That's why a broad array of organizations that care about people's health came together this week to thank Administrator Lisa P. Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for her principled and vigorous efforts to advance comprehensive reform of our broken system for regulating hazardous chemicals.

In a letter dated March 10, they wrote to her:

"We welcome the core principles you announced on September 29, 2009 in San Francisco that outlined the Obama Administration's plan to overhaul the nation's chemical regulatory program and give EPA greater authority to protect the public.

Our organizations and supporters applaud the Administration's intention to transform our country's chemical regulatory system and decision to make TSCA reform a top priority."

The letter's signers, who represent millions of members and supporters, have been urging members of Congress in hearings and through personal contact to introduce and take prompt action on a bill to correct the well-known failings of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Environmental Working Group, which led the effort to recognize Administrator Jackson's initiative and commitment to reform, has long advocated for a thorough rewriting of the outdated law. In particular, EWG is urging adoption of a risk-based approach that gives priority to controlling all substances known to contaminate human bodies, particularly those chemicals detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn infants - the most vulnerable members of society.

So thank you, Lisa Jackson. We'll help in every way we can.

The full text of the letter and list of signers follows.

* * *

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Respectfully,

Allergy Kids
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Autism One
Autism Society of Illinois
Autism Society of Western New York
Breast Cancer Network of Western New York
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future Citizens for Environmental Justice
Community Against Pollution
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Deirdre Imus Environmental Center for Pediatric Oncology
Developmental Delay Resources
Environmental Working Group
First Signs, Inc.
Iowa Breast Cancer Edu-Action
National Autism Association
Oregon Environmental Council
Plains Justice
Schafer Autism Report
The Rachel Carson Homestead Association
The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
US Autism & Asperger Association

This one struck me because of the director's personal inspiration to track down the source of her parent's shiny new (practical, affordable, durable) vinyl siding. I love how she just won't stop short of convincing them it's not as simple as they think (been there?).

She had a hunch that vinyl had a dark side and, not surprising to me or Enviroblog readers, it does.

Find out about PVC for yourself by following co-director Judith Helfand's investigative globe trot to understand the real (not-so-simple) source of her parents' blue vinyl.

A comprehensive plan to reform the nation's primary law responsible for regulating the use of industrial chemicals is about to be introduced in Congress.

The question of which substances the federal government should target first was part of the discussion at a hearing before the US House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection last week.

PBTs are bad, but they're hardly alone
Committee members and witnesses focused their attention on a certain group of chemicals commonly called persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances, or PBTs.

These are among the most notorious and dangerous chemicals ever put into commerce, which include DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the Teflon chemicals perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA), brominated flame retardants, lead and mercury compounds and dioxins.

But PBTs are just some of the 83,000 chemicals used as ingredients in virtually everything available for purchase. Other notable contaminants the public is exposed to in mass include the plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA), the rocket fuel component perchlorate and phthalates; a chemical with such a wide reach it's used in everything from food wrappers, makeup, toys, cleaning products and upholstery.

Why is in utero exposure so very important?
How on earth is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supposed to decide which chemicals it should review first to decide if they pose a risk to people?

Here's a thought: EPA should start where human contamination begins. In utero.

We now know chemicals cross the placenta and become a collection of additives in the blood that pumps through the rapidly developing fetus at the precise time the brain and nervous systems are beginning to build. EWG has documented in utero chemical contamination through a series of lab tests that found hundreds of industrial pollutants, including but not limited to PBTs in the blood of babies in the womb.

Cord blood contamination should be the guiding principle for the EPA when it establishes a list of chemicals that will come under scrutiny first. If a synthetic chemical, PBT or otherwise, turns up in babies it must be thoroughly examined for potential risks to human health. If it fails to stand up to a rigorous scientific prosecution then it should be banned.

Read EWG's letter to the US Representative Bobby Rush
Please read the written comments my colleagues Richard Wiles and Jane Houlihan provided to the Chairman of the House subcommittee, Representive Bobby L. Rush.

Want to learn more? Check out EWG's safe drinking water resources:

• Bottled water quality investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants


• Bottled Water Scorecard: Is your bottled water worth it?


• EWG's Guide to Safe Drinking Water.pdf

Then take the leap - and say good-bye to bottled water, as often as you possibly can.

YES. YES. YES.

And when we speak together, we're even more effective.

Tell Congress to put toxics on its "to do" list NOW
Join 55,000 other concerned Americans who have already signed this historic petition.

Let's make it crystal clear that you want an effective national chemicals policy that protects human health, especially our children who are most affected by toxic chemicals. We know you're frustrated by the current system. So let's change it.

Numbers talk: 75,000 signatures is our goal
We want to deliver this petition to key lawmakers on Capitol Hill with 75,000 signatures - including yours - to show them how BIG and PASSIONATE this kid-safe movement has become. Can you help us reach our goal in the next two weeks? It's easy to sign and share - and extremely important to our success.

The time is right now
There is a political window of opportunity to move the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act forward in 2010, but in the current political climate, windows close quickly and unpredictably. If we don't give it our absolute all NOW, when the political momentum is there, we may lose this chance.

Sign it, share it
This issue is far too important to let Congress do nothing. We need your help - by signing and sharing the petition - to get the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act on the Congressional "to-do" list. Preferably at the top.

Now that's a more compelling reason to clean than impressing the guests.

Why is your household dust toxic?
Every home has a little dust -- and its own unique "dust load," based on a variety of factors like where you live, what you cook, if you smoke, the climate, and how many people -- and animals -- live there.

Ordinary house dust is a complex mixture of generally yucky stuff -- pet dander, fungal spores, tiny particles, soil tracked in on your feet, carpet fibers, human hair and skin, you name it. It's also a place where harmful chemicals are found. One recent study by the Silent Spring Institute identified 66 endocrine-disrupting compounds in household dust tests, including flame retardants, home-use pesticides, and phthalates.

The chemicals in your dust originate from both inside and outside your house:

1. Products inside your house "shed" chemicals over time -- furniture, electronics, shoes, plastics, fabrics and food, among other things.


2. Outdoor pollutants enter on your shoes and through open and cracked windows and doors.

Once inside, the contaminants in indoor dust degrade more slowly (if at all) than they would outside in the environment where moisture and sunlight typically break them down.

One type of toxic chemical commonly found in household dust is chemical flame retardants (aka PBDEs). As highly flammable synthetic materials have replaced less-combustible natural materials, PBDEs have been added to thousands of everyday products, including computers, TVs and furniture -- among many others. EWG conducted tests in 2004 that revealed the surprising degree to which flame retardant chemicals escape from consumer products and settle in household dust (from degrading foam or the plastics in electronic items).

How can toxic dust affect your family?
When you're exposed to certain toxic chemicals -- even at very low doses -- your health can be adversely affected. Dust is simply another way for the toxic chemicals in your house to reach your body.

Young children are of special concern because their developing bodies are more vulnerable to toxic exposures, and they ingest or inhale more dust than adults since they -- and their toys -- spend lots of time on or very near the floor. They also put dusty hands and toys in their mouths often. Scientists once thought children got lead poisoning by literally chewing on windowsills. We've since learned that it's actually caused by their normal play behaviors because contaminants like lead stick around in house dust.

In the case of fire retardants, which are commonly found in household dust, scientists have found that exposure to minute doses of toxic PBDEs at critical points in a child's development can damage reproductive systems and cause deficits in motor skills, learning, memory and hearing, as well as changes in behavior. Read EWG's 2004 report about toxic fire retardants in household dust.

A note about allergies. Dust is a well-known allergen -- with or without the toxic chemicals. If you're allergic to dust, there are preventive steps you can take to reduce your contact with it. The Mayo Clinic has a list of lifestyle and home remedies.

How can you remove dust safely and effectively?
Careful cleaning is a simple way to get rid of toxic dust. Here's how:

• Vacuum frequently and use a vacuum fitted with a HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filter. These vacuums are more efficient at trapping small particles and will likely remove contaminants and other allergens from your home that a regular vacuum would recirculate into the air. Change the filter to keep it working well, and don't forget to vacuum the stuffed furniture (get under those couch cushions)!


• Wet mop uncarpeted floors frequently to prevent dust from accumulating (dry mopping can kick up dust that simply resettles). Buy wooden furniture or furniture filled with down, wool, polyester, or cotton as these are unlikely to contain added fire retardant chemicals.


• Wipe furniture with a wet or microfiber cloth. Microfiber cloths work well because their smaller fibers cling to the particles. If you don't have a microfiber cloth, wet a cotton cloth -- it grabs and holds the dust better than a dry one. Skip synthetic sprays and wipes when you dust -- they only add unwanted chemicals.


• Caulk and seal cracks and crevices to prevent dust from accumulating in hard-to-reach places.


• Equip your forced-air heating or cooling system with high-quality filters and change them frequently to keep them working well.


• Keep electronic equipment dust-free by damp dusting it frequently; this is a common source of chemical fire retardants in dust.


• Pay special attention to places where little kids crawl, sit and play. They live closest to our floors and as a result tend to be more exposed to those toxic dust bunnies.


• If you're dust sensitive, consider asking someone else to do the dusty cleaning.

Create dust that's less toxic in the first place
You can reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that wind up in your household dust by bringing fewer toxic chemicals into the house in the first place. We suggest that you:

• Leave your shoes at the door and use a natural doormat. Shoes are a common way we bring outdoor pollutants inside.


• Inspect foam products made between 1970 and 2005 -- they're likely to contain PBDEs. Replace anything with a ripped cover or foam that is misshapen and breaking down. If you can't replace these items, try to keep the covers intact and clean them more frequently. Some examples of household foam products are: stuffed/upholstered furniture, nursing pillows, padded high-chair seats, portable crib mattresses, baby changing pads, and chair cushions.


• Choose home electronics without PBDEs. There are manufacturers who no longer use them in some products -- ask before you buy and support companies that have publicly committed to going PBDE-free, like: Acer, Apple, Eizo Nanao, LG Electronics, Lenovo, Matsushita, Microsoft, Nokia, Phillips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony-Ericsson, and Toshiba.


• Stick to products made with natural fibers that are naturally fire resistant and may contain fewer chemicals -- like wood furniture, cotton, down and wool.


• Clean up quickly and thoroughly when you finish a home improvement project, since these can involve dust (from sanding or drilling) and toxic products (like lead, PCBs and fire retardants).


• Consider a high efficiency "HEPA-filter" air cleaner, which may also reduce contaminants that become dust in your house.

LEARN MORE about our Healthy Home Tip series and sign up to get the monthly tips in your inbox.

Houlihan identifies toxic chemicals in three key rooms: the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry room. Grab a pad and paper so you're ready to take notes!

If this short TV segment wasn't enough for you (it wasn't for me), check out the full 16-minute video of the toxic home walk-through - it's worth it.

But the notion that the nation's federal chemicals policy is toothless and ineffective isn't likely dinner table talk across America - yet.

Thanks to Dr. Sanjay Gupta's discussion of the problem on CNN earlier this week, it might be soon. Watch this 4-minute segment to get the basics on why TSCA should be reformed - now:

If 4 minutes isn't enough for you, be sure to catch Dr. Gupta's hour-long special on the subject, Toxic Town USA. It debuts on CNN April 24th (Earth Day) @ 8 PM eastern.

But when your friends and family ask why you bother, having a solid grasp of the reasons to avoid them is always handy:

Pesticides and your health: What's the problem?
As acknowledged by the U.S. and international government agencies, different pesticides have been linked with a variety of toxic effects, including:

• Nervous system effects
• Carcinogenic effects
• Hormone system effects
• Skin, eye and lung irritation

Pesticides are unique among the chemicals we release into the environment; they have inherent toxicity because they are designed to kill living organisms: insects, plants, and fungi that are considered "pests." Because they are toxic by design, many pesticides pose health risks to people, risks that have been acknowledged by independent research scientists and physicians across the world.

The majority of the U.S. population has detectable concentrations of multiple pesticide residues in their bodies, as detected in biomonitoring studies by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The ubiquitous pesticide exposures are further compounded by exposure to hundreds of industrial chemicals that contaminate human bodies and are even found in the developing fetus.

The full health effects of exposure to these mixtures of chemicals are not yet known; true public health protection would require a consideration of cumulative risks of exposure to multiple toxic chemicals at a time.

Children are especially at risk
Protecting our families' health from chemical exposures can start with minimizing children's exposure to pesticides. It is now well established that pesticides pose a risk to vital organ systems that continue to grow and mature from conception throughout infancy and childhood. Exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals during critical periods of development can have lasting adverse effects both in early development and later in life.

The metabolism, physiology, and biochemistry of a fetus, infant or child are fundamentally different from those of adults; a young, organism is often less able to metabolize and inactivate toxic chemicals and can be much more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides. The nervous system, brain, reproductive organs and endocrine (hormone) system can be permanently, if subtly, damaged by exposure to toxic substances in-utero or throughout early childhood that, at the same level, cause no measurable harm to adults.

The developing brain and endocrine system are very sensitive, and low doses at a susceptible moment of development can cause more of an effect than high doses. It is especially important to reduce pesticide exposures of babies and young children so as to minimize these risks.

"Lack of data" does not equal safety
Even in the face of a growing body of evidence, pesticide manufacturers continue to defend their products, claiming that the amounts of pesticides on produce are not sufficient to elicit safety concerns. Yet, such statements are often made in the absence of actual data, since most safety tests done for regulatory agencies are not designed to discover whether low dose exposures to mixtures of pesticides and other toxic chemicals are safe, particularly during critical periods of development.

In general, the government demands, and companies conduct, high-dose studies designed to find gross, obvious toxic effects. In the absence of the appropriate tests at lower doses, pesticide and chemical manufacturers claim safety since the full effects of exposure to these mixtures of chemicals have not been conclusively demonstrated (or even studied).

Doesn't the government regulate these chemicals?
When consumers realize the magnitude of the health threat posed by pesticides, they naturally wonder: Doesn't the government regulate these toxic chemicals? The answer is that, unfortunately for human and environmental health, government action has been far too slow. It is important to remember that the government said that highly toxic pesticides like DDT, chlordane, dursban and others were safe right up to the day the EPA banned them. And considering that we are talking about toxic chemicals whose effects on children's health may be irreversible, no delay is justifiable.

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 was designed to require protection of infants and children from pesticides. This law produced several notable achievements and fundamentally improved the health standards in pesticide law by requiring explicit protection of infants and children. But a lot remains to be done, especially in protecting human health from pesticide mixtures and chemicals that have endocrine disrupting properties. Not surprisingly, pesticide makers and agribusiness groups have been fighting strict application of the statute, particularly provisions that require an extra 10-fold level of protection for infants and children.

What can I do to reduce my risk?
Addressing the risks of pesticide exposure first and foremost requires information, which is frequently made unavailable to the general public by the government agencies. To counteract this trend for secrecy, EWG believes that:

• People have a right to know what's in their food, so they can choose foods with less pesticides.
• The government can and should take steps to dramatically reduce the number and amount of toxic chemicals, including pesticides, in the food supply.

Each of us can opt for food safety today by choosing to purchase produce low in pesticides and by buying organically-raised fruits and vegetables as frequently as possible. With this first step we can protect our families' health and preserve our own future and the future of the environment from the harmful effects of pesticides.

Get EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce to identify which fruits and veggies are low and high in pesticide residues and take it to the store with you today. Choose a wallet guide or iPhone app, whichever works for you.

• In mid-February, EWG released our latest guide to cell phone radiation levels, focusing on the newest, most highly touted smart phones to hit the market in recent months. (For example, the radiation level of Apple's newest iPhone ranks in the middle of the pack.)
• The consumer guide's update coincides with introduction by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) of legislation, sponsored by EWG, requiring cell phones and wireless headsets sold in California to disclose the amount of radiation they emit to the head and to the body on the box and at the point of sale.

Legislation is pending in California, Maine & San Francisco
Unlike legislation pending in Maine, which would require a safety warning to be placed on all cell phones, the CA bill only calls for disclosure of the phone's radiation level. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom has introduced legislation similar to Leno's, requiring retailers to list each phone's radiation level anywhere the price and other features are listed.

This information is currently not required to be disclosed to the public in any fashion, is not displayed at the point of sale, and is only available (other than in EWG's guide) through a tedious and complicated search of a Federal Communications Commission database.

The California bill's sponsor, state senator Mark Leno, says consumers have a right to know:

"As the use of cell phones has increased exponentially across the globe, so have concerns about the safety of cell phone radiation.

While more research still needs to be done on the risks of long-term cell phone use for both adults and children, consumers have a right to know how much radiation their cell phones emit."

The science, other countries, and kids
Recent scientific studies have found links between heavy cell phone use and brain and salivary gland tumors. Health agencies in six nations, including the United Kingdom and Germany, have issued warnings to limit cell phone use - particularly by children, whose softer, thinner skulls are less able to shield the brain from radiation.

EWG's senior vice president for research, Jane Houlihan, thinks American consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchases:

"A number of health agencies around the world advise people to reduce exposures to cell phone radiation, driven by recent studies raising questions about the safety of this radiation, particularly for children.

That's why it's essential for consumers to have radiation output information before they purchase phones for themselves and their families."

Scientists have found that children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults.

"The first cell phones were marketed to adults," said Renee Sharp, director of EWG's California office. "But today, children are just as likely to own a cell phone as a video game, baseball or bicycle."

Talk safer - Get the guide
In addition to our updated searchable database of phones, EWG's cell phone radiation guide offers practical safety tips for reducing your exposure to cell phone radiation, including using a safe handset, texting instead of talking, and using the phone only in an area with good reception.

For an overview (and video) of the February 4th US Senate hearing where EWG President Ken Cook testified about the importance of human biomonitoring and the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, head over to our Kid-Safe policy blog.

• Bottled water (skip it),
• Our water supply (don't frack it), and
• Tap water (filter it).

To help you drink safer water at home and on the go, we rolled up all this drinking water information and guidance in one place.

You can learn to drink safer water in 4 easy steps from our Healthy Home Tip:

1. Identify the contaminants in your home tap water (use our searchable database),
2. Find a filter that works (use our online guide),
3. Skip the bottled water (it's expensive and the quality is not clear), and
4. Choose safer reusable water bottles (they're out there!).

Get -- and share -- EWG's 1-page Safe Drinking Water Guide. It'll do your body good.

LEARN MORE about our Healthy Home Tip series and sign up to get the monthly tips in your inbox.

Enviroblog readers all know that "fragrance" is a term that the cosmetics, cleaning and candle industries use on ingredient lists that discloses only that there are unnamed chemicals in the product.

Which is not so helpful for avid label-readers (like me) who want and deserve full information when choosing products. Unless you use it as a red flag of what not to buy, that is. Then - and only then - is it helpful.

It's pretty big news that, after years of intentional mystery, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) decided to publish an alphabetical list of ingredients that its members reportedly use to make consumer products.

Why'd they do it?

Simple: consumers want more transparency (yes, you're being heard!). And while this isn't exactly the kind of transparency we had in mind, or that helps consumers make informed decisions about their health, it's a step. (And it's a decent PR move for IFRA, right?)

A long list with some bad actors
A long list of chemicals that you can't pronounce is not in itself toxic - even if it looks it. But an analysis of these 3,163 chemicals in EWG's Cosmetics Database shows that there is reason for concern.

In fact, 1 in 20 earned a "high" hazard score (7-10 of 10), and a full 1 in 6 rated at least a "moderate" hazard score (3-10 of 10). 26 of them scored a 10, the highest score:

26 chemicals scored a "10" in Skin Deep
Aniline
BHA
Cyclohexanone
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethylhexyl phthalate
Hydroquinone
MIBK
Musk ambrette
Nano titanium dioxide
Nano zinc oxide (20-60nm)
Octoxynol-6
Octoxynol-7
Octoxynol-11
Octoxynol-12
Octoxynol-13
Octoxynol-16
Octoxynol-20
Octoxynol-25
Octoxynol-30
Octoxynol-33
Octoxynol-40
Octoxynol-70
PEG-3 Sorbitan oleate
PEG-6 Sorbitan oleate
Resorcinol
Styrene

Musk ambrette is toxic to the brain, testes, and skin. The European Union banned musk ambrette from body care products, and IFRA itself says the chemical should not be used in products applied to the skin. But according to IFRA's own list, it is still in use in some fragrances.

What kind of products contain these chemicals?
All kinds. To name several: facial cleanser, after shave, astringents, hair color, cleaning products, and acne treatment.

The best way to reduce your exposure to fragrance chemicals
While this new information adds to our knowledge about fragrance chemicals, it doesn't change our longstanding advice for choosing safer cosmetics: read the label, skip the fragrance, and look up your products in EWG's Cosmetics Database.

[Thanks to Flickr CC & Annieo76 for the lovely array of perfumes]

To help you navigate the choices, EWG's very own Don Carr, press secretary and hard-hitting ag policy blogger, offers guidance on which to see. He screened them himself at this year's Sundance Film Festival to boil it down for us on Grist (trailers included). On my list are the ones Don highlights as "well-crafted, compelling films that address crucial environmental themes not yet in the public consciousness."

So find the film(s) for you and turn on the stove to start popping corn the old-fashioned way.

About that movie popcorn...
If you're ready to learn more and reduce your exposure to the perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) that line popcorn and other fast-food wrappers (among other things), get EWG's Guide to PFCs.

At EWG, we dish out a lot of (very useful, practical, science-based!) advice on how to live with fewer toxics, so it comes naturally to present this week's Carnival posts as suggestions on different ways to live green - from a host of green bloggers 'round the globe.

You can choose from one of these 14 green living ideas today (more, of course, if you're feeling gung-ho):

1. Dave suggests: Be polite when sharing your environmental zeal. No fair being scary.
An aggressive note from a neighbor having to do with the weekly trash, a dead bear, and getting sent back to the east coast. [Enviroblog: Let's hear it for the neighbors!]

2. Jess suggests: Don't drag them kicking and screaming to greenness.
Studies indicate that one of the most effective ways to change behavior is to change the default option of any given choice.  On Changing Behavior explores how this aspect of behavioral psychology can be a tool for building a more sustainable world. [Enviroblog: Anything to make it easier!]

3. Beth suggests: Skip the plastic Valentine's madness.
Help! The shelves of Walgreen's are spilling over with fake plastic Valentine's gifts, and I just can't decide with one to buy! How will my sweetie know how much I care if I don't spend money on cheap plastic crap for him? [Enviroblog: Excellent array of red & pink plastic goodies, Beth]

4. Erin suggests: Cook some vegetarian chili for meatless Monday.
The kitchen is usually my domain, and I have a hard time giving up control. But my non-vegetarian husband and I have had an agreement since the early days of our marriage that if he wants to eat meat for dinner, he gets to cook it himself. [Enviroblog: Conquering climate change in the kitchen ain't a bad idea at all]

5. Annette suggests: Use your dusty phone books for something.
Something crafty. Until the phone company stops sending us phone books that hit the shelf and never leave, get creative. [Enviroblog: The coffee table is a personal fave]

6. Sally suggests: Improve youngster's eyesight with natural daylight.
Nearsightedness has increased 66% in the last 30 years. New research shows that children who spend more time outdoors are less likely to develop nearsightedness. So, using natural daylight to illuminate classrooms may not only save energy & money and reduce our carbon footprint, but could also improve our children's vision. [Enviroblog: Guess the basement preschool is out]

7. Jessica suggests: Wear green, not white, to your wedding.
The first thing when considering a green wedding is the number of guests. Only invite those who are closest and mean the most to you. The more guests you invite, the more that will travel, consume food and waste materials. [Enviroblog: Elope, anyone?]

8. Renee suggests: Understand and use mushroom compost.
Mushroom compost is actually the compost that mushroom growers make in which to grow mushrooms. What you buy is the by-product of this growing process after the mushrooms are harvested. [Enviroblog: Thinking this is different than me tossing mushroom stems in my backyard compost]

9. Tania suggests: Use cloth diapers. They're good lookin' these days.
Gone are the flat white prefolds, pins and plastic pants of the baby boomer generation. In are creations that are easy to use, come in a variety of styles, colors and prints, which appeal on a whole new level. Who knew you could dress your baby's bottom in pink and purple leopard print diaper? [Enviroblog: Indeed.]

10. June suggests: Lower your utility bill with new appliances.
We've recently found out how successful our plan was to replace a couple of ailing appliances that we inherited from the former owners of our home. Some couple of decades old, one appliance was our standard white fridge and the other was our groaning washer. [Enviroblog: The ol' spend $ to save $]

11. Case suggests: Pick furniture made from reclaimed wood.
The green movement has taken over the furniture industry. Most people are surprised to learn that green furniture can be made of wood. Sure, there is the recycled material made from bottles and cans. For those who love the look of real wood, there are two options: reclaimed or sustainable wood. [Enviroblog: Real treehugging!]

12. Marie suggests: Hit the streets for the environment (the student way)!
My school had the opportunity to ask questions with David Suzuki on a skype interview. A brief summary of his thoughts are included, and a call to action this Earth Day, the 40th anniversary of the first. Can we get millions of people on the street again? [Enviroblog: Will it help?]

13. The Smarter Wallet suggests: Get that hybrid car, even if gas prices are down.
Two important trends: One, Detroit and other manufacturers are finally getting the message that less is better, and two, American consumers are decidedly moving in greater numbers to smaller, more efficient cars and trucks as their desire to save money on gas remains a strong priority.

14. Alex says: Question Monsanto - and Forbes. Clearly, the only criterion Forbes magazine uses when determining which U.S. corporation wins its yearly "Company of the Year" title must be profit. That's the only way to explain how a company as notorious as Monsanto could possibly get the nod for 2009 from the mag, which proclaims itself "The Capitalist Tool." [Enviroblog: Yes, this is from EWG's very own Ag Mag]

You'll find next week's Carnival on The Fun Times Guide. Check it out.