting area." This is not consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the management plan.
In 2006, the Department of the Interior released its new guidelines for the National Park Service. One of the key management principles was to "ensure that conservation will be predominant when there is a conflict between the protection of resources and their use." This is echoed by the NPS' own "precautionary principle" -- "in all situations involving conflicts between resource protection and resource use, the National Park Service would decide in favor of resource protection."
In addition to the endangered Florida panther, Big Cypress National Preserve is home to no less than 29 other animals listed as threatened, endangered or species of special concern. These include mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and a mollusk. Many of these are also affected by ORV travel. The University of Florida is conducting research on the effects of ORVs on amphibians and small mammals in Big Cypress prairies.
Plant life is equally diverse: Of the more than 850 species found in the preserve, 72 are listed by the state of Florida as threatened or endangered.
Perhaps more than any of its other qualities, Big Cypress is defined by this explosion of biodiversity. Proper use and enjoyment are, of course, expected and encouraged in any unit of the National Park Service. However, use and enjoyment should never extend to activities which have been shown to damage or are likely to damage natural resources. In a recent National Geographic special issue on "Our National Parks in Peril," an aerial photo of Big Cypress received a two-page spread. The caption? "Scarface."
We who live in Broward County are fortunate to have this national treasure in our backyard. I and others often lead hiking trips into remote sections of the preserve only about an hour from Fort Lauderdale. Wet feet, the only drawback, are a small price to pay to experience the natural beauty and tranquility of South Florida as it once was.
As a unit of our National Park System, Big Cypress is the property of all Americans and few of the nearly 450,000 annual visitors to the preserve do so for the purpose of ORV travel. In the context of the current controversy, it is worth repeating the mission statement of the NPS here: "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Matthew Schwartz is the political chairman of the Sierra Club of Broward County.
Copyright 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: California Progress Report .........................[This story printer-friendly]
March 15, 2007
OP-ED: ALLEVIATING YOUR TOXIC BODY BURDEN
The California Legislature Experiments With "Green Chemistry"
[Rachel's introduction: "Under the rubric of 'healthy until proven dangerous,' the chemical industry has been allowed to insert itself into our biological essence, dismantling the basic division between the synthetic and the natural world. As much as it sounds like Philip K. Dick's Blade Runner, the constructed world no longer stops where our skin begins."]
By Gary A. Patton
During your last physical exam, did your doctor check your blood and urine?
If so, you may be surprised by the high number of non-natural substances that were found passing through your body. Doctors recently reported eighty-four distinct hazardous chemicals and metals in the vital fluids of PBS host Bill Moyers.
And highly articulate, well-informed, financially-secure, middle aged white males born in the United States to supportive, nurturing parents aren't the only ones suffering.
Despite numerous studies pointing to the potential health impacts of the toxic materials insinuating themselves into our bodies, we're still not allowed to know basic information about the severity of the threat this morbid melange poses to our health.
Let's take three of the better-known nasties: dioxins, phthalates, and PCBs. These "aspirins of evil" are incorporated into products we use daily including baby toys and teething rings. Chronic exposure may cause birth defects, mental retardation, neurological damage, and chromosomal abnormalities, yet safe exposure levels that protect both consumers and workers have yet to be determined.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1979 allows for synthetic chemicals to be produced and manipulated into products without any testing for potential human health problems. Since 1979, over 70,000 chemicals have been registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Only a small percentage has undergone testing; most of those produced in large quantities are rarely tested at all.
But fear not, dear reader. This year, the California Legislature is considering a package of bills that would prohibit or reduce the use of the most abundant and potentially harmful chemicals. They are also going to vote on legislation that would establish a State toxics inventory program to keep better track of the chemical industry.
We strongly support the Legislature in their efforts to create a regulatory structure that protects human health and nurtures the burgeoning Green Chemistry movement.
Here's a final point to ponder: Under the rubric of "healthy until proven dangerous," the chemical industry has been allowed to insert itself into our biological essence, dismantling the basic division between the synthetic and the natural world. As much as it sounds like Philip K. Dick's Blade Runner, the constructed world no longer stops where our skin begins.
Since these chemicals may not show their deleterious effects for decades to come, and may contribute incrementally to the likelihood of learning disabilities or asthma in our children, doesn't it make sense to adopt a precautionary principle instead?
Promoting Green Chemistry and banning the most potentially dangerous products is a great first step. We'll be working with our help ensure that our children grow up in a healthier, less-toxic world.
If you'd like a list of the bills we're following, contact PCL Legislative Advocate Rene Guerrero at rguerrero@pcl.org.
==============
Gary Patton is the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a statewide, nonprofit lobbying organization. For more than thirty years, PCL has fought to develop a body of environmental laws in California that is the best in the United States. PCL staff review virtually every environmental bill that comes before the California Legislature each year. It has testifed in support or opposition of thousands of bills to strengthen California's environmental laws and fight off rollbacks of environmental protections.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Fish Farmer (Edinburgh, Scotland) ..................[This story printer-friendly]
March 16, 2007
USA: COALITION URGES CONGRESS TO OPPOSE OPEN OCEAN AQUACULTURE
[Rachel's introduction: "Our [U.S.] government's priority should be ocean and fisheries protection, as pursuant to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which calls for adherence to the precautionary principle," said Paula Terrel of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.]
A coalition of environmental, fishing and consumer groups is calling on Congress to oppose open ocean aquaculture.
A proposed bill on open water aquaculture was introduced to the general public yesterday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in a Washington DC briefing.
According to the coalition, if finalised, the bill would permit millions of fish to be raised in large commercial cages off America's coasts. It says this could be detrimental to oceans, wild fish, and people.
"For the past several years, scientists, fishermen and conservation groups have been focused on healthy oceans and the need for strong leadership in developing sustainable marine conservation policies," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. "Unfortunately, NOAA is putting all this at risk by promoting industrial fish farming off our coasts."
"The Bush Administration has strongly promoted open ocean aquaculture for years and still has not adequately incorporated environmental safeguards or addressed the many problems caused by fish farms in their policy," said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. "The NOAA aquaculture bill was a non-starter in the last Congress and it should be rejected by this one as well."
NOAA's goal is to grow the US aquaculture industry from $900 million to $6 billion.
"The new bill is a minuscule step up from the previous bill, but it still leaves too many specifics to regulators whose purpose is to promote an industry that can dump untreated sewage equivalent to that of 17 million people into our oceans," said Mitchell Shapson of the Institute for Fisheries Resources.
According to the coalition, NOAA expects the majority of industry growth to be from raising carnivorous finfish, like tuna or halibut, which rely on a steady diet including wild fish in some form. "Our government's priority should be ocean and fisheries protection, as pursuant to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which calls for adherence to the precautionary principle," said Paula Terrel of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.
According to the coalition, the Bush Administration's plan promotes the construction of large-scale fish farms in deep waters from three to 200 miles off the US coast.
The coalition says it is objecting to the plan because it: lacks substantial environmental provisions, including a prohibition on the farming of genetically engineered fish; lacks consumer protection initiatives; contains weak provisions for protecting traditional fisheries-dependent communities; and ignores regional jurisdiction over the planning, regulation, and monitoring of open ocean fish farms.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::