ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund. (More. . .)
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Amanda.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
FEATURED
BPA in your body: How to minimize your exposure
Caution: These 7 household items may feminize baby boys
BPA in infant formula: This is not a call to panic
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
Is there eco-friendly jewelry?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
Archive
May 31, 2007
Ask EWG: Are phthalates safe for babies?
Question: I’m concerned about my 8-month-old daughter coming into contact with phthalates. Should I throw out any plastic toys, or are there some companies that don't use phthalates? Toy companies I’ve contacted have told me phthalates are harmless. Is this true?
Answer: Phthalates (pronounced tha-lates) are used in soft plastic teethers and toys, and should be avoided to protect a baby’s health. These chemicals are considered a hazardous waste and regulated as pollutants in air and water, but are essentially unregulated in children’s toys, cosmetics, and many other consumer products. Although some types of phthalates have been shown to be toxic to developmental, reproductive, and other organ systems and phased out by companies due to health concerns, alarmingly they are still are used for teethers and other toys. Avoid all soft plastic teethers and food containers until manufacturers prove they are safe. Harder plastic toys are probably phthalate-free, but wooden teethers/toys are the best alternative.
To learn more about phthalate-related health risks, click here. Also check out this great article on phthalates in baby toys, and these safe baby toy recommendations.
Ask EWG: I am looking for a safer (chemical free) option than plastic water bottles. Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Answer: Stainless steel water bottles are the way to go, especially for hot liquids. Make sure your stainless steel bottle doesn’t have a plastic liner inside, which may leach bisphenol-A (BPA), an industrial chemical linked to birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems and other health concerns.
If you do use plastic bottles or bottles with plastic linings, avoid using old or scratched ones, putting them in the dishwasher, and using them for hot liquids. Polypropylene bottles are a good alternative, slightly opaque/translucent with the #5 labeled on the bottom (as opposed to polycarbonate plastics, which are hard, see-thru plastic popularly made by brands such as Nalgene and Lexan).
Canned foods have actually been shown to be the predominant source of our exposure to bisphenol-A (from plastic lining inside). So along with switching bottle types, try to eat more fresh foods and use ceramic, glass, or unlined metal containers for storing and heating food.
Find more tips on how to avoid BPA exposure, and learn more about metal water bottles.
NASA Head: What's all this fuss over global warming?
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Who, you ask, was the author of those spoken words? No - it wasn’t Rush, or Bill or Stossel. Nor, was it Inhofe or Cheney or even Bush. The person who said this is none other than the head of NASA, Michael D. Griffin.
It sounds like the head of NASA – the federal government’s top agency in charge of studying the impacts of global warming – believes the policy of this country, and in fact the world regarding global warming should be ‘let’s roll the dice and see what happens. Besides, some people like it hot and others prefer it be cold’ – You can listen to Mr. Griffin’s full remarks during his interview on NPR.
Building the EcoManor
Laura and Rutherford Seydel are constructing an EcoManor in Atlanta, built to be a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified residence under the U.S. Green Building Council’s guidelines. You can watch their building process and see the final result on Saturday, June 9th, on HGTV's Ground Breakers.
May 29, 2007
A uranium free-for-all
According to The New York Times, a private enrichment company is asking the federal government to hand over an old stockpile of partially processed uranium, worth between $750 million and $3 billion. The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) doesn’t have the technology to process the uranium efficiently, and they don’t know how to scrounge up the necessary cash to modernize their processing facility. USEC also has a history of mismanaging finances. Still, they insist that the government should give the uranium to USEC to ensure that any new enrichment technology remains in the United States. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle claims that “it would be a win-win situation for everybody.”
Indeed, the nuclear power industry would win killer deals on uranium, the cost of which has risen dramatically in the past decade due to volatile oil prices and surging interest in energy “alternatives." Uranium mining is rapidly expanding in response to these price changes, with new extraction sites mushrooming throughout the western states.
But I don’t see anyone else winning from nuclear expansion. Mining activities are polluting water sources and encroaching upon public lands, and the debate about what to do with radioactive waste rages on. Subsidizing nuclear power might sound like a good idea to USEC, but blindly handing over precious resources on the backs of US taxpayers sure doesn’t sound like a winning solution to me.
May 25, 2007
Matthew leaves Enviroblog
Matthew, the leading force behind Enviroblog, left Environmental Working Group yesterday. His next job will be leading a crew of DC high school students at trail and conservation projects in the national parks surrounding DC.
Matthew played an instrumental role in making Enviroblog the success it is today. He will be greatly missed. We will miss his track bike sitting below the stairwell in our office and his vibrant plant life that has been steadily taking over a greater portion of our window sills.
We hope to fill Matthew’s big shoes with a passionate, new Enviroblogger. Right now, a full time position is open for qualified bloggers.
Trying to honor Rachel Carson ain't easy
Earlier this week Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin announced his intention to offer a resolution to mark the 100th birthday of Rachel Carson . Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma decided that the Senate was the wrong place to honor the woman who launched the national debate that would eventually ban certain dangerous pesticides. So Coburn announced this week that he would block the resolution, claiming Carson’s attempts to educate the public on the potential risks of some pesticides somehow killed millions of people in Africa.
Coburn: "In my opinion she did more to kill more African children than anybody I know. I don't think we ought to be honoring her as the result of that effort."
Under that rationale, the author, scientist and environmentalist Rachel Carson joins a long list of warlords and violent homicidal dictators and their armies of thugs and killers that have ruled Africa through war and terror for decades slaughtering literally millions of innocent people.
The specific pesticide Senator Coburn has focused on during his objection to the Cardin resolution is DDT. DDT was used for years on not only different crops like cotton, but also used to combat malaria in certain parts of the world, and still is used for that reason today. In fact even our own government continues to support the use of DDT in those parts of the world where people are at serious risk of contracting malaria. However, Coburn left out that rather important piece of information.
USAID's Kent R. Hill: “USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted.”
I would think that if Rachel Carson were alive today she would agree that in certain instances, like malaria outbreaks in Africa, the use of DDT would be OK. But we do know from scientific research done in the early 1960s that DDT at certain levels can have harmful effects on the reproductive systems of fish and birds in areas where DDT was heavily used. And in fact, following the ban of DDT in the U.S. in the early 1970s wildlife, most notably the osprey and the bald eagle, began to return.
May 24, 2007
Clarification
After our May 16 blog about consultant Dennis Paustenbach’s possible appointment to an EPA panel on asbestos, we received a letter from Dr. Paustenbach’s attorney. It says our use of the word "fraud" in describing the involvement of Dr. Paustenbach's company, ChemRisk, in the publication of a since-retracted study on chromium-6 in drinking water was "false and defamatory."
To clarify: The stated reason for the retraction by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine was that "financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed." JOEM said it found "no evidence to suggest the existence of scientific fraud," but our post could have been misinterpreted to say that it had.
EWG believes ChemRisk’s activities – producing and publishing a study under other scientists’ bylines while hiding its involvement and the fact that the study was paid for by a corporation with a financial interest in the findings – were deceptive and unethical, but JOEM did not say they were fraud. To further clarify, here are the letter and supporting documents EWG sent to the journal that resulted in the retraction.
May 21, 2007
New and improved Skin Deep database
Three years ago, EWG launched a unique online consumer database called Skin Deep that assesses and compares the safety of personal care products. To this day, Skin Deep is the only online resource for those wishing to compare safety ratings for various personal care products.
EWG just launched a major expansion of Skin Deep to cover one-quarter of the products on the market – around 25,000 products altogether. The new Skin Deep site is a thorough upgrade to the database, both in the number of products assessed and the sophistication of EWG's safety reviews.
Under the current law, the government cannot mandate safety studies of cosmetics products or their ingredients, and only 13 percent of the thousands of ingredients in personal care products have been reviewed for safety by the cosmetic industry's own review panel. Safety decisions are made behind closed doors for virtually every product on the market.
To search new database click here
May 16, 2007
Would you buy an asbestos study from this man?
He's back. Dennis C. Paustenbach, a.k.a. Dr. Evil, the science-for-hire consultant who rarely met a chemical he didn't like, is on the short list of potential appointees to the EPA Science Advisory Board Asbestos Panel. The panel has a crucial task: advising EPA's upcoming risk assessment for airborne asbestos, a killer that takes 10,000 American lives a year. Disturbingly, a number of names on the short list, including Paustenbach, have been paid defense witnesses for corporations in lawsuits over asbestos exposure. But Paustenbach's record of mercenary science goes far beyond that.
Paustenbach, you may recall, is president of ChemRisk, a San Francisco environmental consulting firm that specializes in defending big polluters. Working for Pacific Gas & Electric in the Erin Brockovich case, Paustenbach soaked in a hot tub full of water contaminated with chromium-6, the chemical PG&E had dumped in the drinking water of a small town, to try to show it was nothing to worry about. In 2005, separate investigations by EWG and The Wall Street Journal found that while on PG&E's payroll ChemRisk monkeyed with a Chinese study showing a link between chromium-6 in drinking water and stomach cancer, rewrote it to show no connection, and published it in a peer-reviewed journal under the original author's name. In 2006, the journal retracted the article because "financial and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed."
(UPDATE: Today a National Institutes of Health report concluded that chromium-6 does indeed cause cancer when ingested.)
But wait, there's more.
The EPA says members of the Asbestos Panel should display “absence of financial conflicts of interest” and “absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality.” Last year, in an investigation of auto industry lobbying against federal rules on asbestos brakes, the Baltimore Sun found documents showing that ChemRisk and Paustenbach’s previous firm, Exponent, were paid more than $23 million by Ford, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to help fight asbestos lawsuits by former workers. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has documented more than two dozen other companies Paustenbach has worked for that have been sued over asbestos exposure.
And still more: At an asbestos industry conference last year, Paustenbach delivered a 30-minute presentation that was a thinly veiled pitch for asbestos defendants to hire ChemRisk. The video of the speech shows most clearly how chummy Paustenbach is with the asbestos crowd, but his words are damning enough. Notice how he uses the pronoun "we" in discussing the U.S. asbestos industry’s response to Congress’ proposed creation of a trust fund to cover claims:
It’s a complex subject, and it takes a lot of work and a lot of money to do them [studies]. But I can assure you it’s worth the effort. To the best of my knowledge in litigation that was traditionally lost in the United States, I’m not aware of a single case that has been lost when a high quality simulation study was done and exposures were considered de minimus.. . .
It’s a shame to have to have spent, let’s say, $250,000 to do this study when it’s really intuitive that there wouldn’t be much exposure. But when it costs $4 million in the United States to work up and take a case to trial – that’s just the expenses, that’s not the outcome – a $250,000 or $500,000 study is a drop in the bucket. So when you heard yesterday – remember we turned down a settlement of $150 billion, that’s with a B, to settle the litigation crisis in the United States – these kinds of $250,000, $500,000 investments go a long way. If you’ve got 100 cases and it takes $4 million for the lawyers and consultants to get ready for the case and to take it to trial, you can see it’s a drop in the bucket. So when I hear people say, ‘We can’t afford it,” I don’t understand.
I think I understand. Paustenbach and his ilk are making big bucks helping corporations evade justice for threatening our health with asbestos, chromium-6 and other nasty stuff. They parlay their "expertise" into appointments on government panels, where they help their clients by watering down regulations. Then they can go back to their clients and charge more because their appointments to government panels increase their influence and access.
Want to tell the EPA how you feel about this? They're taking public comments through May 24.
Coke settles benzene lawsuit
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on Coca-Cola's settling of a benzene-in-soda lawsuit and the reformulation of two of its products.
Angry Toxicologist and Effect Measure were quick to pick this up. Their verdicts: Coke's baby steps are better than the inaction of Pepsi, Sunny Delight, Shasta, Rockstar, Polar and retailers Safeway and Publix. Still, there is no need for the combination of Vitamin C and preservatives that form benzene in children's drinks.
May 15, 2007
Subsidies for dirty energy
According to the Washington Post, a New Deal program intended to spur investment in rural electricity production in the 1930s continues to shell out billions in low-interest loans for building coal-fired power plants. Though some have tried to eliminate the antiquated subsidy under the argument that most rural areas in the States now have easy access to electricity, the program has proven quite resilient. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association insists that cheap loans will help to keep electric rates affordable in rural regions, warning that any congressional action that jacks up energy prices could result in political suicide.
At the same time, concern over global warming has pressured lawmakers to search for solutions. Investment in coal power will only increase US greenhouse gas emissions, and could offset the positive effects of new vehicle efficiency measures.
Yes, subsidizing dirty energy will reduce electric bills—but at what cost? Our health suffers from mercury, particulate matter, and other pollutants spewed out of smokestacks, leading to higher medical bills and a lower quality of life. Our planet suffers from carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to the economic and social consequences of climate change. Acid rain produced by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions speed the deterioration of buildings and paint, pollute soil and water sources, decrease visibility, and damage human health. Finally, subsidizing coal costs taxpayer dollars; it’s a program that I definitely don’t want my tax money going to support.
If we really want to build an efficient energy infrastructure, we need to start looking at the true cost of our actions rather than the number of cents per kilowatt. The latter figure dismisses the hugely expensive consequences of cheap and dirty energy production.
May 14, 2007
Nothing to hide?
Joanna Gardiner, managing director of Irish cosmetics manufacturer Ovelle Pharmaceuticals posed nude in an internet campaign to promote its chemical-free products. She appears with other nude female and male models to promote that the brand “has nothing to hide.”
"The idea behind the film is that many skincare products are filled with harsh chemicals and irritants which promote conditions such as eczema, whereas ours are natural and organic," said Ms Gardiner to Daily Mail. "I thought having everyone naked would get the message across that we have nothing to hide. I realized that by appearing myself, it would demonstrate my commitment to the product and show I really do care about the issue.”
The company has seen a 500 percent rise in sales, since the campaign was launched on May 5.
Do we want to see US companies' CEOs naked? Well, not really. But the idea that companies here have no toxic chemicals to hide in cosmetics sure sounds appealing to both advocates for safe cosmetics and consumers.
May 11, 2007
Tell Fox News: Stop the "junk science"
Our friends at DeSmogBlog have an important e-petition for you to sign:
On May 9, 2007, Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp. which owns and operates Fox News Channel announced that his company will join the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Murdoch stated: "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction..."
The first thing Murdoch and News Corp. can do to show that they are truly committed to fighting global warming is ending its reporting of misinformation about the science behind global warming.
For example, Steve Milloy (aka. "The Junkman") is a regular Fox News columnist and tireless campaigner in the war against climate science. A quick read of Milloy's website and you will find the usual laundry list of scientific claims that have long been dismissed by the scientific community -- the experts in the field of climate science.
[...]
The NRA and environmentalists on the same side
Some members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) are furious with President Bush and “Dead-Eye” Dick Cheney. At first I thought ‘how could this be?’ Vice President Cheney, while not the best of shots, often speaks at NRA annual meetings, and President Bush had NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre down to the ranch in Crawford for a little R and R.
But the problem isn’t rifles, it’s drill rigs. The Washington Post reported that NRA members including Ronald L. Schmeits, second vice president of the NRA, a member of its board of directors and a bank president in Raton, N.M., are angry that the two oilmen have encouraged energy companies to overrun hunting areas with roads and rigs.
"The Bush administration has placed more emphasis on oil and gas than access rights for hunters," Schmeits said. "We find that our members are having a harder time finding access to public land."
Drilling in big game habitats on public lands in the Rocky Mountain West has doubled this decade, driving away big game and pushing sportsmen out of their favorite hunting spots. The kicker is that the 2,053 wells drilled each year since 2001 have devastated the landscape while producing only a modest amount of energy – about 7 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimated that by 2020 the U.S. could be saving about the same amount of energy per year produced from the game habitats by implementing efficiency standards for several appliances not yet covered by federal rules.
Another great idea from our government: Punch holes in the ground from Montana to New Mexico while at the same time angering sportsmen and at the end of the day producing results that would garner an F in any classroom in America. I mean, it seems to me that doubling the number of wells would hopefully produce a little more than a 7 percent bump in product. But, then again, putting political appointees and federal policies in place to achieve even a modicum of success isn’t what this Administration does best. It does go to show that even those organizations and the people who belong to them, like the NRA, that have done the heavy lifting to put this Administration in power, will always lose out to the biggest winner by far over the last 6 and half years – the energy industry.
May 9, 2007
Banned pesticide still used in head lice treatment
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought against The Ecology Center and two Michigan pediatricians who stood up in support of banning the dangerous chemical lindane in anti-head-lice shampoos. The lawsuit, brought by Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, failed to silence the debate in Michigan over why a chemical banned by EPA for use as a pesticide should be approved by FDA for use in an anti-lice shampoo for kids. Lindane, a suspected carcinogen and known cause of seizures is highly volatile and can easily penetrate food and water supplies. All uses of the chemical have been banned in 52 countries and in California. The bill proposed in Michigan (House Bill 4569)--backed by the Michigan chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics and the Michigan Department of Community Health among others--would phase out all pharmaceutical uses of lindane throughout the state.
May 8, 2007
So what’s the beef with climate?
Carbon is the primary culprit, contributing 70 percent of global greenhouse gases. But let’s not forget that ever-so-sly methane molecule (CH4) that boasts 21 times more global warming potential per ton than carbon, and is responsible for 23 percent of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Look no further than your Big Mac or your bowl of Rice Krispies to find some of the major sources of human induced methane pollution.
An average cow emits 6 percent of its energy in the form of methane gas—otherwise known as flatulence. All of the fart jokes in the world won’t change the fact that livestock produce more than a third of global methane emissions. In addition to CH4 pollution, beef production has led to deforestation in Central and South America for agricultural expansion, largely to feed the United States’ meaty appetite. This exacerbates cattle’s warming effects by slashing some of our biggest carbon sinks.
But before you get too excited about your vegan rice burgers, consider this: rice also emits a significant amount of methane, thanks to bacteria that live in waterlogged, anaerobic paddies. The little buggers decompose fertilizer and volatilize CH4.
What’s more is that the US government currently subsidizes many of the industries most responsible for agricultural methane. US rice received $10.5 billion in government subsidies between 1995 and 2005. Three of the primary livestock feed crops—corn, wheat, and soy—also receive massive subsidies.
Call 911-SMOG
If a deadly strain of an exotic disease were ravaging Los Angeles, the state and federal governments would waste no time declaring a public health emergency. The Department of Health Services and the Centers for Disease Control would mobilize armies of researchers. The governor and the president would authorize the release of as much money as necessary to stop the spread of the epidemic and protect public health.
Last week, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), a regional planning body, made a plea for help dealing with a public health emergency that kills 5,400 Californians each year: air pollution. SCAG passed a resolution calling on Gov. Schwarzenegger and President Bush to declare a state of emergency in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial counties, authorizing extraordinary measures to fight smog.
"When we have a hurricane or earthquake, they declare a state of emergency," said Hasan Ikhrata, director of planning and policy for the regional body. "These numbers are out of this world … so this is significant enough that they should do the same thing." (LAT)
The interesting thing – the disturbing thing – is that SCAG's resolution is seen as an unusual step. Although the health hazards of dirty air are common knowledge, most Americans don't seem ready to move beyond the idea of pollution as something that harms the environment – air, water, soil, trees and wildlife – rather than as the cause of diseases that take a staggering toll in lives each year.
Air pollution kills more people in California each year than auto accidents, homicides and AIDS combined. But if you ask most people what image "air pollution" produces in their mind, they'll say a factory smokestack, not an asthma inhaler. Even in Los Angeles – where, depending on what measurement you use, the air is the most unhealthy in the country – there is a perverse sort of acceptance, even romanticizing, of dirty air as the price paid for living in Paradise.
The notions of "environment" and "health" are moving closer together, if slowly. Findings of industrial chemicals contaminating the bodies of Americans are shifting the idea of pollution from waste affecting the environment to unwanted commercial chemicals that have invaded us all. Even climate change, which most people think of in terms of how hot Earth will be in 50 years, is now being discussed as a catastrophe that will aid the spread of dangerous diseases.
Declared or not, the environmental health crisis is an emergency. The fact that local officials – not celebrity politicians, but everyday public servants who usually focus on basic issues like potholes – are sounding the alarm will help us all wake up to that fact.
May 7, 2007
Diplomas and nose jobs
The number of cosmetic surgeries performed on teenagers has nearly doubled in the last five years. Teenagers still account for just about 2 percent of cosmetic surgery patients in the US, but this trend is increasing rapidly. Cosmetic surgery is becoming a popular graduation gift and it’s often the parents who make the purchase for their kids.
Are teens mature enough to make decisions that will impact their health and the rest of their lives? Also, are we supposed to award academic accomplishments with surgical additions to the body?
Such questions are ultimately up to individual interpretation and values. However, we should all be concerned that teens are still growing and up to 20 percent of cosmetic surgeries must be revised later. So before you give this unique graduation present, think about other choices- perhaps college tuition?
May 3, 2007
An environmental organization disguised as a clothing company
This morning, NPR launched a series on how Americans are adapting to global warming with a feature on Patagonia, the Ventura outdoor clothing manufacturer. Reporter Scott Horsley leans on some eco-hippie cliches (organic pasta in the employee cafeteria, surfboards in the board room, free on-site yoga sessions) but notes that Patagonia's philosophy – acknowledging that making clothes inherently causes adverse environmental impacts, while doing everything possible to minimize harm – is not only profitable today but designed to keep the company in business for a long time. Says CEO Casey Sheehan: "There's no profit to be made on a dead planet."
Patagonia's environmental commitment goes well beyond its business practices. The company has a grants program that supports advocacy groups (including EWG) and sponsors a semi-annual conference that teaches campaign skills to activists (at which I've been a workshop leader). Still not green enough for you? The company will pay the fine of any employee who is arrested for participating in environmental protests, and donates climbing gear to The Ruckus Society, an Oakland-based organization that trains environmentalists and others in non-violent direct action. Not just sustainable, not just activist, but radical – it's a business model we need more of.
May 2, 2007
Got to get dirty before you get clean
Wind energy is great. The knocks against it traffic mostly in the cosmetic/aesthetic and avian safety realms. The potential for truly clean and renewable energy is limitless. In addition, it could bring economic vitality to the Midwest.
One point that is overlooked, however, is the infrastructure needed to harness the electricity generated by wind. In South Dakota, for example, the existing transmission lines are already being used. They’re at full capacity from hydro and traditional sources. It is the 8th windiest place in North America, with huge potential to generate renewable electricity, yet the sad fact remains that you could put up a thousands turbines, and would be unable to use any of the power generated.
The answer – build a coal plant. Ugh.
The only way to finance the development of infrastructure to make wind energy viable is to build a brand new plant using the polluting technology of yesteryear.
di·chot·o·my - n
A separation into two divisions that differ widely from, or contradict each other.
Enter Angry Toxicologist
Today we add Angry Toxicologist to our blogroll. Angry Toxicologist is "focused on public health and the science behind it . . . written for the non-scientist without dumbing anything down." Four days a week, Angry Toxicologist explores a diverse array of topics, from media coverage of science to how regulations work. Friday is reserved for a non-science post, such as Idiot of the Week or this entry, which wanders from gender identity to French politics to songs with the best beginnings.
Angry Toxicologist is another important voice in the same vein as Effect Measure and The Pump Handle. Like the authors of those two must-reads, AT is a scientist in the public health sector who blogs anonymously to protect his professional affiliations.
Full Disclosure: I had already drafted this promotion of Angry Toxicologist before reading the post today which cites EWG's extensive work on the Teflon chemical, PFOA.
May 1, 2007
A remedy for road rage
The sun beamed over Washington, DC on this first morning in May. Riding my bicycle through the usual rush hour traffic, I stopped for a red light on 15th street. A 40-something year-old man entered the crosswalk, only to be rudely honked at by an aggressive truck driver who didn’t want to wait to make a left turn. The pedestrian dodged the front end of the rapidly approaching vehicle and yelled, “I have the right of way!” But his words disappeared in the drone of traffic, as the truck driver proceeded to scream some nasty remarks (that I will not repeat here) at the lone pedestrian.
I threw my arms up in the air and yelled towards the truck driver, “Just chill out; it’s a beautiful day!” The woman sitting in the car next to me shook her head in disapproval as she leaned out of her window and said to me, “That pedestrian had the right of way.” The light changed and I continued pedaling up 15th street.
It’s an all-too-familiar scene of early morning road rage. There are some very good natured people who will regress into an outright fury when sitting behind the wheel in the midst of heavy traffic. Though not entirely immune to aggressive tendencies themselves, pedestrians and bicyclists too often get caught in the middle of this dog-eat-dog traffic pattern. Hit-and-run deaths have increased by 20% since 2000.
I worry that intimidating, uncomfortable, or just plain dangerous conditions may discourage some from low impact transportation methods. In our car-centric country, not carrying several hundred (or several thousand) pounds of metal can make a person feel pretty vulnerable.
But cities can take steps to make non-motorized transport more comfortable for users. Wide sidewalks with trees, sculptures, water fountains, and benches encourage walking, as does traffic calming. Cities that provide bicycle access to public transit, adequate bike-locking facilities, well-maintained trails, and basic hazard removal (grates, potholes, broken glass) see an increase in the percentage of people who choose to bike.
The Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program included in the SAFETEA-LU transportation bill will study the effects of implementing non-motorized transportation infrastructure in four U.S. cities, with a specific focus on reducing costs, traffic congestion, and other negative effects associated with automotive transport.
I’m excited to see the results of this study. It’s about time we look deeper into the transportation troubles faced by bike/ped folks who must maneuver in hostile streets designed primarily for the auto.