#468: Cut Waste, Not Trees

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #468
---November 16, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

The attack on the environment by so-called "conservatives" in Congress has caused a radical re-thinking throughout the environmental community. People are recognizing that they must stop working alone and must start building alliances.

Among other developments, a new coalition has formed between forest activists, energy-conservation advocates, and toxic pollution fighters. Perhaps most importantly, this coalition includes people aiming to create (and retain) good jobs in their communities. Their goal is to cut use of wood in the U.S. by 75% in 10 years. An excellent new report provides the rationale, and describes the plan. [1]

Here's the thinking behind the new coalition. Lois Gibbs, of Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW)*fn01 [Falls Church, Virginia; phone: (703) 237-2249] is spearheading an anti-dioxin campaign. Dioxin is among the 2 or 3 most toxic chemicals ever discovered, and it is produced by incinerators, by paper mills, by metals smelters, and by the production of many pesticides. (See RHWN #290, #390, #391, #414, and #438.) Now CCHW has joined with the Rainforest Action Network*fn02 of San Francisco [phone: (415) 398-4404] in a Wood Use Reduction Campaign. The goal is to reduce wood consumption in the U.S. by 75% within 10 years --an ambitious goal, but one that can serve as the "glue" to bring many environmental groups and economic development groups together. Rainforest Action is in it to save the world's forests. CCHW is in it to save forests, too, but their main aim is to reduce toxic dioxin and stupid waste disposal.

For example, as Gibbs points out, paper (which, in the U.S., is made almost entirely from wood) is a major fuel for municipal solid waste incinerators, which are also a major source of toxic dioxin emissions. If solid waste incinerators were shut down this act alone would:

** Significantly reduce the nation's serious dioxin problem;

** Stop virgin wood products such as shipping pallets and paper products from being used mindlessly as fuel in incinerators (half of all hardwood harvested in the U.S. is for pallets, much of it discarded after one use);

** Force municipalities to manage wood and paper waste differently (in other words, reprocess rather than landfill or incinerate them).

Gibbs said recently, "At Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, we envision a wood reduction campaign that uses a collaborative model similar to our McToxics Campaign of 1987 [which successfully forced McDonalds to stop using foam clamshells for packaging fast food]. ...Thanks to that campaign, people now look at foam packaging differently. We need to do the same with the image of paper and wood waste, by informing Americans about the connections between the destruction of forests and dioxin." The campaign to reduce wood consumption by 75% also offers significant opportunities to create new jobs both in cities and in rural areas.

The destruction of virgin forests is occurring on a massive scale around the world, in Indonesia, in Siberia, in British Columbia, and in Latin America. Worldwide, some 14 million acres of rainforests disappear each year. In the U.S., 95% of virgin forests are gone, with only 5% remaining. Forests are home to most of the world's species and most of the world's indigenous peoples. Forests provide important free ecological services --holding water on a grand scale, producing huge quantities of oxygen, and providing major cooling. (When the forests of southern Honduras were cut, the average (median) outdoor temperature rose 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit (7.5 degrees Celsius). [2] In addition, forests serve human needs directly, producing game, medicines, fruits, gums, nuts, resins, fiber, and firewood.

Industrial logging in forests is a major cause of ecological destruction and the loss of biodiversity. For example, in the U.S., some 350,000 miles of logging roads have been cut through forests --more than 7 times the total length of the U.S. interstate highway system. Only 10 percent of the inhabited Earth remains in roadless condition. The other 90 percent is chopped up by roads into segments of less than 8000 acres. This is startling considering we haven't approached the 100-year anniversary of the automobile. Logging is a major cause of this disturbance.

Now environmentalists have determined to save the world's forests by confronting the major source of forest destruction: the rising demand for wood, particularly in the industrial world where wood is wasted on a grand scale. Among industrialized nations, the most wasteful is the U.S. (France, for example, has per-capita paper consumption that is 50% of ours.) The U.S. logging industry expects a 46% increase in logging operations by the year 2040. If this comes true, U.S. logging in 2040 will equal today's combined logging by the U.S.,Canada and Sweden.

There are two major paths that wood products follow when they leave the forest. One passes through sawmills, plywood mills, veneer, or other wood panel mills, and then into the network of building construction, shipping, manufacturing, and furniture industries. The other path passes through pulp mills into the larger system of paper, paperboard, and fiberboard production. Together, the two paths --generally building materials and paper --account for more than 80 percent of industrial wood use in the U.S. (the other 20 percent includes fuel wood, wood chips, and raw logs for export).

Thus a campaign to reduce wood consumption will focus on getting wood out of buildings, and getting wood out of paper. Getting wood out of buildings requires 2 basic steps:

(1) Reduce wood in building construction, substituting modern materials (NOT steel or concrete, which create problems of their own) and efficient construction techniques. Nearly 90 percent of all housing in the U.S. is constructed of wood and the average new home in the U.S. uses 1600 cubic feet of wood products. Modern materials and construction techniques can reduce the needed wood substantially. [3]

(2) Building codes must be changed to allow construction using recycled wood (from old barns, for example) and earth materials (rocks, sand, silt, clay, and even straw bales [discussed below]). The Uniform Building Code was adopted at a time when wood supply was considered limitless. The code must be changed.

Two very promising --and time-tested --building materials are adobe (in dry climates), and rammed earth (in any climate); 15% of the population of France today lives in adobe or rammed earth buildings. A relatively new construction material is baled straw, which can be used in any climate. Initially developed at the University of Arizona (Tucson), straw-bale buildings have now been built in many states and in Canada. Again, a major obstacle is the building code. Straw-bale homes are structurally strong, very energy-efficient, and fire-resistant. Manuel A. Fernandez, the State Architect of New Mexico recently wrote, "ASTM [American Society of Testing Materials, in Philadelphia] tests for fire resistance have proven that a straw bale infill wall assembly is a far greater fire resistive assembly than a wood frame wall assembly using the same finishes." It turns out that straw bales contain enough air to provide excellent thermal insulation, but not enough air to support a fast fire. (I have been in a straw-bale house at Genesis Farm in Blairstown, N.J.; inside, it has the snug feel of a well-made adobe house. From the outside, it has sharp, modern lines and an eye-pleasing tan stucco finish. If you didn't know the walls were baled straw, you wouldn't guess it.--P.M.) [4]

Getting the wood out of paper is, if anything, easier than getting the wood out of building construction. Today, quality paper is made from rice and barley straw in China, from sugar cane waste ("bagasse") in Mexico and India, and from the kenaf plant in Australia. There are 300 mills around the world making paper without wood.

The most promising wood substitutes for making paper are the kenaf plant, and straw --the leftover stalks from cereal grain production. Paper recycling can only carry us so far because the paper fibers break and become shorter when paper is recycled. To give recycled paper good qualities, new fibers need to be mixed in. Those new fibers need not come from wood --leftover stalks from farmer's fields will work nicely, and so will kenaf. Thus the city, as supplier of recycled fiber, can coordinate with rural producers of non-wood fibers, creating jobs and income for both. (The hemp plant will produce high-quality paper as well. Kimberly-Clark, a U.S. Fortune 500 company, operates a paper mill in France producing hemp paper for Bibles and cigarettes. But in the U.S. growing hemp is a serious federal crime--even hemp with its narcotic characteristics bred out. This stymies development of a hemp industry. Walt Disney sells clothing made from hemp, but not from fiber grown in the U.S.)

Marvelously efficient is the use of agricultural residues to make paper; it requires no new land brought into production. A small-scale mill in British Columbia is making paper profitably from agricultural waste today, and 3 more mills are planned. The small scale is an advantage because it keeps capital needs low, making such mills suitable for community-scale economic development.

In sum, reducing wood use by 75% in 10 years seems doable, and it puts the environmental community into a new posture: cooperating across issues, and combining economic development with environmental protection.

And there is one other big benefit: Reducing the use of wood to maximize social and environmental benefits will require us to measure our efforts in new ways. In many different areas (forest advocacy, pollution prevention, recycling/waste management, energy conservation, and community development), we will need to measure our efforts against a long-term vision of where the paper and wood industries should generally be headed. We will need to set targets for them, not leaving economic and social decisions exclusively in the hands of corporations any longer. Finally we must judge ourselves by our willingness to demand a future that more than a minor variation of the status quo. Parts of the old environmental movement may regard their work in a new light, when judged by this criterion.

--Peter Montague

===============

[1] Atossa Soltani and Penelope Whitney, editors, CUT WASTE, NOT TREES; HOW TO SAVE FORESTS, CUT POLLUTION AND CREATE JOBS (San Francisco: Rainforest Action Network*fn02 [450 Sansome Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94111; telephone: (415) 398-4404; E-mail:rainforest@igc.apc.org], 1995).

[2] J. Almadenares and others, "Critical regions, a profile of Honduras," THE LANCET Vol. 342 (1993), pgs. 1400-1402.

[3] For further information, contact the Center for Resourceful Building Technologies in Missoula, Montana, a clearinghouse for resource-efficient building materials and techniques. Phone (406) 549-7678. Additional U.S. groups promoting alternatives are listed on pgs. 53-61 of the report cited in footnote 1, above.

[4] Books on adobe, rammed-earth and straw-bale construction are available from Real Goods, 555 Leslie Street, Ukiah, Calif., 95482-5507. Phone 1-800-762-7325. Fax: (707) 468-9486; foreign orders: (707) 468-9214. Additional U.S. groups promoting alternatives are listed on pgs. 53-61 of the report cited in footnote 1, above.

Descriptor terms: forests; paper industry; pulp; lois gibbs; citizens clearinghouse for hazardous waste; cchw; rainforest action network; wood use reduction campaign; economic development; dioxin; msw; incineration; shipping pallets; recycling; mctoxics campaign; mcdonalds; indonesia; siberia; british columbia; indigenous people; native people; honduras; roads; logging industry; automobiles; biodiversity; uniform building code; adobe; rammed earth; straw bales; fires; fire hazards; thermal insulation; paper; kenaf; hemp; agricultural waste; china; india; mexico; australia; energy conservation; corporations; democracy; center for resourceful building technologies; building materials;

Footnote:
fn01: http://chej.org/ formally Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW) now . Center for Health, Environment & Justice. PO Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040. 703-237-2249 | chej@chej.org

fn02: http://www.igc.apc.org/ran/

#437: Rush Limbaugh with Book Learning

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #437
---April 13, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Until recently, there were only three camps in the environmental movement. Now some journalists are trying to start a fourth camp.

The original three camps are distinguished by where they place blame for environmental problems: The first says the general public is at fault. The second blames powerful economic and social institutions, chiefly in the "private sector." The third camp blames government.

People in the first camp want to solve environmental problems by recycling newspapers, planting trees, and putting a brick in their toilet tank to reduce water use.

The second camp wants the public to recognize that there really is no "private sector" because all "private" industrial decisions have profound impacts on public health and well being. They want the public involved in decisions about technology.

A third camp blames government. They favor eliminating weak laws, poor regulations, inept officials, and ineffective agency structures. [1]

Now a fourth camp is trying to emerge. This camp says the sources of environmental distress lie somewhere in the murky past, but solutions are staring us right in the face; however, we can't reach these solutions because environmentalists in the first three camps are so negative, so focused on doom-saying, so cynically intent on making money by frightening the public through direct mail appeals.

This new, fourth camp has just published its manifesto, calling itself "ecorealism." Ecorealism is upbeat, positive, buoyantly optimistic. Its basic premise is that most environmental problems either don't exist or would soon disappear if environmentalists would just stop exaggerating.

The ecorealists' manifesto is Gregg Easterbook's 745-page encyclopedia of feel-good optimism, called A MOMENT ON THE EARTH. [2] 

Here is a sampling:

** Human population is not a problem, if you just take the long view of it (pg. 491);

** Genetic engineering is more natural than soccer fields and rock concerts (because nature engages in genetic engineering itself [cross-pollination, for example] but nature never made a soccer field without human help) (pg. 419);

** No research has ever shown that industrial chlorine releases cause any public health or general ecological harm (pg. 414);

** New landfills, incinerators, and factories usually do not have emission problems (pg. 467);

** In the western world, the age of pollution is nearly over, because by the year 2004 society will have "almost painlessly" adopted a zero discharge philosophy (pgs. xvi, 206, 256, 648);

** Whatever industry's stance may have been in the past, today industry's attitude is "respectful environmental behavior" (pg. 623);

** Nature makes far worse environmental problems than people do (pgs. xvii, 21, 145);

** No one in the general public has ever been harmed by radiation associated with nuclear power reactors (pg. 493) and humans are not exceptionally sensitive to radiation exposure (pg. 506);

** Radioactive waste disposal is not really a problem because even at the WIPP site in southern New Mexico, built to hold long-lived transuranic military wastes, most of the radioactivity will have disappeared within 300 years (pg. 514);

** There is no ozone hole over the north pole (pg. 539);

** Toxic waste isn't an important problem because the National Academy of Sciences in a 1991 report said there is "no clear relationship between proximity to toxic wastes and cancer;" (pg. 604);

** Environmental problems developed in the old days, back when "government was tucked snugly in bed 

with industry" but times have changed (pg. 372);

** Chemicals are, today, assumed to be dangerous, and the burden of proof is on the manufacturers of chemicals to prove safety before new chemicals can be introduced into commerce (pg. 231);

** Most forms of cancer are in decline (pg. 246);

** Dioxin is in the same chemical family as table salt (pg. 414); the largest study of dioxin and human health found only a "slight" increase in cancer (pg. 235); dioxin is natural, caused mainly by forest fires (pg. 238); and, anyway, new emissions of dioxin have already been "nearly eliminated" (pg. 238).

I'll stop here because the catalog of optimism goes on and on, but the drift is clear to everyone.

Unfortunately, most of the ecorealists' platform is simply wrong. Let's examine some of its assertions.

** According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been "reassessing" dioxin for the past 4 years, at least half of the dioxin sources in the U.S. have not been identified (REHW #390, #391), so Gregg Easterbrook cannot know that new sources of exposure have been eliminated. EPA says forest fires are a minor source of dioxin and even that minor source may be caused not by nature but by industrial releases of chlorine settling onto the leaves of trees. The largest study of dioxin and human health found a 46% increased hazard of cancer among workers whose exposure lasted at least a year and began at least 20 years ago (thus allowing the cancer latency period to run its course); 46% is not a "slight" increase by any reasonable person's reckoning (RHWN #219, #270, #290, #353). True, dioxin is a chlorinated chemical, and so is table salt, but dioxin is only in the "same family" as table salt in the sense that an AK-47 and a pea shooter are in the "same family" --both can be used as weapons to hurt people.

** The incidence rates of 14 out of 16 types of cancer are increasing, not decreasing. The death rates for 8 of 16 types of cancer are increasing. (See RHWN #385.) Easterbrook is wrong when he says most forms of cancer are in decline.

** Today in the U.S., new chemicals are introduced at the will of the manufacturer, and it is up to the public to prove that they cause harm before a chemical can even be regulated, much less banned. Mr. Easterbrook has it backwards.

** What the National Academy of Sciences actually said about toxic wastes and human health was this: "A limited number of epidemiologic studies indicate that increased rates of birth defects, spontaneous abortion, neurologic impairment, and cancer have occurred in some residential populations exposed to hazardous wastes. We are concerned that other populations at risk might not have been adequately identified." And the Council said, "Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though current risks could be negligible." (RHWN #272, #371)

** No ozone hole over the north pole? In 1993, Canadian scientists reported measuring 35% more ultraviolat light on the ground in Toronto, due to a large hole in the ozone layer over the north pole. [3]

** Most WIPP radioactive wastes gone in 300 years? The WIPP radioactive waste dump in New Mexico is slated to hold, at a minimum, one ton of plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,400 years. Plutonium is one of the two or three most potent carcinogens around. According to the government's environmental impact statement, WIPP may eventually hold up to 44 tons of plutonium. It will take 10 half-lives, or 240,400 years (far longer than HOMO SAPIENS has walked the earth), for this plutonium to decay away, not 300 years.

** No one ever harmed by nuclear power reactors? The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the industry-dominated standards-setting body for the nuclear industry worldwide, estimates that nuclear reactors in the U.S. (annually producing 80 gigawatt-years of power) cause 4000 deaths and 2500 serious genetic defects each year in future populations. (REWH #200, #201, #202) The 

U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that the true number is 50% greater than the ICRP's estimate. Long after the reactors have been shut down, this damage will continue year after year for aeons into the future as radioactive gases waft into the air from uranium mill tailings piles, and other radioactive wastes. Just because the deaths will not occur today does not mean nuclear energy is "clean." Dead is dead, and immoral is immoral, today and tomorrow.

** Humans are insignificant compared to nature's damage? True for hurricanes and earthquakes. But for long-term distribution of toxic chemicals and certain key nutrients into the environment, humans surpassed nature some decades ago. For example, each year humans inject twice as much arsenic into the atmosphere as nature does, seven times as much cadmium, and 17 times as much lead. Measured by the elements that nature moves into the oceans via river discharges, we humans mobilize (through mining) 13 times as much iron as nature does each year, 36 times as much phosphorous, and 110 times as much tin. Nature mobilizes 63 million tons of nitrogen each year, but humans (through fertilizer and fossil fuel combustion) mobilize 215 million tons. Yes, nature is large and sturdy, but in several important respects, human activities have already dwarfed natural processes. (REWH #155).

Gregg Easterbrook reserves special treatment for the main problem that drives the grass-roots environmental movement: health damage from toxic chemicals. He begins by sneering at the first scientist who reported harm to the children living near Love Canal, Dr. Beverly Paigen. Easterbrook says "Paigen essentially assumed that if a Love Canal resident stated that a health condition was caused by toxic wastes, it must be so." (pg. 605) With that, Easterbrook dismisses health problems among children living near Love Canal and lays the foundation for his claim that toxic chemicals aren't a serious problem. But anyone who reads Paigen's work can see that she did not rely merely on peoples' claims that toxic waste had harmed them. Using objective measures, Paigen and others clearly revealed a pattern of harm to children and wildlife near Love Canal. At least six peer-reviewed studies have indicated harm to living things near Love Canal (RHWN #104, #276, #371). Easterbrook's account is disgracefully distorted and false.

Gregg Easterbrook has been an environmental writer for NEWSWEEK for several years. He has traveled the world, gleaning first-hand information reported in this book. He has read hundreds of scientific studies, and he spent 5 years preparing his manuscript. Yet he feels compelled to support his case by omissions, distortions, and fabrications. As a consequence, none of the book seems trustworthy, or even worth reading. Easterbrook comes across as a sophisticated Rush Limbaugh. What a sad waste of a talented writer.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Sylvia N. Tesh, "Causal Debates in Environmentalism," JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY (Autumn 1994), pgs. 298-309.

[2] Gregg Easterbrook, A MOMENT ON THE EARTH (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995); $27.95 but not worth it.

[3] J.B. Kerr and C.T. McElroy, "Evidence for Large Upward Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion," SCIENCE, Vol. 262 (Nov. 12, 1993), pgs. 1032-1034.

Descriptor terms: environmentalists; environmental movement; environmentalism; public policy; journalism; ecorealism; population; genetic engineering; chlorine; landfilling; incineration; natural disasters; radioactivity; radiation; radioactive waste; military wastes; ozone depletion; toxic waste dumps; superfund; onus; reverse onus; dioxin; epa; dioxin reassessment; cancer; plutonium; wipp; waste isolation polit plant; icrp; uranium; metals; nutrients; beverly paigen; love canal; wildlife; gregg easterbrook;

#441: New Perspectives on Loss of Species

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #441
---May 11, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

New research on loss of species indicates that extinctions are occurring now at a rate 100 to 1000 times as fast as "natural background" rates of extinction. [1] The "natural background" is the rate of extinction measurable in the fossil record of life before humans appeared on the scene. In some regions, the rate today is 10,000 times as fast as the natural rate. Extinction is nothing new; it has been going on since life first emerged on Earth, perhaps 3 billion years ago. What is new is the speed with which extinctions are now occurring.

The most recent estimate of the "background" rate of extinctions indicates that one species is lost per year out of each 1 million to 10 million species in existence. (No one knows how many species exist. About 1.4 million species have been named and cataloged; Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says his best guess is that somewhere between 5 and 30 million species exist.) [2]

A recent conservative (meaning on the low side; not exaggerated) estimate of the present rate of species loss suggests that we are losing one species per year for every 10,000 species on Earth. Thus the present extinction rate is 100 to 1000 times as fast as the historical "background" rate.

Extinctions are particularly important problems because they are permanent and cannot be reversed once they occur. When a species is lost, all of the genetic information that it contained is lost as well. If a species has valuable characteristics --like the bread mold that gave us penicillin --its loss is particularly important to humans. But, in a crucial way, all species are important. We do not know what holds the web of life together. It is as if we were flying in an airplane and periodically reaching down, pulling a component out of the control panel, and tossing it out the window. Anyone can see that such a plane will very likely not remain airborne. It is the same with biodiversity --the loss of component parts weakens the whole structure in ways that we cannot understand or appreciate. We just know that loss of species cannot be good for the system, or for us.

Why are we losing species so fast? A recent look at the loss of amphibians (frogs, toads, and salamanders) reveals many complex reasons. [3]

There are 5130 species of amphibians on Earth today. [4] Amphibians have been on the Earth for well over 100 million years --1000 times as long as HOMO SAPIENS has been around. [5] In other words, humans in their modern form have been on Earth only one-tenth of one-percent of the time that amphibians have been here. Amphibians managed to live through the stressful time when the dinosaurs went extinct, 65 million years ago. Clearly, amphibians are survivors.

Since about 1970, however, there has been accumulating evidence that amphibians are declining and disappearing in places as diverse as North America, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. [6]

The rate of amphibian extinctions has been estimated as follows: there are about 4000 species of frogs and toads; only 5 are thought to have become extinct between the 19th century and the 1960s. But in the past 25 years, herpetologists have observed drastic population declines and disappearances of many more species. They believe that 89 amphibian species are now at risk of extinction. [7] Other species have not been seen in recent years, but it is not known whether this is due to natural fluctuations of population or is a sign of trouble. [8]

Why has the rate of amphibian extinctions increased so rapidly this century and especially within the last 30 years? Specialists writing in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and elsewhere list the following reasons: [9]

1) Amphibians are born of eggs laid in water, eggs not protected by a leathery or hard shell. Thus amphibians start "sampling" the environment as soon as life begins.

2) During early life (egg and larval stages), they live in the water; during later stages, they live partly in water and partly on land. Thus they "sample" a spectrum of environments as their lives progress.

3) Amphibians have a permeable, exposed skin, not covered by thick scales, hair or feathers. They breathe (respire) through their thin, moist skin, again "sampling" the environment and whatever pollutants it may contain. Because they are "cold blooded" (having no internal thermostat), they move in and out of sunlight to avoid extremes of heat and cold.

4) Habitat loss: The U.S. originally contained between 148 and 185 million acres of wetlands; during the 1950s to 1970s, about 10% of these wetlands were drained. Currently an estimated 107 million acres, or between 58% and 72% of the nation's original wetlands, remain in the continental U.S. Nearly 300,000 acres of wetlands are lost per year. [10] Amphibians depend upon wetlands for life. [Solution: protect wetlands.]

5) Habitat fragmentation. Amphibians live in local colonies. When one colony's habitat is damaged, it might migrate to a new location if conditions are right. But habitats have been fragmented --cut up by human developments --so that migration to new habitat is made difficult or impossible. [Solution: Stop building new roads. Stop clearcutting forests. Learn to live within reasonable limits. Plan our land uses on the assumption that other species have a right to exist and that humans are diminished when other species decline.]

6) Introduction of exotic species for recreational fishing. Exotic species may outcompete indigenous species for food and breeding sites or may prey upon the indigenous species. In the U.S., introduced species such as rainbow trout, golden trout, brook charr, and largemouth bass eat eggs, larvae and adult amphibians. [Solution: minimize introduction of exotic species. The stocking of rivers and lakes with hatchery-bred fish gives the false impression that all is well, so we could give ourselves a much-needed reality check by abandoning this practice. Amphibian declines offer a second good reason to abandon this practice.]

7) Global climate change. Normally, the Earth's ozone shield filters out the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation. In the last 30 years, humans have depleted the ozone shield by chemical contamination, thus increasing the amount of ultraviolet radiation striking the surface of the Earth. Field experiments by biologists in Oregon showed that the eggs of certain species of amphibians are killed by increased exposure to ultraviolet light. They concluded, "Clearly, amphibian eggs in wild populations were dying from exposure to ultraviolet-B radiation." [11][Solution: aggressively ban all ozone depleters including CFCs, HCFCs and methyl bromide, and attempt to shut down the black market in such products.]

8) These same scientists note that certain bacteria and fungi have been known to decimate amphibian populations. One particular fungus is carried by fish raised in hatcheries; when the fish are released, the fungus may harm local amphibian populations. [12] These scientists speculate that, because ultraviolet light is known to harm the immune system of many animals, ozone depletion may be harming the immune systems of amphibians, diminishing their defenses against bacteria and fungi. [Solution: see No. 7, above.]

9) Acid rain, snow, and fog: acidity itself seems to harm growth and development of amphibians; it also releases aluminum from the soil which then harms growth and development of amphibians. [13] [Solution: phase out coal-burning power plants and replace them with solar-hydrogen systems.]

10) Agricultural contaminants: In the western U.S., agriculture uses 80-90% of available water. Recently, 31 of 50 states, plus the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, have reported concerns about groundwater contamination by pesticides; there are few data on the effects of pesticides on amphibians. Recent studies at the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge showed that irrigation drainwater was either lethal to, or caused significant malformation of, developing frog embryos. The study concluded that poor water quality (elevated pH [8.0 to 10.4] and un-ionized ammonia) and/or pesticides may be contributing to the decline of indigenous frog populations. [14] [Solution: help chemical-dependent farmers adopt organic farming techniques; this means revising the institutional framework of agriculture, including loan policies of private and public lenders, as well as turning much of the Agricultural Extension Service on its head.]

11) Overharvesting of frogs for human food: The importance of frog legs as a food item in France has apparently been linked to a marked decline in native frogs in Europe, India, and Bangladesh. [15] The demand for frog legs in France is tremendous: the French eat 3,000 to 4,000 metric tons of them a year. Some 20,000 frogs must be sacrificed in order to supply a single metric ton of legs. [16]

12) Certain industrial chemicals can mimic the activity of naturally occurring hormones. Examination of birds, fish and reptiles indicates that these substances can have drastic consequences, such as a reduction in sperm count and the alteration of male genitalia. [17][Solution: Ban and phase out chlorine as an industrial feedstock. Adopt the principle of "reverse onus," which says that new chemicals shall be assumed dangerous until they are shown to be compatible with natural systems.] (See RHWN #378.)

At the most immediate, practical, monetary level, it makes no sense to ignore the decline and disappearance of species. From the perspective of humans, amphibians represent a storehouse of pharmaceutical products waiting to be tapped fully. Hundreds of chemical secretions have been isolated from amphibian skin, and scientists are just beginning to learn how valuable these substances may be. Some of these compounds are already used as painkillers and in treatment of victims of traumas ranging from burns to heart attacks. It is clearly in our own interests to stop the destruction of amphibians, and of all other creatures great and small. [18]

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Stuart Pimm, "Seeds of Our Own destruction," NEW SCIENTIST Vol. 146, No. 1972 (April 8, 1995), pgs. 31-35.

[2] E.O. Wilson, "The Current State of Biodiversity," in E.O. Wilson and Frances M. Peter, editors, BIODIVERSITY (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988), pgs. 3-18.

[3] Andrew R. Blaustein and David B. Wake, "The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 272, No. 4 (April 1995), pgs. 52-57.

[4] Andrew R. Blaustein, "Chicken Little or Nero's Fiddle? A Perspective on Declining Amphibian Populations," HERPETOLOGICA Vol. 50, No. 1 (March 1994), pgs. 85-97.

[5] David B. Wake, "Declining Amphibian Populations," SCIENCE Vol. 253 (August 23, 1991), pg. 860.

[6] Andrew R. Blaustein and David B. Wake, "Declining Amphibian Populations: A Global Phenomenon," TREE Vol. 5, No. 7 (July 1990), pgs. 203-204.

[7] Pimm, cited above, pg. 35.

[8] Joseph H.K. Pechmann and others, "Declining Amphibian Populations: The Problem of Separating Human Impacts From Natural Fluctuations," SCIENCE Vol. 253 (August 23, 1991), pgs. 892-895.

[9] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3.

[10] Robin Boyer and Christian E. Grue, "The Need for Water Quality Criteria for Frogs," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 4 (April 1995), pgs. 352-357.

[11] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 55, referring to Andrew R. Blaustein and others, "UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: A link to population declines?" PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Vol. 91 (March 1994), pgs. 1791-1795.

[12] Andrew R. Blaustein and others, "Pathogenic Fungus Contributes to Amphibian Losses in the Pacific Northwest," BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Vol. 67 (1994), pgs. 251-254.

[13] Boyer and Grue, cited above, pg. 353.

[14] Boyer and Grue, cited above, pg. 354.

[15] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 6, pg. 204.

[16] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

[17] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

[18] Blaustein and Wake, cited above in note 3, pg. 56.

Descriptor terms: species loss; habitat destruction; habitat fragmentation; endocrine disrupters; deforestation; clearcutting; frog legs; france; agriculture; pesticides; fertilizers; acid precipitation; immune system disorders; bacteria; fungi; fish; exotic species; ozone depletion; cfcs; hcfcs; methyl bromide; global climate change; atmosphere; ultraviolet light; hormones; reverse onus; water pollution; water quality criteria;

#462: Killing Science

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #462
---October 5, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Last week Congress permanently closed down its scientific research arm, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Although we did not agree with the recommendations of every report that OTA produced during its 23 years of policy analysis, we know that the death of OTA will be an immeasurably great loss to the nation's ability to get the facts straight. The so-called conservatives in this Congress claim to favor public policies based on "good science," yet they are hacking away the infrastructure of laboratories and institutes that, for decades, has done the nation's scientific work. Next on the chopping block is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards), which designs standardized testing and measurement protocols that are relied upon by scientists and engineers throughout the world. This Congress is moving us steadily back toward the dark ages.

On the chopping block as we go to press is the university-based program of basic research within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program, now in its ninth year, provides funding to 17 programs at 60 universities and institutions around the country, studying the human health effects of hazardous chemicals in the environment, especially those found at leaking waste dumps.

Congress has already reduced the appropriation for this program, which makes up barely 1% of the Superfund toxic waste cleanup effort. But now the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, chaired by Rep. Michael Oxley of Ohio's 4th District, is refusing to reauthorize the program entirely, thus killing it dead. Mr. Oxley's position is that Superfund money should only be used for cleanup, not for any "extraneous" uses like determining how clean our cleanups need to be, and why. Like other so-called "conservatives" who claim they want policies based on "good science," Mr. Oxley reveals his true intentions as he prevents any "good science" from being funded and carried out.

Looking at some of last year's research highlights produced by the Superfund research program, one can appreciate Mr. Oxley's fear of what good science will reveal: [1]

** Researchers determined the dose-response relationship for benzene down to doses as low as those received by ordinary people. Millions of Americans are exposed to small amounts of benzene when, for example, they pump their own gasoline. These benzene experiments strongly suggest that a cancer risk from benzene is present even at very low doses. With millions of people exposed to benzene every day, it seems important to know that benzene really does cause cancer.

** Other investigations demonstrated for the first time in laboratory animals that benzene exposure, which has been associated with leukemia and aplastic anemia in humans and animals, is also mutagenic; that is, it causes inheritable genetic changes which can affect the next generation, the next after that, and so on.

** Researchers showed that several biological markers (subtle observable changes in a person) can be used to detect probable chromium exposure in humans living near places where chromium wastes have been dumped. Researchers studied Jersey City, N.J., and surrounding Hudson County where corporate polluters dumped chromium wastes on the ground for decades. Such research should make it easier to sue corporate polluters for exposure to toxics.

** Researchers developed a test to detect a single molecule of a cancer-associated chromosomal rearrangement in the presence of DNA from a million normal human cells. This work offers the possibility of very sensitive detection of the ability of chemicals to cause chromosomal rearrangements as an indicator of their cancer-causing potential.

** Researchers are studying the neurological and immune-system effects of drinking water containing mercury compounds. Early results indicate that even a small dose of methyl-mercury, such as 5 ppm [parts per million] in drinking water, impairs neurological, endocrine (hormone), and immune-system functions in animals. This corresponds to a daily consumption of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight which is smaller than the "safe" dose of 0.48 mg/kg body weight indicated by the World Health Organization. In other words, mercury is even more dangerous than formerly believed.

** A large epidemiologic study examined the respiratory disease hazards of susceptible individuals living near toxic waste sites and industrial facilities. Analysis of interim data has provided important information on the association between asthma status (active or inactive) and exposure to irritants --active asthmatics have been found to suffer an adverse effect on lung function resulting from irritant chemical exposure (after adjustment for smoking). Asthma is increasing each year in the U.S. population, and annual production of toxic chemicals is increasing as well. Could these two trends be related? It would be important to know.

** Researchers demonstrated a high degree of correspondence between laboratory and field-test results of immune-system toxicity in dogs exposed to industrial PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]. Not only have these studies clarified effects of PCBs on the immune system, but they have sparked a number of spin-off studies involving the thyroid, lymphocyte (white blood cell) development, and brain function. These studies help clarify how PCBs affect behavior, physiology, and response to infectious disease, in addition to environmentally-induced threats such as cancer. Efforts to date have provided a key step in validating laboratory immune-system toxicity observations with field studies of animal health.

** In a study comparing effects of perinatal (near the time of birth) vs. adult exposure to PCBs, researchers have found that toxic effects on the brain occur in completely opposite ways. In adults, ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine levels while dioxin-like coplanar-PCBs have no such effect. (Dopamine is an important natural chemical in the brain.) However, following perinatal exposure, dioxin-like PCBs elevate brain dopamine concentrations and alter the behavior of exposed female offspring while ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine concentrations. Thus, PCB exposures have opposite effects, depending on the age at exposure and the type of PCBs to which the organism is exposed. These results suggest that PCBs may not only directly affect nerve function, but may also alter steroid hormone function during a baby's development.

** Some of the most interesting and important Superfund research involves the role of estrogens and estrogen-like chemicals that seem to interfere with the reproductive system of fish, birds, and mammals, probably including humans. Estrogens are female sex hormones.

A study of sea gulls on Santa Barbara Island, not far from Los Angeles, in 1977 revealed bizarre gull behavior: female gulls were pairing up and sharing nests. In 1981, bird toxicologist Michael Fry published a study showing that, by injecting a small amount of DDT into bird eggs, he could produce hermaphroditic male birds --that is, male birds with the sex organs of both a male and a female. Fry's work met with skepticism back in 1981, but in the subsequent decade wildlife experts worldwide reported declining birth rates, hermaphroditic offspring, lowered sperm counts, and deformities of the testicles of fish, panthers, alligators, and other animals in polluted habitats. [2]Timothy Gross, a wildlife endocrinologist (hormone specialist) at the University of Florida in Gainesville, says, "If you look at people, the same pollutants are in our bodies. What is a safe level? We don't know. But I'd be a pretty naive scientist to conclude there couldn't be the same effects in humans." [3]

The possible effects of estrogen-like chemicals on humans are now thought to include prostate cancer and testicular cancer [4]in men, and perhaps breast cancer in women. [5] Prostate cancer has been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years, especially among older men; it strikes 244,000 men each year in the U.S., and kills about 40,000. Breast cancer strikes 183,000 American women each year and kills about 46,240. One out of every 8 women gets breast cancer, and one out of every 7 men gets prostate cancer. Because men with undeveloped testes, and castrated men, rarely develop prostate cancer, researchers began to suspect that sex hormones circulating in the blood might affect prostate cancer. "The evidence has since been stacking up to form an alarming picture that paints estrogen [female sex hormone] and testosterone [male sex hormone] as cancer culprits," says a recent issue of ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, [4]published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS], a staid scientific organization that does not use the word "alarming" lightly. Estrogens and estrogen-mimicking industrial chemicals in the environment have now been shown to alter testosterone levels in men. Thus the wildlife research supported by Superfund money has begun to pay off with a better understanding of major killer diseases. "We're relying on Superfund money for research," says wildlife-and-hormone specialist Timothy Gross at University of Florida. "And who knows what will happen to that? Congress now has a vendetta against lots of this environmental research," he says. [3]

Indeed, people calling themselves "conservatives" in Congress are determined to cut off the funding for this line of research. In their mind, the only good science is no science. Without federal funding, this research will cease because the private sector has no interest in showing how industrial discharges may be contributing to the nation's steadily-rising burden of cancer, diabetes, birth defects, endometriosis, and infertility.

Now a Congressman from Ohio is leading the charge to kill this important health research program. Mr. Oxley might change his mind if he received letters or phone calls from people in his district, who hold the power to end his political career. In addition, calls from outside his district might help, too. Mr. Oxley represents 11 counties (Allen, Auglaize, Crawford, Hancock, Hardin, Knox, Logan, Marion, Morrow, Richland and Wyandot), with the district's four most populous cities being Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Findlay (Mr. Oxley's home town). His phone number in D.C. is: (202) 225-2676; fax: (202) 226-1160. Mail: 2233 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Highlights of Superfund research can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp/1994-hig.htm.

[2] Recent work on estrogen-like chemicals and wildlife appears in "Wildlife Development," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, Supplement 4 (May, 1995).

[3] Gross quoted in Amanda Spake, "Is the modern world giving us cancer?" HEALTH (October, 1995), pg. 55.

[4] Renee Twombly, "Assault on the Male," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 9 (September, 1995), pgs. 802-805.

[5] Devra Lee Davis and H. Leon Bradlow, "Can Environmental Estrogens Cause Breast Cancer?" SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 273, No. 4 (October, 1995), pgs. 166-172.

Descriptor terms: research funding; superfund; congress; science; ota; benzene; chromium; congressman michael oxley; cancer; mercury; asthma; hazardous wastes; pcbs; dogs; estrogens; hormones; immune system; nervous system; endocrine system; endocrine disruptors; wildlife; hermaphroditism; fish; gulls; birds; panthers; alligators; prostate cancer; testicular cancer; breast cancer; morbidity statistics; mortality statistics; testosterone; niehs

#466: Climate and Infectious Disease, Part 1

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #466
---November 2, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Inside a greenhouse, it is the glass roof that creates the warmth. The glass lets sunlight stream in. When the sunlight strikes a surface and turns into heat energy, the heat then radiates back toward the sky. The radiated heat strikes the glass, which has the peculiar property of allowing light to pass through much better than it lets heat pass through. Therefore, some of the heat is reflected back down into the greenhouse, and the greenhouse warms up.

For at least 100 years, physicists and chemists have known that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere acts like glass covering the earth. [1]CO2 lets sunlight in, but does not let heat out nearly so well. Since 1850, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased 30% because of humans burning coal and oil. There is nearly universal agreement among scientists that this will warm the earth. [2] It's only a question of when.

Now evidence is accumulating steadily, indicating that the warming has begun:

** AIR IS WARMING: 

Global average air temperature over the last century has risen about 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit (F.), which is 0.45 degrees Celsius (C.), according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is made up of about 200 of the world's leading scientists who specialize in climate studies. In some areas, such as Australia and New Zealand, the increase in air temperature has exceeded the average; in New Zealand, average air temperature has risen between 0.7 and 1.4 degrees F. (or between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees C.). [3]

** OCEANS ARE WARMING: 

In November, 1994, researchers announced finding a 0.9 degree F. (0.5 degree C.) rise in the temperature of the deep waters of the Indian Ocean, compared to measurements taken 20 years ago. This was the third ocean observed to be warming. In 1992 Nathan Bindoff reported that the subsurface temperature of the southwestern Pacific Ocean had increased at about the same rate (0.9 degrees F. [0.5 degrees C.] over 20 years). [4] In early 1994, a group led by Gregorio Parrilla of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute reported that the North Atlantic was also warming. [5]

** In December, 1994, Ed Carmack of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, reported that the waters 200 to 1000 meters (660 to 3280 feet) beneath the Arctic Ocean have warmed 1.8 degrees F. (1.0 degrees C.) "compared to a few years ago." "There is clear evidence that the arctic is warming," Carmack reported. [6] The Arctic is thus the fourth ocean found to be measurably warming. In June, 1995, researchers used a new technique to measure temperature beneath the Arctic ice cap. They measured the speed of sound through Arctic waters, and from that calculated a warming of 0.9 degrees F. (0.5 degrees C.) compared to thermometer data from a decade ago. [7]

** GLACIERS ARE MELTING. 

For example, on Mount Jaya in New Guinea, three glaciers have shrunk by 6.2 square miles (16 square kilometers) since 1936, and now only 1.1 square miles (3 square kilometers) of ice remain. "The region has heavy snow showers," says Geoff Hope of the Australian National University in Canberra, "so the shrinking must be due to a rise in temperature." [8]

** PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES HAVE BEGUN TO SHIFT THEIR TERRITORY IN RESPONSE TO RISING TEMPERATURES. 

For example, 45 species of invertebrates were surveyed along the California coastline in 1930 and again in 1993-94. A definite shift northward in the range of these species was observed over the 60-year period. During the period, annual average (mean) ocean temperature at the shoreline increased 1.35 degrees F. (0.75 degrees C.), and average summer maximum air temperatures increased 3.9 degrees F. (2.2 degrees C.). [9]

** In 1994, researchers reported a study of plants on 26 mountain tops in the Alps in western Austria and eastern Switzerland. From "12 very precise historical records" the researchers were able to show that 9 species of plants have been moving upward at the rate of 4 meters (12 feet) per decade since the original measurements were made 70 to 90 years ago. [10] These species are in danger of becoming extinct as they move upward because eventually they will run out of mountain.

** MOSQUITOES ARE SPREADING: 

Plants are not the only creatures moving northward and to higher elevations. Mosquitoes that carry diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and encephalitis are also extending their range, and moving to higher elevations --thus threatening larger human populations with exposure to serious infectious diseases. Dengue fever --also known as "breakbone fever" because it is so painful --appeared in Texas this past summer.

In May, 1995, researchers in the Netherlands and in England estimated the increase in malaria that could occur if the IPCC's projection for global warming proves correct. They concluded that, in tropical regions, the "epidemic potential of the mosquito population" would double; on the other hand, in temperate climates, the epidemic potential would increase 100-fold (in other words, it would become 100 times as great as it is today). Furthermore, they said, "There is a real risk of reintroducing malaria into nonmalarial areas, including parts of Australia, the United States, and southern Europe." All told, they estimated that climate change of 5.4 degrees F. (3 degrees C.) in the next century could cause an additional 50 million to 80 million new cases of malaria each year around the globe. [11] Today, about 110 million new cases of malaria occur each year, globally.

The increase of malaria is not merely theoretical. A recent study of a 1987 malaria outbreak in Rwanda showed that 80% of the outbreak could be explained by unusually high temperatures, and abundant rainfall (both of which are expected to increase with global warming). [12] A 1.8 degree F. (1.0 degree C.) temperature increase led to a 337% increase in malaria. Furthermore, there is evidence of a 5-to-8-year cycle of malaria outbreaks in various parts of the world, and these can be shown to correlate with the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a periodic warming of the southern Pacific ocean surface, which usually occurs about twice each decade. ENSO ordinarily appears at Christmastime and affects patterns of temperature, rainfall, and drought worldwide for about a year. [13] Since 1980, ENSO events have occurred more frequently, and have lasted longer than they used to. As a writer in SCIENCE magazine said recently, "Recent data suggest that warming in the deep oceans may be driving El Nino conditions...." [14]During the period 1991-1994, El Nino recurred each year --an event without precedent in the historical record. [15] Paul Epstein of the Harvard School of Public Health explains the importance of recent El Nino events this way: Warmer seas evaporate quickly, yielding greater precipitation over some areas and drought in others. The strength of the 1992/1993 El Nino was unexpected, and the endurance of +2 to 3 degree C. (3.6 to 5.4 degree F.) increases in ocean temperatures into summer was unprecedented. As a result of the extended El Nino event of the last 4 years, weather patterns have become particularly erratic and volatile (i.e., unstable), Epstein writes.

** ALGAE ARE BLOOMING. 

Partly as a result of El Nino events, marine ecosystems around the globe have begun to experience enormous unnatural blooms of algae. Algae are tiny floating plants that photosynthesize, which is to say they use energy from sunlight to combine carbon dioxide and hydrogen (from water) into carbohydrates. Thus algae form the bottom of the oceans' food chains. According to researchers from Harvard University and from the University of Maryland, recent algae blooms threaten the health of marine ecosystems,[16,17] and of humans.

Algae blooms are promoted by many human activities:

** Algae growth is promoted by nitrogen-rich waste waters, by fertilizers, by acid rain, and by nutrient-carrying soil that runs off the land when it rains.

** Wetlands and mangroves ("nature's kidneys") filter out nitrates and phosphates (chemicals which act as fertilizers and promote algae blooms).

** While nutrient sources are increasing, the filtration systems are being lost to coastal development, to aquaculture (fish farming), to diking (a response to rising sea levels, caused by global warming), and to drilling.

** Simultaneously, fish stocks (which eat the creatures that eat algae) are being depleted (14 of 17 major world fisheries are in serious decline).

** Simultaneously, climate-related warmer sea-surface temperatures also increase growth of algae by: (1) increasing photosynthesis and speeding up the algae's metabolism; (2) increasing nutrient-rich coastal upwelling (upward flows of water); and (3) shifting the community of organisms toward more toxic species ("red tides," fish and shellfish poisonings) which are in turn less palatable to creatures that eat algae.

Why should humans care? For one thing, algae provide a home for the microbe that causes cholera --an illness that kills humans by a violent diarrhea, if not promptly and expertly treated. In 1991, El Nino and algae blooms contributed to a massive outbreak of cholera in Latin America in which 500,000 people fell ill and 5000 died. [16]

In sum, "The spread if infectious diseases will be the most important public health problem related to climate change," says Jonathan Patz, a microbiologist at Johns Hopkins University. [14]

  --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Svante Arrhenius, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground," PHILOSOPHICAL MAGAZINE (1896) cited in Douglas Cogan, THE GREENHOUSE GAMBIT (Washington, D.C.: Investor Responsibility Research Center, 1992), pg. 63.

[2] Kathy Maskell, Irving M. Mintzer, and Bruce A. Callendar, "Basic science of climate change," THE LANCET Vol. 342, No. 8878 (October 23, 1993), pgs. 1027-1031.

[3] Tim Thwaites, "Are the Antipodes in hot water?" NEW SCIENTIST November 12, 1994, pg. 21.

[4] Nathan L. Bindoff and others, "Warming of the water column in the southwest Pacific Ocean," NATURE Vol. 357 No. 6373 (May 7, 1992), pg. 59.

[5] Gregorio Parrilla and others, "Rising temperatures in the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean over the past 35 years," NATURE Vol. 369 No. 6475 (May 5, 1994), pgs. 48-51.

[6] John Travis, "Taking a Bottom-to-Sky 'Slice' of the Arctic Ocean," SCIENCE Vol. 266 (December 23, 1994), pgs. 1947-1948.

[7] Antonio Regalado, "Listen Up! The World's Oceans May Be Starting to Warm," SCIENCE Vol. 268 (June 9, 1995), pgs. 1436-1437.

[8] Helen Goss, "Meltdown warning as tropical glaciers trickle away," NEW SCIENTIST June 24, 1995, page unknown.

[9] J.P. Barry and others, "Climate-Related, Long-Term Faunal Changes in a California Rocky Intertidal Community," SCIENCE Vol. 267 (February 3, 1995), pgs. 672-675.

[10] Georg Grabherr and others, "Climate effects on mountain plants," NATURE Vol. 369 (June 9, 1994), page unknown. See also Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Warming Moves Plants Up Peaks, Threatening Extinction," NEW YORK TIMES June 21, 1994, pg. C4.

[11] Willem J.M. Martens and others, "Potential Impact of Global Climate Change on Malaria Risk," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 5 (May 1995), pgs. 458-464.

[12] Michael E. Loevinsohn, "Climatic warming and increased malaria incidence in Rwanda," THE LANCET Vol. 343 (March 19, 1994), pgs. 714-718.

[13] M.J. Bouma and others, "Climate change and periodic epidemic malaria," THE LANCET Vol. 343 (June 4, 1994), page unknown.

[14] Richard Stone, "If the Mercury Soars, So May Health Hazards," SCIENCE Vol. 267 (February 17, 1995), pgs. 957-958.

[15] Paul R. Epstein, "Emerging Diseases and Ecosystem Instability: New Threats to Public Health," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 85, No. 2 (February 1995), pgs. 168-172.

[16] Paul R. Epstein and others, "Marine Ecosystems," THE LANCET Vol. 342 (November 3, 1993), pgs. 1216-1219.

[17] Elizabeth Culotta, "Red Menace in the World's Oceans," SCIENCE Vol. 257 (September 11, 1992), pgs. 1476-1477.

Descriptor terms: greenhouse effect; greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide; air pollution; atmosphere; coal; oil; fossil fuels; combustion; air temperature; global warming; oceans; glaciers; mosquitoes; dengue fever; yellow fever; malaria; encephalitis; rwanda; el nino southern oscillation; enso; paul epstein; algae; eutrophication; fertilizer; nutrients; mangroves; wetlands; aquaculture; fish; cholera; infectious diseases;