By Alex Rindler, Policy Associate

According to a Huffington Post article published today, U.S. Marine Corps officials have urged federal health experts not to release complete information about an ongoing federal water assessment at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, home to the largest documented case of water contamination at a domestic military facility.

Last week, Major General J.A. Kessler wrote officials of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a letter dated January 5th, asking for careful review of information about active water systems that "potentially places those who live or work aboard the base at risk."

Apparently Marine brass is worried that this information may end up in the wrong hands. No American wants to see that happen. But where was this insistence on greater force protection when cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and vinyl chloride were contaminating Camp Lejeune's drinking water? Lejeune officials repeatedly ignored warnings from independent scientists for four and a half years before finally taking serious steps to mitigate the pollution in 1984.

By then it was too late. Of the estimated 1 million people exposed to these chemicals while living and working aboard the base at least 73 have been diagnosed with male breast cancer and many more suffer from other rare cancers, chronic diseases and birth defects.

Given the Marine Corps' history of deception on this issue, its desire to protect "critical infrastructure information" from the public seems like just another attempt to further hinder the assessment process led by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This agency is conducting a battery of health studies including a mortality study of former Camp Lejeune residents, to be released in the coming year.

Thankfully, due to the leadership of Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (R-N.Y.) the Secretary of Defense is now required by law to consider whether the government's need to withhold this kind of information is outweighed by greater public interest, say, a veteran's right to know if her child's leukemia may have been caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.

The Environmental Working Group urges Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to give the public right to know high priority when limiting disclosure of information related to Camp Lejeune and other polluted military bases.

Please watch this trailer for the award-winning documentary, "Semper Fi: Always Faithful", which details the incident and its effects on Camp Lejeune's community. The film has been short-listed for an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

Dr. Beverly Wright is being honored this year as one of 10 recipients of The Heinz Awards.

In honor of its 15th year, this prestigious award focuses on environmental heroes who, "like [the late] John Heinz, have confronted environmental concerns with a spirit of innovation and who demonstrate the same blend of action and creativity in approaching the protection of our environment."

About The Heinz Awards
Over the years, the award has spotlighted and rewarded people in a number of areas important to Heinz, in whose name the award was established. But this year, the award focused only on the environment, because of its increasing relevance - and urgency - in every facet of our lives. According to the awards' site:

At this unique time in history, when the environment is even more important to our lives, our economy, our national security and our future than ever, it is only fitting this year that we focus on this singular and critical topic.

These awards seek to celebrate those guardians of our future who value the importance of our natural resources, who work to remove toxic chemicals from our air and water, who are concerned about the health of all of our citizens, and who are creating the policies and the technology that will ensure a totally sustainable planet for future generations.

Having had the pleasure of working directly with one of this year's impressive honorees, Dr. Beverly Wright, we know well how strong a winner she is.

Dr. Wright knows her chemical body burden
Dr. Wright was one of five extraordinary women leaders to participate in our 2-year body burden study of environmental justice leaders.

Biomonitoring tests found Wright's body polluted with up to 39 toxins, including mercury, lead, perfluorchemicals used in Teflon, stain and water resistant textile coatings, flame retardants, synthetic fragrances and rocket fuel.

"I'm very disappointed," Wright said, "to find out that while we were fighting so hard to get chemicals we know are dangerous reduced in the environment, there were so many chemicals inside our homes that were also poisoning us. That puts us in double jeopardy - and I say triple jeopardy because of our skin color."

Herstory of an environmental justice leader
A sociology professor and New Orleans native, Dr. Wright joined the environmental justice movement after a visit to "Cancer Alley," as many residents call the Lower Mississippi River Industrial Corridor, an 85-mile stretch of oil refineries and petrochemical plants between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

In her recent book, Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina, with Robert D. Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University and author of the ground-breaking 2000 book Dumping in Dixie, Dr. Wright recalls that whites had fled the area, but poor African Americans remained behind, living in the shadow of the petrochemical plants.

She blames "a pattern of discrimination and exclusion based on a culture of segregation and racism that allowed these polluting facilities and local government to respond to the needs of white citizens while ignoring the needs of black citizens."

To redress the balance, Wright helped found the New Orleans-based Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) in 1992. After Hurricane Katrina devastated her own neighborhood, she wrote In the Wake of the Storm, published in 2006. Her book, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty was published in 2007.

Curious about the results of our study?
In short, we found that all of the women were contaminated with flame retardants, Teflon chemicals, synthetic fragrances, the plastics ingredient bisphenol A and the rocket fuel component perchlorate. You can read the full report here.

While it may be true that for each and every day, week and month on the American calendar there is something to celebrate or advocate, this week we're into it. Why?

Because it's National Women's Health Week. It's also a few days after mother's day, so rather than focus on kids - a concern to us and many women - we decided to shine some light on women's health.

So we pulled together a little round-up to celebrate National Women's Health Week. From body burden to safe cosmetics, and from mercury to breast cancer, we've blogged about it in 2009.

Whether you're young or not-so-young, a mother or a grandmother or neither, there are environmental health issues that affect you, and we do our very best to see that they're addressed by policy makers. Here is a sampling:

Pollution in people: It's an inside job.
Beverly Wright has done battle with oil refineries and landfills. She has dug her New Orleans East neighborhood out from under tons of contaminated sludge smeared across the landscape by Hurricane Katrina.

Mercury in fish: Why does the debate go on?
The topic of mercury and fish is once again in the news. This time it was prompted by public comments submitted to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) about its controversial (hurry-up-and-get-it-out-before-George-leaves) mercury report, which largely concludes that the toxic effects of mercury in fish are mostly overcome by the beneficial fats in fish. Here at EWG an eyebrow or two (OK, more than that) were raised when these "findings" were released.

A new target for deadly lead?
Yesterday Janet Raloff of Science News wrote about a new study linking lead levels in older women to an increased risk of mortality. Naila Khalil and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh report that women whose blood lead levels measure > 8 micrograms per deciliter were a whopping 60% more likely to die during the study.

Pregnancy Today: A lesson in toxics.
When I was pregnant for the first time, I was all about prenatal yoga, checking my baby's amazing developing body online, and comparing symptoms with friends. As it should be.

Lead in lipstick: More enduring than love?
With Valentine's Day right around the corner, there's a lot of puckering up to be done. But if you're not into lead poisoning, we recommend that you go natural. That's right, ditch the lipstick, ladies.

Breast Cancer Fund study finds strong cancer-chemical link.
A new survey of scientific evidence conducted by researchers working with the Breast Cancer Fund makes a persuasive case that the industrialized world's rising breast cancer rate may stem from exposure to radiation and chemicals in plastics, pesticides, cosmetics and other common household goods.

So that's what's been on our minds related to women's health in 2009. You?

[Photo courtesy of MrUllmi on Flickr]

Electronic recycling facility workers face 6-33 times higher exposure to toxic flame retardants PBDEs than the general American population, reported scientists from the University of Texas in an article now in press in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Where does flame retardant dust come from?
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, if you must know) are included in plastic computer parts during manufacturing. Over the lifetime of a product, PBDEs are slowly released - with tiny dust particles that chip off the surface of computer equipment. At home and in the office we may be continuously inhaling small quantities of PBDEs which tend to linger in the body and accumulate to higher levels after long term exposure. But the real toxic hit happens during the recycling process. When computer equipment is completely disassembled to extract valuable metal components, a large portion of the PBDEs end up in the air that workers breathe.

Flame retardants pose an occupational hazard
Comparing PBDE air values reported from a California electronic recycling facility and estimates of US food, air and dust intake, University of Texas research team concluded that PBDE exposure in US electronic recycling facilities is a largely unrecognized occupational health hazard. Furthermore, recycling workers might carry PBDEs and other toxic chemicals home to their families on their clothing. Elevated environmental and blood PBDE levels were also detected in similar occupational studies in China, Sweden, and Norway.

Considering that PBDEs build up in the body, where they disrupt adults' thyroid system and possibly decrease testosterone levels in exposed men, it makes sense that the scientists strongly advised to lower levels of PBDEs in the workplace where exposure exists. The article concluded with a statement that "health care providers, plant safety professionals, and government agencies can play a role in recognizing the problem and in decreasing worker exposure."

Consumer power matters
As buyers and users of computer equipment, we can help shape the debate and vote with our purchasing choices so as to decrease levels of toxic chemicals in consumer products. Constantly developing technology offers to us amazing new levels of convenience, facilitating our work and home life and making it easy to live a disposable lifestyle. Many of us feel that we are doing our bit for the environment by driving the extra mile to drop off an old laptop or cell phone at a recycling center. Yet, is this enough?

The high costs of recycling
As the new study demonstrates - in agreement with findings from plastic and computer recycling sites worldwide - there is a strong reason to care about the fate of recycled products, since they affect the health of our fellow citizens who work in recycling facilities. The cost ratios are also striking. For example, let's take the case of plastic bags, a simpler situation than computer recycling. According to statistics from the San Francisco's Department of the Environment, it costs $4,000 to process and recycle 1 ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for less than 50 dollars. So recycling is as important as it ever was - but it cannot be considered as a sufficient solution.

Let's remember the first 2 R's
We all remember the three R's - reduce, reuse, and recycle. The recycling part of the solution has received the well-deserved attention and support. Many types of plastics can be recycled - but many are not recyclable. And recycling itself is costly and can carry negative environmental consequences as well. Clearly, we need to work towards safer recycling techniques. More importantly, though, we need to make sure that the first two R's are not forgotten - reducing, reusing, and making safer, durable consumer products point the path out of the current wasteful predicament that endangers human health.

Why should you care?
The truth is that once toxic chemicals are produced, they will stay with us for a very long time, eventually polluting the environment and the bodies of people everywhere. And when it comes to PBDEs, computer equipment is just one source of exposure - we can inhale and ingest flame retardants that are added to furniture, mattresses, and sometimes even clothes our children wear. Even more worrisome is the fact that PBDE contamination of the environment is on the rise. As reported by Tony Perry from LA Times on April 1st:

Flame-retardant chemicals that have been linked to reproductive and neurological problems in animals have seeped into coastal environments even in remote regions and have been found in high concentrations off populated areas such as Chicago and Southern California, a federal study revealed Tuesday.

"This is a wake-up call for Americans concerned about the health of our coastal waters and their personal health," said John H. Dunnigan, assistant administrator of the National Ocean Service, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the report.

High levels of the chemicals were found in sediment and shellfish samples in areas including the Pacific Northwest's Puget Sound; the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., coast; New York's Hudson-Raritan Estuary; Lake Michigan off Milwaukee, Chicago and Gary, Ind.; and off remote shores in Alaska. The highest concentrations were near industrial centers."

Change in toxic chemicals policy needed
We need to fundamentally change our policy approach to toxic chemicals in the environment and consumer goods, so that manufacturers are required to prove their products are safe before they are put on the market. Otherwise, harmful chemical exposures will just keep on adding up, putting people and the environment at greater risk.

Photo by georgehotelling

There will be many happy people around the world when the Obama administration takes over in January. Indeed, President Bush will leave the office as one of the least popular presidents in the history.

My focus is what he has done to our lovely planet Earth. For a start, take a look at the National Resources Defense Council's take on the Bush record or read the Boston Phoenix's 20 Reasons the Earth will be Glad to See Bush Go.

I'm glad to say goodbye to Bush because:

In January, my former colleague Bill Walker wrote about California's effort to to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The Environmental Protection Agency denied the state's petition, citing "lack of evidence linking carbon emissions to specific health effects."

Walker described Bush administration food policy as "keep your fingers crossed and hope for the good weather."

The Bush administration seemed to think that if it ignored the issue of climate change, it would go away. Well, future generations will pay the price for the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to address this global problem. My former colleague Amanda Hanley wrote about it here.

The administration rarely missed as chance to weaken regulations aimed at protecting the public and workers from dangerous chemicals, as I wrote last July.

Bush administration appointees changed and manipulated data, stacked scientific panels, appointed inexperienced people to positions of authority and fired people who threatened polluters, as my colleague Elaine Shannon wrote in September.

Steve Johnson's tenure as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was marked by controversies. Among other things, he approved human testing of pesticides and hid dangers of global warming.

We work very hard here at EWG to bring out the truth about issues environment and public health. We are a non-partisan watchdog organization, and I can guarantee we will be watching what the new administration is doing, too. We promise to bring you many more exposes here at Enviroblog in 2009. Stay tuned and have a Happy New Year!

Our new year's resolution: build on the accomplishments of 2008 to make 2009 the year we turn the corner on crucial environmental issues facing our society. We scored breakthroughs on a range of problems last year. Among them:

Advancing the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act.
EWG's work on toxic chemicals spurred the reintroduction of the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act and its requirement of mandatory biomonitoring of industrial chemicals in people. EWG briefed Congressional staff members on the legislation, that aims to replace the weak Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. In the next Congress, EWG plans to organize briefings and push for hearings and passage of the bill.

Progressing toward a ban of toxic plastic chemical BPA.
On October 31, the Science Board of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a stinging rebuke to the agency and embraced EWG arguments that bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin may be a threat to human health. The panel forced FDA to retreat from its stance that trace levels of BPA are safe in food packaging, including infant formula cans and baby bottles. EWG scientists testified, wrote comments and served on the expert panel for the Science Board.

In September, the National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program (NTP)declared that BPA, shown in laboratory tests to disrupt the endocrine system, may alter brain development, cause behavioral problems and damage the prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children.

In 2009, EWG will work with Congressional leaders and the Obama administration to press for a federal ban of BPA in food packaging and other products that expose children and pregnant women to the chemical.

With strong advocacy by EWG's California office, the California assembly office came close to passing the first state-level BPA ban. In 2009, 13 state legislatures are expected to consider similar measures.

Blowing the whistle on FDA plan to push mercury-laced seafood.
On December 12, the Environmental Working Group made public internal government documents disclosing the Food and Drug Administration's secret plans to reverse federal warnings that pregnant women and children limit their fish intake to avoid mercury, a neurotoxin especially dangerous to the fetus and infants. EWG obtained both the FDA plan, stamped "CLOSE HOLD," and memos by senior Environmental Protection Agency scientists attacking FDA's rationale. The Washington Post broke the story, and other national stories followed.

Reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and sharp. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., denounced FDA: "Now, in the administration's 11th hour, they are quietly trying to water down advisories for women and children about the dangers of mercury in fish, disregarding sound science on this issue....This backroom bouquet for special interests should be stopped in its tracks. If they slip this through, I will work with the incoming Obama Administration to restore science-based decisions on mercury."