What's H2O For?

Further fieldwork: A focus group about water

2009-12-11T11:30:00.000-08:00

A great way of finding out what people think about anything is by leading a focus groups, or group interviews. As a public relations major, I know that good common ideas and useful information will come about from my spending one afternoon with a few focus group members.

Last month, I sat down to brainstorm ideas about tap water and bottled water with a group of about 7 volunteers, only one of whom I'd previously known. As organizations like Tappening represent anti-bottled water causes, I wondered how effective these organizations might be in promoting the cause. Maybe the Nestle Waters giant is unstoppable.

Conducting the Focus Group

In the focus group I did - my first ever - I had about 7 Boston University students volunteer to participate for one hour. Luckily, these volunteers had moved to Boston from different regions of the U.S., allowing me a better random sample of the public that I might try to understand.

My hour-long focus group included questions about the respondents’ general views about buying bottled water and using tap water, their opinions about brand loyalty and bottled water brand advertising and their priorities about health and environmental issues. Respondents were even describing the particular bottled water brands they find most appealing - amazingly, Poland Spring and smartwater emerged as frontrunners. I couldn't exactly pinpoint why the focus members preferred these brands, but they did... I guessed Poland Spring from good branding and habit, and smartwater from its trendiness factor. But I pushed some more. It didn't seem like these volunteers were completely loyal to drinking bottled water, or to any bottled water brand at all.

I collected a good amount of info about consumer preferences and habits, and I received much input from the respondents about how tap or bottled water can be made more or less appealing. Learning from one another and inspiring each others’ ideas, the focus group

members developed pretty honest opinions about the bottled water industry, tap water and overall water safety. They said tap water was dirty, but rather preferred the tacky words like "crisp" and "refreshing" that every Dasani or Deer Park ad tries to engrain in our opinions- apparently, not in vain. Yes, price was important to these volunteers, but trendiness was more important. Group opinion, overall, was really important. The respondents seemed to want to show consumer responsibility to one another and rationality for shotty marketing techniques... but they were caught. They criticized Jennifer Aniston's
smartwater ads, but you better believe they all recalled the ads without my having them there that day. You better believe most of the volunteers had bought smartwater at some point.

Celebrities and trends definitely do act to pull consumers into buying bottled water. Remember the days when drinking Evian bottled water was shi shi and only for celebrities in 90210? In less than a decade, Evian's gone proletariate... but the celebrities lead the packs in this industry.

Notable Findings

During my one hour, I heard a great amount of evidence that some consumers do also choose bottled water products based on habit or from familiarity. If one individual’s parents often bought Poland Spring bottled water, that individual tended to report buying Poland Spring when away from her parents. Participants also tended to buy bottled water if their peers and families have had the habits of buying bottled water in past years. Likewise, if the volunteers had grown up drinking tap water, they later continued to drink tap water and Brita-filtered tap water.

Those in the focus group recalled multiple bottled water advertisements in the media; this was evidence, too, that consumers have a high exposure to bottled water companies’ marketing ploys. Some participants, though, recalled campaigns supporting environmentalist and health campaigns concerning bottled and tap water. This was evidence that the public may be primed with some information about the controversies pertaining to water products, like environmental issues. The one friend I had in the focus group, however, was the only one who knew about BPA as a health risk. I wonder how. Drinking bottled water poses health risks too, people!

Suggestions for the Future

If anyone out there would like to piggyback off my initial focus group endeavor, it could be helpful to conduct more focus groups about some of the more pointed issues we talked about in this first focus group. While recycling habits was only one topic we discussed here, you might conduct a future session strictly about respondents’ knowledge about recycling and environmental effects; this might help ad or pr buffs learn more about how pro-environment claims persuade consumers. Tappening could especially use this advice, my god. Please refer to their horribly elementary and overall ineffective ad campaign. Good for a laugh, not good for cause mobilization.

Similarly, you might conduct a future focus group only about the health concerns entailed with drinking tap or bottled water. The respondents might find differences in the information they have heard reported in the media, and researchers can learn which persuasion tactics have might already affected publics to prefer or avoid tap or bottled water.

We need to know what people know. At times during this focus group, I was shocked to be reminded how normal consumers still think. Jennifer Aniston sells. And to rebuttal, measly NGOs and organizations create ads with cartoons of crying polar bears. Ineffective. I'm ashamed.

Water Survey

2009-09-26T20:34:00.000-07:00

I wanted to know what people know

On September 23 through 25, I officially surveyed five of my college-age compadres to understand their knowledge of plastic water bottle waste, tap water safety, and other water-related topics. I asked each of these individuals, none of whom knew one another or attended the same school, the same list of open-ended questions. The survey results yielded what I had anticipated: a wide spectrum of knowledge about safe water materials and products. All names have been changed to preserve anonymity from the public.

For my initial question I asked, “What comes to mind when you think of ‘pro-safe water activism?’” Most interviewees showed embarrassment for not recognizing this phrase, perhaps from a campaign or political movement. I had, however, invented this wording to find what imagery they conceived when thinking about water issues. Daisy, currently living in Ann Arbor, MI, imagined the elimination of tap water chemicals harming human health. Holden, of St. Clair Shores, MI, instead envisioned shoreline cleanups and the decontamination of drinkable water. Osmosis Jones, of Chesterfield, MI, also imagined the cleaning water for health and environmental purposes. Hanni, of Boston, MA, admitted that the phrase prompted her to imagine giving bottled water to young African children.

When I asked the interviewees to compare their tap water use to their bottled water consumption, most interviewees responded with some criticism for bottled water but admitted to drinking some bottled water. Hanni claimed bottled water companies “scam” customers by consuming global resources like oil and overcharging for their products, but she drinks bottled water when someone else conveniently buys or gives her the bottle. Osmosis Jones also admitted to the convenience of buying bottled water, especially when he loses old bottles by forgetting to bring them home to refill. Paige, who is studying in Israel these days, said she thinks we should be refilling our plastic bottles more often with tap water. Daisy, countering Paige’s statement, brought up research that reusing plastics, especially if the material had been heated, could cause negative health effects. She also claimed that much bottled water is simply bottled tap water, with no additional purification. Daisy drinks mostly tap water.

Holden claimed that tap water is too often dangerous for human consumption. He, along with three others, expressed concerns for many U.S. regions’ inadequate environmental protections and standards. Daisy claimed that politics have caused regions’ incompliance with clean water standards or their inabilities to meet them. Holden and Osmosis Jones sited the issue of prescription drugs entering tap water supplies. They both explain their knowledge that the public lacks education about recycled water and cities’ constant recycling of the same water. As Osmosis Jones said, “Our tap water comes from other peoples’ poop water. Which is gross. So they treat it with chlorine, which is also gross.” Hanni also mentioned the chlorine and fluoride that municipalities pump into water to clean it. Four of these five interviewees had learned the same facts about how local tap water is reused and treated.

The interviewees differed, however, on the extents to which they recycled in their respective cities. Daisy, Hanni and Osmosis Jones spoke about recycling in convenient locations. Ann Arbor provides students with recycle bins and collects them each week. Hanni seeks locations on campus to recycle before she leaves, as her off-campus home has no recycling service. Osmosis Jones, without any recycling service in his new condominium complex, now recycles less than he had when he had a city recycling service. Holden, however, drives to facilities to recycle #5 plastics, which his city will not collect. All interviewees wanted to recycle plastics and other products, including glass, office paper, cardboard, cans, etc. Only one interviewee made extra efforts to recycle materials that no city recycling service was collecting.

While all of the interviewees did show concern for bottled water’s environmental effects, most did site health risks caused by tap, but not bottled, water. Holden, Osmosis Jones, and Daisy, when discussing the risks of ingesting water, only worried about contaminated, inadequately purified tap water. Hanni was the only interviewee who cited research that bottled water can cause health issues among consumers. Paige was the only one who did not believe tap or bottled water proposed health risks. Overall, the interviewees’ explanations of health risks were more vague or inaccurate than their responses about environmental issues.

When I asked the interviewees to compare their priorities for personal health and environmental protection against one another, most interviewees agreed that they prioritize health issues above environmental issues. Paige said she does not pay attention to these risks. Holden explained, however, that consumers may increasingly take environmental risks into considerations when making decisions about their health. A few years ago, he explained, the production of Albuterol inhalers was discontinued because of the dangerous chlorofluorocarbons in the medication’s propellant. Consumers began taking different medications altogether without causing a large outcry to continue using Albuterol. Though consumers prioritize health issues, they increasingly prioritize environmental preservation, as well.

Overall, the interviewees were either well-informed or completely carefree about both health and environmental risks associated water. Most were skeptical about tap water’s safety to the body while trusting bottled water more. They did, however, accurately site more information about bottled water’s harm to the environment. While the interviewees claimed they prioritized personal health over environmental protection, begging the anticipation that they would avoid the tap and choose bottled water instead, about half the interviewees still found means to self-filter their water and appease both concerns. When too inconvenienced to recycle or filter their own water, however, most of those interviewed would rather just drink bottled water.

Other great comments I couldn’t edit and keep the full value of

It's ridiculous to me that we're living in The Great Lakes State, but we won't life a finger or spend a penny to preserve our namesake.

I’ll fill in what I know. I know there was some BPAs leech into the water which is bad for you thing. Also, obviously, plastics consume oils or whatever in the making…

In our buildings, there are separate bins for trash, for bottles, and for paper. In Ann Arbor, given that the city makes it so easy, it does bother me when people don’t recycle.

Then there was the whole news sensationalism OMG PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN YOUR WATER!? Honestly, though, I think its all a crock of crap.

While [landfills are] a bit sickening when I consider, I don’t think about them much.

As a selfish human being, I think about how what I do directly affects my health more so than the environment.

We are too wasteful in general and our consumerism only makes matters worse. Not only do companies need to cut down on unnecessary packaging, but we need to cut back on shopping.

[Problems about tap water include] contamination of reservoirs with E.Coli, etc. forcing boil orders or bans. Also, the adding of chemicals to the water either to clean the water (chlorine) or to use it as a mass vitamin dispenser (fluoride). Both of which can be hazardous to some of the population, especially in excess. (I don't know if this is still an actual problem, but it's definitely still a perceived one)

I HATE it when people don't recycle, especially when there's a bin right there.

I consume a toxin. I get sick maybe 3 weeks later. Yikes. I throw 7 water bottles out a week. I dont ever notice any effect from my actions alone, but they have a combined effect we tend to overlook I think.

As far as buying a product that helps me but might even harm the environment, it’s really a case-by-case judgment call. Is it wrinkle cream? If it is, does killing a blade of grass for every 10000 cases make it worth it? Maybe. Does killing a tree for every 10000 cases make it worth it? Maybe not. But lets say its a cancer drug. Now would it be worth it if it killed 10 trees for every case? Maybe. Its really a tough call.

More BPA, more bottled water

2009-09-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

First, a special thank you to HoMedics for extending an invitation for me to attend their webinar on new home water purification systems. I look forward to learning more about your new technologies and bringing to the public a better piece of mind concerning tap water safety. Now...

Once again, why BPA research should be a priority

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine have linked a chemical found in everyday plastics to problems with brain function and mood disorders in monkeys -- the first time the chemical has been connected to health problems in primates.

Previously, all BPA research had been conducted on mice. Refer to previous entries explaining why human subjects were inadequate for testing.

The study is the latest in an accumulation of research that has raises concerns about bisphenol A, or BPA, a compound that gives a shatterproof quality to polycarbonate plastic and has been found to leach from plastic into food and water. The Yale study comes as federal toxicologists yesterday reaffirmed an earlier draft report finding that there is "some concern" that bisphenol A can cause developmental problems in the brain and hormonal systems of infants and children.

And as we've gathered from other sources, issues span not only developmental (i.e. irregular puberty) issues, but also obesity, infertility, cancer, and possibly heart disease.

"There remains considerable uncertainty whether the changes seen in the animal studies are directly applicable to humans, and whether they would result in clear adverse health effects," John R. Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement. "But we have concluded that the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed."

Now that we've moved on to test subjects that can constitute as some of our specie's close cousins, we need to stop dismissing the idea that BPA could be harmless to us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303397.html

I leave you with a fun fact about bottled water

From a 2006 report:

On a per capita basis, Italians actually have the highest rate of bottled water consumption, drinking 184 liters on average in 2004; this is more than two glasses of bottled water each day. In second and third place came Mexico and the United Arab Emirates, drinking 169 and 164 liters on average. Belgium (exluding Luxemboug) and France came up close too, drinking about 145 liters per person per year.

http://www.container-recycling.org/media/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.htm

A reminder of why we should still drink tap water

2009-09-18T11:18:00.000-07:00

Bringing it all together

This post will be bringing together new information with some snippets from past entries to reinforce why we choose to drink tap water. Some reports in the media have come out in the past couple weeks that may urge us back to the bottle. We stay strong and healthy by choosing tap, and here’s why.

Controversy about tap water

On September 13, just last week, the New York Times published “Clean Water Laws Neglected, at a Cost,” exposing the United States’ noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. This act, enacted in 1972, establishes regulations for states and companies to follow when affecting, through pollution, the chemical, physical, and biological

makeup of bodies of water surrounding them. The Times article reveals that regulators have ignored companies’ extreme violations of the Clean Water Act, therefore increasing the amount of dangerous pollutants in communities’ drinking water. Renegade journalist Charles Duhigg outlines how individuals’ exposure to illegal concentrations of many of these materials, including lead, nickel, copper, zinc, chlorine, and selenium, may contribute to higher occurrences of cancer, mental retardation, skin rashes, tooth decay, and stomach ulcers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcwa.html

EPA’s action for clean water

Lisa Jackson, the new administrator of the EPA and subject whom I often admire in this forum, has already addressed the issue of water safety. Since President Obama appointed Jackson to her position within the EPA, the regulating body for the Clean Water Act, Jackson has requested supplemental appropriations to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. For the fund, Jackson has requested $2.4 billion from Congress’s appropriations for the 2010 fiscal year; this is $1.7 billion more than what the fund received in 2009. With these appropriations, Jackson claims the EPA will be enabled to direct cost-effective and environmentally positive efforts to repair and better manage clean water facilities in U.S. communities.

http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/111_2009_2010/2009_0616_lpj.pdf

Studies have often, often found that tap water is no worse than bottled water

In 2005, ABC’s 20/20 recruited microbiologists to compare the materials, including bacteria, within tap water to those materials within bottled water. Finding no difference between New York City tap water and bottled water, these scientists recommended that individuals consume tap water, which can cost up to 500 times less money than bottled water.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/Story?id=728070&page=1

Drinking tap water saves our environment, after all

As I’ve more recently posted, between 2005 and 2008, Americans increased their plastic water bottle consumption by 59 percent and pumped $5.9 billion into the bottled water industry. Of American consumers, up to 70 percent claim to drink bottled water. Beverage Marketing Corp. reports that these consumers drank 8.7 billion gallons of bottled water in 2008 and 8.8 billion in 2007. These figures respectively amount to 29 and 28.5 gallons per capita. Huge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html

This rate of bottled water consumption is harmful to the globe and our dwindling natural resources. Food & Water Watch also reports that bottled water manufacturers and distributors use over 17 million barrels of oil to produce the bottled water that Americans consume in one year. This amount of oil, which would be enough to fuel one million cars per year, is further wasted by consumers’ refusal to recycle these plastic bottles. Food & Water Watch claim that consumers throw about 86 percent of these bottles into the trash and, subsequently, into landfills.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html

Pat Franklin, of the Container Recycling Institute, reports that Americans dispose over 60 million plastic bottles into U.S. landfills and incinerators each year. With over 3 thousand functioning landfills and over 10,000 municipal, stagnant landfills existing in the United States, Franklin expresses concern about these landfills’ pollutant-emissions and toxin-leaching into the earth and groundwater. Landfill liners, he explains, only have the thickness of 1/10 in., which allows for the eventual leaching of the toxin leachate into the ground. Landfill liners, unsustainable after decades of chemical components decaying them and leaching into our earth and air, present a threat to public health and safety.

Health risks of plastics, the real tap alternative

Bottled water consumers’ health risks also occur during the act of drinking water. Franklin mentions that the United States EPA sets more water quality standards for tap water than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) poses for bottled water. Since Franklin’s report, researchers have pinpointed and examined the toxin Bisphenol A (BPA), which appears in most plastic water bottles, leaches into water, and can cause severe health problems for consumers.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-plastics-do-to-your-body.html

http://www.container-recycling.org/media/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.ht

BPA polycarbonate is used to make common plastic items, including Nalgene™ bottles, dishes, liners of metal cans, baby bottles, and bottled water plastic. The compound BPA is a lab-derived form of estrogen, used commonly to affect the hardness and durability of products it appears in BPA easily leaches into contained water, especially if the plastic container has been refilled, heated, or frozen. Researchers, like Claude Hughes and Frederick S. vom Saal of the University of Missouri-Columbia, have found that by providing unnatural amounts of estrogen to those drinking contaminated water, BPA can be linked to irregular puberty, obesity, infertility, and cancer in both males and females. In lab experiments, these researchers have found that BPA can cause animals’ early puberty and production of pre-cancerous cells. By constantly drinking from bottled water, consumers ingest harmful amounts of the BPA toxin.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7713/7713.html

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-plastics-do-to-your-body.html

Plastics fester bacteria, remember?

I have already written a full entry about this. Consumers also risk ingesting greater amounts of bacteria by drinking from plastic bottles, especially if these individuals refill and reuse their bottles. An Oregon laboratory tested used plastic water bottles for bacteria colony counts and discovered large rates of bacteria growth, even in bottles that had been scrubbed with soap. A bottle they washed the day before the test grew an average of 2,400 colonies, and one bottle they tested grew over 4,100 bacteria colonies on its surface. The researchers repeatedly found that the plastic surface allowed faster growth of bacteria than other surfaces, such as glass.

http://blog.sierratradingpost.com/in-outdoors-camping-gear-forest-trails/reused-plastic-water-bottles-loaded-with-bacteria/

And by national and state EPA standards, tap water contains fluorine to kill bacteria, and throughout the past decade researchers have periodically found greater amounts of fluorine in tap water than in bottled water. By drinking fluorine-filled tap water from a glass, consumers avoid the risk of ingesting the bacteria that can easily fester inside opened plastic water bottles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000322090356.htm

Tap water wastes money

American consumers are now reportedly spending less money to buy bottled water, which can be attributed, yes, to the nationwide recession. Nestle, the leading corporation for bottled water sales, has experienced a drop in sales this year for the first time in six years. In the beginning of 2009, profits dropped 2.9 percent across all Nestle bottled water brands: Poland Spring, Deer Park, S. Pellegrino and Perrier. These consumers presumably choose to drink tap water instead. Good call.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html

Reporter Maura Judkis credits anti-plastic bottle campaigns for this turn in consumption. She sites the campaigns

“Take Back the Tap” and “TapIt” that motivate Americans to avoid bottled water and to be more ecologically conscious. These campaigns encourage consumers to invest in BPA-free metal water bottles and water filters for tap water. H₂Ox2, the online company I’ve often sited, provides a forum for bloggers to share research about plastics while selling alternative water container and filtering products. The site sells individual bottle filters for $8.70 and even larger water-capacity filters for $118. American consumers are creating a demand for tap water products, which they are willing to invest in to save money, save their health, or save the environment.

www.h2ox2.com/store/

People are getting informed and bringing it all back to common sense. Buy a filter for your tap water if you’re afraid that your tap water hasn’t be adequately purified. I believe these horrible stories about communities with inadequate regulators. This is why we need to lobby Congress to be pumping money into the EPA for programs like the Clean Water funds and Superfund. And we already see the EPA taking action on existing cases of unpurified tap water sources. The consequences of consuming non-tap water are overwhelming and worth the investment of buying a filter or addressing policy makers for more strict tap water regulations. Drink tap. Tap it. Tap that. Whatever. Tap water is key here.

Drinking tap water to save dollars

2009-08-18T18:10:00.000-07:00

Recession affecting water bottle sales

The greatest motivation for consumers to turn toward or away from products these days is affordability.

Somehow, not striking enough in past years was the idea that investing in one $20-$30 metal water bottle and one tap water purifier for $20 would save families a ton of money. This move would be sensible. Families buying $20 cases of bottled water each week spend over $1,000 every year on water; individuals even occasionally buying water bottles, perhaps, $5-$10 worth each week, spend about $300-$550 each year.

One $40 investment could have gone a long way.

Yet in her Fresh Greens blog, Maura Judkis discusses consumers’ move during the recession to finally buy fewer water bottles, whether or not these will be reused or replaced by metal alternatives.

The country's largest seller of bottled water, Nestle, has reported a decline of almost 3 percent in its bottled water division (which includes Pellegrino, Poland Spring and Perrier and Deer Park) for the first half of the year.

A revolution, triggered by economic downturn and eventual recovery. Have weot heard this story before? Yes, this is what happens during recessions. We vote in new presidential administrations and stop buying products that pollute our Earth, harm our bodies, are pretty monetarily costly.

…Analysts also credit the decline to environmentalists' campaigns, such as Take Back the Tap and TapIt, to encourage consumers to avoid bottled water. Their encouragement has also led cities from Takoma Park, Md. to San Francisco to cut bottled water out of their budgets, to the tune of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just this week, the Guardian called out the BBC for spending more than $600,000 per year on bottled water.

…. On water. Money simply spent on bottled water.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/08/13/bottled-water-demand-beginning-to-empty-out.html

On Wednesday (Nestle) reported that profits for the first half of the year dropped 2.7 percent, its first decline in six years.

What not to do

"It's an obvious way to cut back," said Joan Holleran, director of research for market research firm Mintel. "People might still be buying bottled water, but you can bet that they're refilling those bottles."

Obviously people are forgetting and ignoring the health costs of drinking from refilled plastic water bottles. Refer to my earlier posts, especially from April 21, about the dangers of not only drinking from plastics once, but multiple times.

Basically, Think erosion of toxic materials into your body. Each time you leave your water in heated areas, like hot cars, BPA leaches into your water at higher rates. Each time you refill your plastic water bottle, more chemicals like BPA are depleting into the water you drink.

How much we've been spending on bottled water

Sales of bottled water swelled 59 percent to $5.1 billion between 2003 to 2008, making it one of the fastest growing beverages. About 70 percent of consumers say they drink bottled water.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html

Who to blame for this costly trend: the profiting companies, of course

Florida's got a personal interest in the bottled water trend. Like it or not, the state's springs are a major supplier of water to the industry.

… Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi recently cited the shift to tap water "in this downturn" by some of its "casual" beverage drinkers. Pepsi's Aquafina is the country's biggest bottled water brand.

In a tough economy, Pepsi Bottling North America president Robert King recently told analysts, "one of the first things that a shopper can decide to do is consume tap water as opposed to purchasing bottled water."

Bitterness ensued.

Nestle Waters North America is a major user of Florida's aquifer to bottle water under the Zephyrhills brand. Nestle also sells Arrowhead, Calistoga, Deer Park, Ice Mountain, Ozarka and Poland Spring among its domestic brands.

A near-monopoly of the most popular water drinks in the country. I’ve yet to find one thing I like about the plastic water bottle industry.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/bottled-water-industry-sales-decrease-during-recession/1028389

A side note: Bling H2O

The website is below, and I’m appalled. Glass bottles of water, blinged out with Swarovski crystals, costing upwards of $500. I don’t know which I can handle less: a female’s nearly naked legs and butt conveniently cushioning a bottle on the main page, or the fact that this is actually a popular product that celebrities buy, or the companies' frequent advertising on the Fox News Channel.

http://www.blingh2o.com/store/index.php

I’d also like to give immense credit to the Washington Post article posted above. Throughout my search for this post, I found nearly verbatim citations of the article by journalists and bloggers across the country. Thanks for supplying our information, Washington Post.

Birth control packaging: Plastic waste that we can all learn from

2009-08-09T12:46:00.000-07:00

An astonishing amount of women takes the pill

The “pill” I refer to is any oral contraceptive medication that alters female users’ hormones and fertility. I’m proud to take it, and my female friends proudly take it, either for birth control, PMDD, or other hormonal concerns. The birth control pill is, relatively, a great thing. An estimated 100 million women around the world take the pill (http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html), which is astounding considering the other forms of contraception a female can use in her sex life: male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, contraceptive sponges, spermicide… all this madness.

Currently mainstream women most so prefer the pill, and a typical conversation in the college dorm room is the comparison of which brands female friends are using (I encourage male friends and male partners into these talks too, as there is absolutely no need for males’ uninvolvement in the pill talks) And quite often, girls compare the hilarious packaging of their pills. The topic of this post: excessive birth control packaging.

But, first, I’ll address the inquiry that inspired this post: Is the particularly soft plastic of birth control packaging giving me large doses of BPA?

(Refer to my post from Feb. 12 for an explanation of the BPA toxin) Well, I’ve done some sporadic online investigating over these months and have found, really, little information on this issue. It’s an important matter for scientists to investigate: with the pill already hyping females’ hormones, the addition of BPA, a synthetic form of estrogen, might significantly alter the intended effects of the pill. Maybe your girlfriend’s appetite was heightened not from the pill, but from the BPA’s bad interaction with the pill. Maybe we could have avoided our exponentially worse menstruation cramps while taking the pill, ladies. Researchers, please visit this inquiry in your labs. I might be getting angry without needing to.

Look at pill packaging

It’s an insane amount of plastic that producers add to the pill, allegedly to remind women to take their pill at the same time every day. PBS compiled a great history of pill packaging and reports:

The first prescription drug for healthy patients, the Pill neither treated nor prevented disease. Instead, taken daily, it prevented pregnancy by changing the hormonal balance in women's bodies. The Pill far surpassed other contraceptive methods, except abstinence, in effectiveness. All a woman had to do was remember to take it every day. Pill packages quickly evolved to remind women to take their daily doses.

The site also features images from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, showing the evolution of this incredibly excessive packaging. Click this link for all the pictures, it’s worth looking at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/gallery/index.html

Pill packaging is not at all sustainable

Pill users usually don’t recycle all this plastic, which includes the packets, the cases, everything. I never before stopped to consider throwing my pill materials into the recycling bin in my apartment, along with papers, old gladware, beer bottles, etc. No pill packets to be seen. Well, this is an incredible waste that ends up in landfills.

Sustainableday.com’s blogger and reporter “Stiven” comments:

Just yesterday I went into a pharmacy to buy: chapstick, floss, and pick up my wife's birth control…The birth control pills are really out of hand, they come in: a paper bag with the receipt, copy of the prescription and a coupon flier stapled to the outside of the bag, inside you find a colorful heavy cardboard box containing another plastic and foil dispenser, a not so small manual describing use, and a separate fuzzy purple plastic little booklet caring case. I felt incredibly guilty as I threw all this excess packaging "away" in the garbage right outside the store... All I wanted was healthy teeth, unchaped lips, and birth control but we can't have any of that without senseless pollution these days. We need packaging reform! (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005634.html)

Sing it, homie. We do need packaging reform, especially with health products. Go figure. Unhealthy human, unhealthy Earth.

Sustainable Life guest blogger Anne Morgan writes about her move from the U.S. to Sweden. She was pleasantly surprised by her much-less-humiliating birth control, more discreetly packaged:

The reasonably-packaged Swedish birth control came in a blister pack with an unassuming, reusable, recyclable cardboard sheath. I received four sheaths for the year’s supply. In sharp contrast, my new American birth control is dispensed via a giant blister pack with a completely superfluous pink plastic case thingie and a pink vinyl sheath. I received 12 cases and sheaths for the year’s supply because heaven forbid we reuse the outrageous over-packaging.

After I use up my prescription I’ll be switching to something with a smaller footprint that I’m less embarrassed to keep on my nightstand. And (my old pill company) will be receiving a letter from me accompanied by my year’s supply of birth control packaging. I’ll be damned if it’s going to MY landfill! (http://michellemckay.typepad.com/sustainablelife/2007/10/overpacking-bir.html)

And the rest of us women can relate.

What can we do?

We should be writing to our pill providers. Women can vow to set our cell phone alarms to remind us instead of Ortho Tri Cyclen Low’s giant pink bubble case. Men can vow to remind their female partners when it’s that hour to get the Purple Yazmin out. Or do as I have, vowing to reuse the same blue Yaz slip for all future pill packs; don’t give me another one! Women can’t responsibly stop taking the pill, but producers must responsibly stop overpackaging their birth control pills.

Plastic Packaging: Potato plastics and bioplastic validity

2009-07-06T08:31:00.000-07:00

I’m addressing a shortly discussed matter of interest in this post

Upon traveling through the Ring of Kerry in Southern Ireland a few weekends ago, I chatted with our tour guide from Galway. We passed a couple fields of windmills that generate energy for the towns, but she explained to me that most Irish people find these to be eyesores and not worth the small amount of energy they generate, in comparison to the energy Ireland needs and is trying to conserve.

I brought up how green and energy efficient Ireland seems to be, with its buildings only using heat/air at certain hours, many businesses keeping their indoor lights shut off, and stores charging people to use plastic bags. She explained to me a new solution in Ireland, potato plastic, that has been gaining interest for its green technology. Though green, this plastic is not at all energy efficient. Read on, homies.

Potato Plastic: Green, but not energy-efficient

Example of "spudware":

A new line of plastic eating utensils from the Dutch firm De Ster uses potato starch as the basic polymer. This application of potato starch to replace plastic is the result of a collaboration between the German firm BIOTEC (for raw materials) and Dutch manufacturer of disposables plastic worldwide, De Ster.

This is the first time potato plastic has been used in a product which replaces conventional plastic. De Ster has replaced standard plastic ware with an ergonomical, high-tech, high-design product.

This product was that made in reaction to demands for more recyclable materials rather than disposable. And hey, potatoes are easy to farm and produce: the plan would initially seem to be brilliant.

Potato starch is a biopolymer with the same properties as conventional plastics. In the manufacturing process the material can be treated like plastics, for instance subjected to normal injection moulding techniques. With these disposables a biodegradable product made from an agricultural raw material is completely reusable as compost. A new generation of biopolymers which can be recycled into cattle-fodder is currently being developed.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/810/

Support for bioplastics also takes into account the natural resources we use to produce plastics:

These new bioplastics are thus, made from plant starch and not crude oil and petroleum products. These bioplastics in turn, can be used to produce carpeting, upholstery fabric and recyclable plastic bottles, according to a report by the University of Maine’s Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center.

The United Kingdom and Japan have already turned to potato-based plastics technology to manufacture items like ’spudware’ or plastic silverware from potatoes.

So if they don’t use up energy more energy, products are considered green.

http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/making-bio-plastics-from-potatoes/

A radically right-wing comment from Smithsonian.com on the bioplastics. Unfortunately, this dude has a point:

Corn Plastic [or potato plastic] is a neat experiment, but definitely not a good idea in tough times. The reality of world wide food shortages should make us all realize this is not the time to take farm land out of production to make energy inefficient substrates at the expense of feeding people.

Also, look at the commentary on the fact it actually takes more energy to produce. By the time the land is farmed, the raw materials transported, and processed, we are now being told that nothing has been gained energy wise.

In fact, we’re spending more money on energy to do so.

The man then goes on to say that PVC (plastics) when measured against bioplastics are not only more energy efficient, but also more socially responsible, cleaner, safer, and greener. The man seems to degenerate his validity with this, but at least he has the topic in his head. He brings up the arguments I’ve commonly heard.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/plastic.html

Final comment

Bioplastics entail the same issues as biofuel: they're not cost-effective or energy-efficient. It's a cool industry to learn about, but we're not green by turning to bioplastics to solve environmental issues. Negative 4 points for potato plastics.

Problems with generic water bottle products, problems with Nalgene

2009-06-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

The Barcelona Debacle

After spending weeks chatting with my fellow intern Hannah about my plastic bottle toxin research, and after she promised to buy a safe bottle upon returning to the United States, she did me wrong this weekend.

She went to Barcelona and bought a generic aluminum bottle as a souvenir.

I was instantly appalled and spent the entire afternoon discussing her experiences with this bottle. We looked up the Spanish manufacturer of the bottle and we did taste test comparisons with my Sigg. Here is the discussion.

The water bottle industry does not usually concern itself with water safety

Unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry is not required to disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.

Americans drink twice as much bottled water today as they did ten years ago, for an annual total of over nine billion gallons with producer revenues nearing twelve billions. Purity should be included in a price that, at a typical cost of $3.79 per gallon, is 1,900 times the cost of public tap water. But EWG’s tests indicate that in some cases the industry may be delivering a beverage little cleaner than tap water, sold at a premium price. The health consequences of exposures to these complex mixtures of contaminants like those found in bottled water have never been studied.

Unlike public water utilities, bottled water companies are not required to notify their customers of the occurrence of contaminants in the water, or, in most states, to tell their customers where the water comes from, how and if it is purified, and if it is merely bottled tap water.

http://www. org/reports/bottledwater ewg.

We have heard reports in the popular media that the actual water in these bottled water products is not pure. This is not only due to the water source, but also the manufacturer and packaging. Large quantities of this water is never tested before packaging, but exponentially less so post-packaging stage.

That said, outdoors consumers should demand more testing by bottle manufacturers and a thorough explanation of any potential risks.

It should be made compulsory for bottle manufacturers to disclose to consumers the materials used and/or found in their products. We’re now more often informed about the BPA quantities in these products, but this isn’t the only harmful toxin in these products, after all.

(As Hannah agreed that she could sense a metallic taste in her mouth after she swigged from her Barcelona bottle, I let her know that she had probably just ingested a mouthful of aluminum.)

I use a Sigg aluminum bottle because its inside liner keeps it from leaching toxins including the aluminum itself into my water. The source below identifies this liner to be “made from a water-based resin that is baked into the bottles, according to a (Sigg) company representative who just emailed me.”

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/03/17/choosing-a-safe-reusable-water-bottle/

I trust this Sigg liner, despite its “secret formula” I’ve before discussed. I can deal with a water-based resin protecting me from aluminum eroding into my water and polluting my system. Aluminum, of course, is highly dangerous to ingest.

Aluminum can inhibit the body's ability to digest and make use of calcium, magnesium, iron, phosphorus and fluoride. This can cause anemia, prevent bone growth, and reduce bone density. Aluminum can also cause conditions which actually force calcium out of the bones. Either of these situations can bring on weakness and deformation in the bone structure with crippling effects. Toxicity can also result in aching muscles, speech problems, digestive problems, lowered liver function, colic, and impaired kidney function.

http://www.scrink.com/blog/wellness/2009/01/cut-aluminium-out-of-your-routine.html

Do all metal bottles have a liner?

Some stainless steel bottles do not require a liner. In the past, there had been some low-priced, low-quality aluminum bottles manufactured in Asia and distributed in Europe and parts of the USA which did not use a quality liner.

To me, this seems to suggest that most manufacturers now of any decent (even Barcelona) quality would use a liner of some sort. Your inference?

http://www.mysigg.com/index.asp?ID=5&PageAction=Custom#Do%20all%20metal%20water%20bottles%20use%20a%20liner?

I’ve also looked at Sigg’s top competing bottles to find if they require linings:

Enviro New Wave SS, an aluminum bottle, has a lining that is 100% leach-free, according to its manufacturer.
Klean Kanteen, a stainless steele product, will not leach metal into your water and has no liner.

http://green.thefind.com/pets/detail-new-wave-enviro-1-liter-stainless-steel-water-bottle-ss-loop-cap

And remember,

Like any material, plastic does degrade over time; you can see this in polycarbonate bottles when they become cloudy or faded in appearance. If you notice any change to the material, or if a bottle gives off a distinct plastic taste, it should no longer be used.

http://www.seattlepi.com/getaways/222673_gearjunkie05.html

This would be an example of a plastic bottle degrading toxins even other than BPA into your water.

(Here’s an interest report proving that Sigg is the best for not leaching materials. Take this with a grain of salt, but do use this if you’re pushing others to buy Sigg bottles.) http://www.mysiggg.com/LeachingMetals.pdf

BPA-free Nalgene vs. Sigg

Why should I spend $15-$20 on a SIGG when I could buy a $10 Lexan plastic bottle?, asks the SIGG FAQ page. Obviously, it's your call. Many people are satisfied with a Lexan plastic bottle (like a Nalgene). We feel there are some distinct advantages to a SIGG, both in function and in fashion:

Weight – typically, SIGG bottles are 10-20% lighter-weight than Lexan, allowing you to lighten that load a bit in your backpack.

Great Taste – SIGGs are truly taste neutral. Lexan brands may claim this but go ahead and put them to the test. Leave your filled plastic bottle out in the sun for a couple hours and see how your water tastes the next day – a bit like plastic we've been told.

Durability – Check out Backpacker magazine's June 2006 issue where SIGG was put to the test against all the leading water bottle brands. When the smoke from the 100 pound cannon cleared, Backpacker declared SIGG "The World's Toughest Water Bottle"

Style – SIGG's have been described as "works of art". For the extra few dollars, why not express yourself?

Sigg website at http://www.mysigg.com/index.asp?ID=5&PageAction=Custom

Other Aluminum materials vs. Sigg

I still trust the liner of a Sigg aluminum bottle over the obviously dangerous lack of liners on some and perhaps still inadequate liners on other aluminum bottles. Such as in the example of Hannah’s off-brand aluminum container from Barcelona, the company provided no information about its bottles’ liner material. Though a liner could have existed in this bottle (as the SIGG excerpt above seemed to imply that generic-brand manufacturers usually will make liners these days) these plastic liners may contain BPA or be simply inadequate at keeping aluminum out of the water; Hannah could still taste it, after all. I vote for the liner that leaves no aftertaste of metal in my water.

And hey, I'm biased against Nalgene. Don't support a company that still makes products containing BPA despite knowing the health risks they cause. Sure Nalgene now makes BPA-free products to sell... at a higher cost to those consumers making the educated choice to spend it. Damn the company's unethical capitalism and support companies that only promote their safe products. When we're talking about health issues, there isn't room for simply hoping people will educate themselves about safe products. We need to only support companies that only sell safe products.

Recycling: Make wastes and plastics biodegradable!

2009-06-16T16:47:00.000-07:00

As I’ve been living in Dublin, Ireland this summer and ignoring my duties to blog, I’d like to still report how many Sigg (aluminum) bottles I’ve spotted across Europe. Downtown Dublin’s hip scene rocks the bottles, the tourists rock the bottles. I see a trend of universal environmentalism and health consciousness here; or of just saving money.

The process of biodegradation

However. I’ve been working at University College Dublin, where Dr. Kevin O’Connor is leading a microbiology group’s study about bugs that can actually change toxic materials into biodegradable waste. The article, posted on the UCD website and lined with pictures of plastic water bottles, was too good for me to pass up. Here are some bits from the article:(http://www.ucd.ie/expertiseatucd/researchshowcase/2009/05MAY/plastic/index.html)

Dr O’Connor from the UCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, and the Centre for Synthesis and Chemical Biology, first studied biodegradation, or the use of micro-organisms to degrade toxic compounds for his doctorate. He then undertook postdoctoral research in the Netherlands and Switzerland where he worked on using micro-organisms to make valuable compounds, in a process known as biocatalysis.

His current research in the field of biocatalysis has received a lot of attention recently but he’s been working on it since 2000. Making biodegradable plastic using different organisms was already a well-known procedure, one that the microbiologist and his team planned to expand on.

“What we were trying to do was come up with a different approach. We were asking if pollutants could be converted into valuable products like biodegradable plastic?”

Imagine if biodegradation caught on with water beverage companies. Imagine if all plastics could be biodegradable, clearing us of our landfill issues in the United States.

The original compound that Dr O’Connor used in the process was styrene, the main ingredient of polystyrene. But the team realised that the conversion of polystyrene itself to biodegradable plastics would be of greater value.

However, their particular bacterium didn’t grow on polystyrene. So he contacted Professor Walter Kaminsky in the University of Hamburg, an expert in pyrolysis – a special technique that uses temperatures of up to 520 degrees to heat the plastic in a vacuum, producing a liquid form of the styrene.

This process, I’m sure, cannot be cheap.

Dr O’Connor had a fair idea that their bug would grow when fed this styrene oil, and indeed it did, producing the biodegradable plastic PHA (polyhydroxalkanoate).

Extracting this plastic from the bacteria is a very simple procedure that involves soaking the bugs in a mild detergent. “Basically the detergent rips the bugs open in order to extract the small granules of plastic from each cell,” explains Dr O’Connor. The plastic is cleaned and it is then ready to be used.

This extraction process might be simple to carry out, but imagine the cost of the equipment needed to soak grand colonies of these bugs in detergent. I’m skeptical about whether a large-scale version of this process would be financially, or even technologically, feasible.

At the industrial level, the two-step process is carried out on a large scale, producing up to 1,000 litres of plastic – that’s a lot of bugs. Dr O’Connor is now working on improving the efficiency of the technique, using a combination of feeding and molecular strategies. At present some 30-35% of each bacterium is plastic; his team are looking to increase this yield to as much as 80%.

One one hand, this 80% may seem incredible, but the ranges of goods that could be made from this form of plastic may not span everything we imagine. Polystyrene water bottles and tupperware might be feasible for the largest companies to make, but probably not for all other products. Maybe we shouldn’t suddenly get excited that we could recycle anything plastic.

Keep in mind, we haven't really been recycling:

On the other hand, remember that the Sierra Club has reported that Americans discard over 30 million plastic bottles every day. Over 40% of the beverages purchased each day are plastic water bottles. Switching these plastics over to be more recyclable materials would significantly decrease our waste that won’t be broken down efficiently.

And think: no, people are not recycling enough at all, and materials aren’t really recyclable. In 2005 the EPA reported that only 5.8% of the then-26 million tons of plastics manufactured in the U.S. are recycled. We need biodegradable plastics if we will continue to use plastic products.

“Polystyrene is a very recyclable plastic,” stresses Dr O’Connor. The problem is, once it’s recycled, people aren’t quite sure what to do with it. Recycled polystyrene produces a plastic of a lower grade and so it cannot be used in the food industry. It can be made into ‘timber look’ plastic for making picnic tables and chairs, for example, but O’Connor says the market for this is limited.

Create a market through rattling the media. Imagine that by creating a greater hype in the public about the multiple environmental and health dangers of plastic material use, there will be a company incentive in the market to please customers and create polystyrene products. Call your local newspapers. Write a blog post. Po-ly-sty-rene.

Currently, polystyrene for recycling is exported to China. But Dr O’Connor believes this is an inefficient practice, and proposes instead a municipal recycling scheme, where people deposit their waste plastic.

I think I’ll be emailing Dr. O’Connor about the United States’ Bottle Bills, being passed and amended rapidly throughout the United States. Under these state systems, you pay an extra couple cents when you purchase a plastic product. You get the return when you collect your bottles and deposit them. Get your money back. To reciprocate, the U.S. can take Ireland’s example of its grocery stores charging customers for plastic bags. I’ve been stuffing loaves of bread and hummus in my purse after my evening EuroSpar trips.

And this revolutionary method of recycling is not limited to polystyrene, or Dr O’Connor’s particular bug, for that matter. “We have used our technology for polystyrene but you can apply the same strategy to recycling any plastic. Also there are hundreds of different bacteria that will make different types of plastic so opportunities are huge,” he says.

Market for competition and innovation! Bank on this, struggling scientists of America and Ireland! Grab a science lab and go.

But what does it really mean to be a biodegradable plastic?

This means the plastic can break down chemically without any catalyst or outside chemical. A biodegradable plastic bag would decompose on the side of the road instead of tangling up small birds and crowding our landscapes (this was the case in Ireland before the switch to no-bag stores). Biodegragation uses microorganisms, or “bugs,” to break down these films on the plastics. The materials are enlarged in structure and “metabolized until remaining materials” are no longer harmful to the environment. Easy.

Yet a downside to this process is that the carbon inside biodegradable plastics will be released upon this metabolism process, producing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air, potentially in high amounts. If made from other materials, like animal products, methane could be released instead. Methane is, of course, another great greenhouse gas. (http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6400.htm).

Yet we could still weigh this: would we rather have greater greenhouse gas emissions or greater landfill buildup? Unfortunately, plastics producers are making this critical choice. We as consumers need to instead decide upon this and be lobbying for legislation or pressuring companies. Write to Glad. Write to Aquafina.

What is recyclable for now? Not everything:

I’ve gotten many inquiries about which plastic materials are actually recyclable, so I’ll post a convenient guide I found online about what those little numbers on your plastic bottles mean. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2282329_determine-what-plastics-recyclable.html).

Just because a product has a recycle symbol on it does not mean that it is recyclable. The following steps will help you determine which of your plastics are recyclable.

1) Look for the recycle symbol with letters and numbers on the bottom of the plastic item. Plastic numbers 1 through 7 are generally recyclable.The list in step 2 can help you determine which plastics to recycle.

2) No. 1 PET: Polyethylene terephthalate--Fizzy drink bottles and oven-ready meal trays.No. 2 HDPE: High-density polyethylene--Bottles for milk and washing-up liquids.No. 3 PVC: Polyvinyl chloride--Food trays, cling film, bottles for squash, mineral water and shampoo.No. 4 LDPE: Low density polyethylene--Carrier bags and bin liners.No. 5 PP: Polypropylene--Margarine tubs, microwaveable meal trays.No. 6 PS: Polystyrene--Yogurt pots, foam meat or fish trays, hamburger boxes and egg cartons, vending cups, plastic cutlery, protective packaging for electronic goods and toys.No. 7 Other: Any other plastics that do not fall into any of the above categories. An example is melamine, which is often used in plastic plates and cups.

3) Take your plastics numbers 1 through 7 to your local recycling center.

Remember, though, that I rarely rarely rarely advocate buying plastic bottle products, even if recyclable (and even if BPA-free, though BPA hasn’t been included in this discussion tonight). Remember that you’re an educated consumer and/or recycler, but those around you are not. When they see you buy a bottle you’ll recycle, they’ll follow your trend to buy, but not to recycle. When they see you buy a Nalgene bottle that is (only now, new and improved) BPA-free, they’ll follow your trend to buy a knockoff plastic container, but not to be sure it’s BPA-free. Think about your fellow citizens who aren’t informed. If you’re going to lead them, lead them to products that are always safe: buy an aluminum or stainless steel water bottle.

Special report about the swine flu

2009-04-30T15:56:00.000-07:00

Taking lead from John McCain

I am suspending the topic of my blog this week to address the swine flu.

("While having no impact whatsoever, that's a real McCain," one of you has already told me. Well, maybe I'm not taking the senator's complete lead. There are precautions we need to be discussing here that can help us.)

Vice President Joe Biden commented this week that he's advising his family not to use airplanes or subways, as these confined spaces allow statistically higher chances to transfer bacteria and viruses, such as the swine flu. The airline industry is furious by yet another one of Biden's slip-up comments, however I think the V.P. is on to something. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1).

How it spreads

The swine flu, or the influenza A virus subtype H1N1. It's a virus transferrable through person-to-person contact and began spreading out of Mexico this spring. Since then, it has reached 11 states in the United States and 12 countries, as of today. Those who had travelled to and from Mexico contracted it and brought it home, then infecting those around them. Thanks alot, honeymooners.

We're all familiar with how a flu virus passes on- we get it, have symptoms with fever for about a week, and we're pretty contagious. We avoid the flu by taking a flu vaccine, probably once a year, as new strains appear often and mutate into different strains we're not vaccinated for. So the FDA tests the vaccines and we get them, hoping we won't get in contact with the flu. Even if we don't have the flu vaccine, we're safe from the flu if a certain percentage of those around us are vaccinated. This theory works similarly with any vaccination, but the necessary percentages of those vaccinated around you differ sometimes. So we're safe if some majority of us is vaccinated. A portion of NPR's This American Life episode "Ruining It for the Rest of Us" explains it beautifully. Listen for free (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1275).

None of us can currently be vaccinated for this flu, however. A vaccination for this probably will not be properly tested and approved for years, as agencies like the FDA did not look out for this. Yet I've already seen antidote-like swine flu vaccine pills online (www.swine-flu-vaccine.org) . What a scam. This type of protection is absolutely not available at this time.

According to the Bloomberg Press:

Flu vaccines generally contain a dead or weakened form of a circulating virus. The vaccine prepares the body’s immune system to fend off a true infection. For the vaccine to work, it must match the circulating, “wild-type” virus relatively closely. There is no vaccine currently that exactly matches the swine flu. The seasonal flu vaccine isn’t effective against swine flu, says Besser, the acting head of the [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.]

Vaccine makers have contacted the World Health Organization about obtaining samples of the virus needed to make a vaccine. Making flu vaccine can take three to six months. No decision has been made to order a vaccine against swine flu, Besser said. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLdy2aZer5fM&refer=hom e).

Why it's scary

Sure, the only swine flu-related deaths we've seen so far have been those in Mexico who were already weak, old, or sick. Those people are expected to not handle any flu so well. And the first swine flu death of the United States was a 23 month old baby in Texas that had just travelled from Mexico to the U.S. Sure, a baby could die of the flu. Thousands of people die with the flu every year (See graphs at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/) (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11544526.asp?scr=1).

Yet the swine flu's ancestor is the great influenza of 1918: the Spanish flu. Wiki this- it was the last pandemic that spread to all parts of the world, which did not have adequate medicines for. It spread across as simple flu-like symptoms, but then mutated into a more deadly strain. When not contained, the swine flu can also easily mutate and become a strain more dangerous to the global population.

PBS reports that the Spanish flu affected over 50% of the world's population at the time, and was most rapidly spread and fatal at a time of war. It also reports:

The influenza commonly called "Spanish flu" killed more people than the guns of World War I. Estimates put the worldwide death toll at 21,642,274. Some one billion people were affected by the disease -- half of the total human population. It came at a time when 19 nations were at war and the disruption, stress, and privation of war certainly aided the flu's transmission. It killed people on every continent except Antarctica, with the most lives lost in Asia and the highest percentage of population killed in India. About 57,000 American soldiers died from influenza while the U.S. was at war; about 53,500 died in battle.

After months of terrorizing people around the world, the "Spanish lady" (called "The Naples Soldier" in Spain, and a variety of other names around the world) seemed to withdraw. It had been the most dire epidemic since the Middle Ages, the third worst in recorded history...And still little is known about the origin or nature of the killer virus. Many believe the modern "swine flu" virus is a descendant of the deadly 1918 flu. Some theorize that its stronger ancestor ganged up with a bacteria to wreak havoc on the human population. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm18fl.html).

A couple years ago I read The Great Influenza by John M. Barry about the Spanish flu. The book is about 1,000 pages and packed with information about World War I and how a virus like this spreads. Read it and fear it. Buy it below.

(http://www.amazon.com/Great-Influenza-Deadliest-Plague-History/dp/0670894737).

What we've been advised

President Obama, in his press conference yesterday, advised the public to be concerned, but not to panic. Wash your hands and cover your mouth, he advised in his most dignified motherly tone.Yet the World Health Organization has raised our alert level to 5, just one below pandemic level. At this alert level, all countries will prepare and mobilize to aid citizens contracting this virus, as well as increase efforts to create a vaccine.

And it's crossing continents. Hurriyet Daily News says:

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy met with Cabinet ministers to discuss swine flu and Minister of Health Roselyne Bachelot said France will ask the European Union to suspend flights to Mexico. She said flights from Mexico could continue.

President Obama similarly supported the decision not to block travelling between the United States and Mexico, using a metaphor that points out that we can't contain the virus anymore- it's out and about, and there's not much we can do to stop it from spreading across the nation.

However, travelling isn't really encouraged after all

The U.S., the EU, and other countries discouraged nonessential travel to Mexico, Cuba has banned flights to and from Mexico and Argentina has suspended flights arriving from Mexico. Egypt began slaughtering the roughly 300,000 pigs in the country as a precautionary measure against the spread of flu even though no cases have been reported here yet.

(http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11544526.asp?scr=1)

What's going on

Hey, people are already being quarantined, especially students in Texas. For weeks at a time. Just imagine, you could be quarantined if there's an outbreak near you. From work, school, even from leaving your driveway. Again, listen to the This American Life podcast I posted above for the story of an unfortunate New Jersey quarantine.

The Dallas Morning News reports:

130,000 Texas students missing class because of swine flu; UIL suspends events

The Fort Worth school district, one of the largest in the state, announced Wednesday that it is closing all schools to prevent a possible spread of the swine flu. Nearly 80,000 students will be out of school through at least May 8, Fort Worth ISD spokesman Clint Bond said. The closures came at the recommendation of the Tarrant County Health Department, he said.

And schools across areas like Brooklyn and Queens are closing schools left and right, as well- this is not just an issue in Mexico's bordering area. Packed-in spaces are indeed festering the virus, too similar to 1918 wartime's condensed communities festering the virus.

Who to look to

With biases everywhere telling us not to panic here and to fear for human extinction there, it's hard to tell who we should look to for guidance about this issue. My advice: follow the WHO, or the World Health Organization, for reports on what's going on. Of course it will tell us not to panic... NO INSTITUTION like this is actually going to tell us to panic (imagine the Obama administration writing from the White House: "Dear America: ready, set, freak out!") However the WHO will give us accurate accounts of the research and actions taken to prevent the illness from affecting you. Do what the WHO tells you would be the best action to keep from catching the swine flu.

The WHO says:

Asked for advice for ordinary citizens, General Margaret Chan, the WHO chief, said: "Continue with your business but try to pay special attention to personal hygiene."

Dr. Keiji Fukuda, WHO's top flu expert, said vigilance was all important because it was not known how severe the outbreaks would become.

"It really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic," said WHO Director General Margaret Chan. "We do not have all the answers right now but we will get them." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/med_swine_flu).

I say

I'm alarmed. The WHO recognizes that this swine flu is going to spread exponentially faster as time goes on. As the virus is caught by more individuals across the globe, the strain will mutate, eventually becoming more harmful to those in contact with it. So though people with the flu now are just dealing with flu-like symptoms, in a short while people who catch this virus will have much worse conditions. And in this short amount of time, we will probably not have the proper vaccinations or medicines to prevent or treat these conditions.

Wash your hands and cover your mouth so you don't get the virus or spread it unknowingly to others. By doing this, you can prevent global chaos.

And for a quick final comment

Hurriyet Daily News also reports:

"We will use the term Mexican flu in order not to have to pronounce the word swine," Deputy Health Minister in Israel said on Monday.

"European Union Commission is calling it ’novel flu virus’ just to avoid the misunderstandings with the animal diseases because it costs a lot to the industry," said spokeswoman Nina Papadoulaki.

What.the.heck. It's the swine flu. Bacon and pork sales will be down for a long, long time no matter what you name this virus. (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11544526.asp?scr=1).

The information about BPA you really should know

2009-04-21T13:56:00.000-07:00

Today I found a great great article on Enviroblog, posted on February 13. Here are some facts about Bisphenol A, or BPA that we should get under our belts, whether we knew them before or not:
(http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/02/bpa-exposure-sources.html)

BPA, a commonly used plastics chemical, leaches into food and beverage from polycarbonate plastic containers, epoxy can linings, and baby bottles.
Okay, we knew this before. After mothers in the 1980's and 1990's were advised to switch over to plastic baby bottles from glass, they switched to use plastic materials full of BPA. This goes for other kid toys and products, as well. Really not good for the kids.

A year ago, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and discovered that BPA contaminates the bodies of 93% of Americans tested;
We shouldn't be shocked about this, either. Nearly 40% of beverages consumed by thAmerican public are plastic water bottles. We use tons of plastic products all the time, and have exposure to small amounts of BPA all the time.

Women had higher BPA levels than men, and children and adolescents carried more BPA in their bodies compared to adults.

This is where it starts getting scary. BPA alters hormone growth and production, and if children have more BPA in their systems, their bodily development can be incredibly hampered. We see increases in parents putting their pubescent children on anti-depressants, adderall, or ritalin, whatever. Why don't we consider all the unnatural chemicals these kids have injested since they started using a bottle?

Also, females' having greater amounts surprises and alarms me, especially when BPA can be linked to ovarian cancer.

The chemical industry and FDA have based their claims for BPA's safety to children on the assumption that this chemical has a short half-life in the body and is eliminated within 24 hours. However, when Rochester team re-analyzed the NHANES data in greater depth, they detected a new, startling finding that was previously missed: when a person abstains from food for 8-24 hours and thus avoids any food-based BPA exposure, BPA levels in their body drop off but never disappear.

So the short half-life of BPA doesn't clear it from your system, at all. Don't let statistics fool you.

This persistence of BPA in the body may drive a lot of health risks, including breast cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
Heart disease is a new effect of BPA I hadn't heard of before.

In 2008, Canada banned BPA use in baby bottles and took steps to minimize contamination of baby formula. Many states in the U.S. have been moving along the same path.

Though a federal or state ban of this sort could never be politically feasible, come on.

Aggravated by the FDA's inaction, consumers have taken matters into their own hands, seeking out BPA-free products. Many manufacturers eagerly responded to the consumer demand and started offering BPA-free options.
Washington's legislators need to be pushing the FDA to further fund research on BPA and pressure the agency not to side with the chemical industry.

As reported by the Journal Sentinel, "The research indicates for the first time that people are either constantly being bombarded with bisphenol A from non-food sources, such as receipts and plastic water piping, or they are storing the chemical in fat cells, unable to get rid of it as quickly as scientists have believed."
Well, I didn't expect BPA to be water-soluble.
The reference to receipts is fascinating - it is a little known fact that ordinary shopping receipts contain high levels of BPA, which smears on fingers and may end up being ingested or transferred into the body through the skin.

BPA can be transferred through our skin?? This requires further research***.

An estimated 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced globally annually, generating

about $6 billion in sales. In addition to food containers, BPA is an additive in many other consumer products, some like plastic water pipes and municipal water storage tanks may also leach BPA directly into the drinking water.
Really, it's everywhere.

BPA accumulates in the freshwater and marine environment, where it could damage wildlife reproduction. In 2007, an interdisciplinary team of scientists from seven different research institutions, found aquatic animals and aquatic ecosystems to be at great risk for BPA-caused endocrine disruption.
Remember that all BPA effect studies have been performed on animals due to humans' already-high amounts of injested BPA. We absolutely do need to worry about how this synthetic material can harm other plants and animals.

Tucked away among long data tables of a recent U.S. Geological Survey report a startling observation that BPA is 1 of the 5 most frequently detected chemical contaminants in groundwater sites analyzed by USGS. 30% of the samples tested by USGS scientists contained BPA. In many communities nationwide, groundwater is the main source of drinking water, and people in some communities might be continuously exposed to BPA simply from the water they drink.
This has convinced me to replace my broken Brita filter. Even if we're filling our metal bottles with tap water, we could be injesting BPA if we don't filter.

Water utilities have not been testing tap water for potential BPA contamination so we don't know how many people may be ingesting BPA with tap water. But with 6 billion pounds of BPA produced every year, the purity of our water supplies may very well be at risk.
Buy a water filter. H2Ox2.com.

So what...
We need to be amending policy here to keep materials from containing toxins like BPA. Whether acted upon by the FDA or EPA, this issue needs legislators' action as soon as possible. Which means we need to be opening discussions with our congressmen about this as soon as possible. Call your U.S. Rep! It's your civic duty!

***To address this comment about BPA remnants on shopping reciepts:
The Chicago Tribune reports the "Top 10 hidden sources of BPA."
(http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/09/hidden-sources.html)

Pizza boxes made of recycled cardboard

Recycled paper (toilet paper included)

Credit card receipts at the gas station and your local restaurant

Wine (fermented in BPA-resin lined vats)

Beer

Rubbermaid polycarbonate-lined baking tins used by Subway

Pop cans

Organic canned tomatoes

Common plastic cups used in college cafeterias

Blue-tinted hard plastic 5-gallon drinking water bottles. (Some water filters that store filtered water in polycarbonate containers.)

The article also reports that BPA can be detected in human blood and breast milk, not just in human waste. Urine is most commonly tested for traces of BPA.

THANKS! To Brittany and Chris for taking pictures of their BPA-free plastic water containers. Brittany uses a Thermos Intak plastic bottle and Chris models the Nalgene sold at the Boston University Barnes and Noble. I prefer metal containers, but these bottles are examples of newer, BPA-free plastic materials that boast safety.

What about the waste already polluting areas?

2009-04-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

I’ve mentioned how terrible landfills and air toxin emissions can be, but these have been too vague of references. I want to learn about how waste sites are managed, especially the extreme cases (probably not caused exclusively by disposed plastic bottles.) I’ve researched what’s done with waste sites, by whom, and if this process is effective. The EPA website is most helpful.
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm)

Keyword today: SUPERFUND

From EPA: “Superfund is the federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. We're committed to ensuring that remaining National Priorities List hazardous waste sites are cleaned up to protect the environment and the health of all Americans.”

From BU Professor Rossell:

In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also dubbed the “hazardous waste superfund,” was created to provide the EPA with the authority and funds to regulate emissions.
In 29 years, this superfund has collected over $1.6 billion to clean up waste sites.

From EPA: “This law was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Times Beach in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.”

From me:

Thumbs up:

This sounds like a great system. The EPA assesses sites, then places them on a “National Priorities List.” Working down this list, the EPA implements cleanup initiatives, worked by federal, state, tribal, and local staff the EPA has trained.
This project removes wastes, enforces against those parties who were “potentially responsible***” works to involve local communities and states, and ensures long-term environmental care.

Thumbs down:

I can see how conservatives would not like this Act. It allows the EPA to target locations that need to be cleaned up, by the EPA’s standards, not the area’s standards. The EPA then charges the area’s entities to clean it up. For communities content with waste and low on funding, the EPA could be a misfortune. For example, I could see this dismaying factory managers:

*** From EPA: “The Superfund Enforcement program gets Superfund sites cleaned up by finding the companies or people responsible for contamination at a site, and negotiating with them to do the clean up themselves, or to pay for the clean up done by another party (i.e., EPA, state, or other responsible parties).”

Yet all in all, if the EPA didn’t step into these areas… most of them probably wouldn’t be cleaned up, and the EPA, a necessary agency in the United States, wouldn’t be funded as well. This Act establishes local community awareness for environmentalism too, something we need to see much more in the U.S. Businesses, which this program would hold responsible for pollution, now have the incentive to cut down on emissions before pollution gets bad – pollution prevention is much more cost effective than pollution cleanup.

So if you don’t want to pay for the EPA to come clean up your area, do it yourself. Stop polluting. 5 points for the Superfund.

Bacteria build up in metal, plastic bottles

2009-04-01T10:03:00.000-07:00

Inquiry from my roommates: Don’t reusable metal bottles accumulate huge amounts of bacteria? Do they build up more germs than plastic bottles? Sure we clean our Siggs with soap and water every now and then, but bacteria probably builds up in the lids and mouth pieces.

Good call, homies. Here’s the research.

Metals over Plastics
An Oregon laboratory recently tested used plastic water bottles for bacteria colony counts and discovered “alarming rates” of bacteria, even in the bottles that were recently washed. “A bottle washed the day before the test contained 2,400 colonies. But it was Amy Blue’s bottle that topped the list. While she washed it a few days before the test, the bottle contained 4,100 bacteria colonies.”

According to the Sierra Blogging Post, the best solution would be to cease any use of plastic water bottles.

“Use stainless steel water bottles instead — stainless steel is a healthy alternative to plastic and is naturally bacteria resistant. With all we know about plastic - it leaches chemicals, doesn’t break down, and harbors bacteria - why continue using it?”
(http://blog.sierratradingpost.com/in-outdoors-camping-gear-forest-trails/reused-plastic-water-bottles-loaded-with-bacteria/)

What Producers Say
Sigg has long boasted that its aluminum water bottles have special linings that decrease bacterial build up.
“Due to the finish of the liner, there is much less chance for bacteria build-up with a SIGG as opposed to plastic containers.”
(http://www.shopwiki.com/search/Sigg+8031.90+(803190)+Swiss+Quality+0.6+Liter+Aluminum+Bottle)

Manufacturers of Santa Fe Aluminum Bottles and Epromo Bottles are now also bragging that aluminum and steel products resist bacteria build up. I think it’s a great point for pushing the product. You got me.
(http://www.empirepromos.com/items/SantaFeAluminumBottle19098.php)

Nalgene containers, though finally BPA-free and still competitive with metal containers, do not feature bacteria-resistant linings. Nalgene's supplementary products include treatments to kill bacteria in your bottle and an "anti-microbial Aquaguard" to help prevent growth in your bottle. Plastic surfaces just don't resist bacteria like metal surfaces do.
(http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/store/detail.aspx?ID=1217)

Why to Care
Some might think that the intake of some bacteria is safe, but more studies are linking stomach ulcers, dysentery, cholera, typhoid, etc. to unsafe drinking water. Keeping water in an environment that hampers bacteria, strains like E. coli will occur more. (http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/tbl_cont.html)

Plus, I sometimes let my friends drink from my bottle, which is an easy transfer of bacteria and viruses. I hear bronchitis is going around.

My answer: You’re exposed to exponentially more bacteria when you reuse plastic bottles, BPA-free or not. Use metal bottles, which have surfaces that accumulate less bacteria and are more easily cleaned with soap and water.

My own unanswered inquiry: What is this secret formula that Sigg uses to make its linings? The company won’t release this information, so I suspect it’s a plastic (it’s elastic and can safely contain acidic drinks). Disclosing the plastic liner material would be a marketing nightmare for Sigg, but it’s a compromise for the suspicions Sigg is causing its customers.

“SIGG has perfected the formula of its proprietary inner liner over decades of scientific research and Swiss engineering. The ingredients (like the formula for Coca-Cola) remain secret and unavailable to 3rd parties so as to ensure SIGG retains its competitive advantage. The key of course is that the SIGG liner is FDA approved and independently tested to be taste and scent inert – and resistant to any leaching (0.0%) so 100% safe.”
(http://www.mysigg.com/index.asp?ID=5&PageAction=Custom#What%20exactly%20is%20the%20SIGG%20liner%20made%20of?)

Some costs and benefits of recycling

2009-03-25T09:53:00.000-07:00

I realize...

I've been writing about the health risks involved with toxins in water, but have neglected the environmental aspect of avoiding plastic water containers. As I build my elementary cost/benefit analysis of abandoning non-sustainable materials, I realize I've taken for granted some facts about recycling.

The question: Should we recycle?

Taken for granted as true:
-Recycling is not cost effective, but the planet's well-being is more important.
-Recycling materials, in any form, is good for the environment.

Inquiry that set off my investigation:
-I was told once that recycling plants actually cause immense air pollution. This didn't make sense to me--I thought we recycle materials so we don't have to incinerate trash.

The findings.

First, there are 3 forms of recycling materials (glass, metal, paper, plastic, biodegradable waste, electronics, and textiles).
1) Recycle the materials as a fresh supply of the original. Wiki says: think reused copy paper in the office.
2) Recycle the material to form a new material. Wiki says: think cardboard.
3) Take materials from original products to save their value. I say: think scrapping a wrecked car for its parts.

Fiscal costs/lack of costs:
Critics say it's more fiscally expensive to recycle than to just fill a landfill and create new materials. Ignore the externalities for now, since we're only talking about monetary costs.

The 2004 Danish Environmental Assessment Institute stated that incineration is the most effective method for disposing of drink containers, even aluminum ones. And in 2002, New York City Mayor Bloomberg doubted his efforts to push recycling. His pioneered recycling program was losing money, so he chose to omit glass and plastic recycling from the program. According to the mayor, the price of recycling trumped priorities -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. So he sent plastics and glass back to the dump.

Yet Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, reports that “A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
(http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm)

I leave this topic thinking:
Recycling can be more fiscally expensive, but its means can be improved to be more cost-effective, as long as these programs are still supported and revised.

Benefits of recycling (externalities):
Recycling materials, across the board, causes savings on the energy we use and the air pollution we cause.When we recycle paper, we save 73% on the air pollution that would have otherwise been caused by trash incineration. We also save about 25% on energy used--which, yes, is also a fiscal savings. Savings on energy and air pollution also span the recycling of steel/aluminum, plastics, glass, and cardboard.
(The League of Women Voters (1993). The Garbage Primer. New York: Lyons & Burford. pp. 35–72)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (thumbs up to Jackson's great job at the EPA, especially for discussing the Clean Air Act with President Obama this week) favors recycling, reporting in 2005 that recycling caused U.S. carbon emissions to drop by 49 million metric tonnes.
("The truth about recycling". The Economist. June 7, 2007.)

I leave this topic thinking:
Since we're spending money either by recycling or by chucking waste into incinerators, air pollutants, landfills, even space--we might as well realize how we want to spend our money. Some say quantity over quality: let's landfill until we suffocate in filth and blast garbage into space until a comet of trash wipes us out in 2200. Others say quality over quantity: let's spend a little more money to save the Earth some dignity.

The United States had 7,265 curbside recycling programs serving 108 million people last year. I think some people prefer quality over quantity. 4 points for recycling.

Sigg Love

2009-03-23T12:01:00.000-07:00

Today I stopped in the BU business school Starbucks for a hot tea.

I sat next to a man at the counter

And put my Sigg bottle down next to his.

Our bottles had matching dents on the side.

And at that moment,

Our silver and red Siggs knew it was meant to be.

Cleaning your bottles and filtering your water

2009-03-13T12:21:00.000-07:00

I was happy to know my family has been using the Sigg bottles I bought them for Christmas, yet they've brought up a couple criticisms:

1) Drinking hot coffee from a Sigg can be dangerous idea if you're not wearing oven mitts on your hands

2) Cleaning a Sigg isn't so easy, after all

My solutions:

1) I wouldn't drink my hot tea from a Sigg and risk burning my hands, but I would also prefer not to use disposable paper or styrofoam alternatives. I say- buy or make a holder! I linked, in an earlier post, evidence of the new trend to knit bottle holders. I also found some cool handmade bottle holders like this one on www.etsy.com :

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?ref=sr_gallery_8&listing_id=21558534&ga_search_query=water+bottle+holder&ga_search_type=tag_title&ga_page=3&min=&max=&order=

2) I fill my Sigg with soapy water, cover, shake, and leave overnight. This may be ineffective.

I would suggest to use one of these scrubby brushes, made originally for... potatoes.

H2Ox2.com also sells this $12 brush specifically for metal bottles

http://www.h2ox2.com/store/cleaning-brush-bottles-tops-p-23.html

... I would agree that scrubbing the inside of your bottle is probably pretty important.

ALSO! FOR ANYONE WHO DRINKS TAP WATER!

I found this clip on YouTube, convincing me to replace my broken Brita filter. Please watch and enjoy- it's a short clip that can be fast forwarded through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJX9rstYEw&feature=related

Concerns over aluminum leaching into your water: answered

2009-02-26T10:27:00.000-08:00

My last post's article mentioned the concern that a metal bottle could cause health problems such as Alzheimer's. The article explained that there is, however, lining inside the bottles that prevents any leaching of materials into the drink. As long as the lining is BPA-free or plastic-free, we should feel safe using a lined metal bottle.

Yet one of my blog followers has emailed me:
"How about a post describing the effect of drinking from (aluminum bottles)- it's sort of like the chewing on tinfoil feeling. What about the dangers of that?"

I have two sources to answer this question.
1) The following website compares the safety of Sigg and Klean Kanteen metal bottles to Nalgene plastic containers. The article dismisses worries that Klean Kanteens' stainless steel will leach into drinks, and praises the durability of the REI product to boot (my aluminum Sigg is dented; apparently steel Klean Kanteens just don't dent so easily). As for Sigg aluminum bottles with plastic caps, the article skeptically comments on Siggs' "unspecified (but they swear it's safe!) proprietary enamel-type coating." 2 points for Klean Kanteen, - 2 points for Sigg

http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2008/08/metal_drinking_bottles.html

(And to answer the blogger's concern, the writer adds, "I was sort of surprised by how much I felt like I was going to chip a tooth with the Klean Kanteen but not at all with the Sigg or a Nalgene"). That's the closest you'll come to feeling like you're chewing tinfoil. 2 points for Sigg

2) Julia Girdler, founder and president of H2Ox2 has emailed me, "Basically, drinking from aluminum would be a very bad thing. But I feel 100% comfortable with Sigg." Julia, meticulously researching this topic, trusts the safety and quality of the liners in Sigg containers. Julia's blog, http://www.h2ox2.com/blog/ illustrates her credibility on the subject. She also emailed me Sigg's statement on the quality of their liners- thanks Julia! another 2 points for Sigg

Using TweetDeck

2009-02-23T21:44:00.000-08:00

I've been using my Twitter account for a while, please add me! MelanieDuzyj

Yet to all Twitter people reading, I recommend using TweetDeck. I've been using this resource to track some other environmentalists. Commenting on topics like "aluminum bottles" and "water toxins," these Twitter users are so helpful for hearing blips of opinion on the topics.

Some article gems I've found today:

http://www.wikihow.com/Crochet-a-Water-Bottle-Cozy

How to Crochet a Cozy for your Sigg

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/youdocs/1409914,CST-FTR-docs03.article

Aluminum bottle use linked to Alzheimer's, perhaps?

Try out TweetDeck!

Where Else Do Polycarbonates Show Up?

2009-02-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

The article yesterday let me know that BPA is an organic compound that is used when making polycarbonate, a material used in plastics to change the plastics’ hardness. I wondered where else polycarbonates show up in our lives.

A November 2007 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program reports:

“Polycarbonate plastic, which is clear and nearly shatter-proof, is used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental composite (white) fillings and sealants, lenses, and household electronics. Polycarbonate is used in the manufacture of all CDs and DVDs.”

And also:
“… Bisphenol A is also a precursor to the flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A, and was formerly used as a fungicide… In the U.S., it is manufactured by Bayer MaterialScience, Dow Chemical Company, General Electric, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals.”

“In 2004, these companies produced just over 1 million t of bisphenol A, up from just 7,260 t in 1991. In 2003, annual U.S. consumption was 856,000 t, 72% of which was used to make polycarbonate plastic.”

I’m realizing that more and more polycarbonates (and thus BPA) are being consumed, despite its possible use in fungicides,etc. and despite more daunting reports that BPA is a “hormonally active agent,” or an “endocrine distruptor.” These agents mutate the hormones of animals; that includes both lab rats and us humans.

Here’s a quote to take home:
“There is thus concern that long term low dose exposure to bisphenol A may induce chronic toxicity in humans.”
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7713/7713.html

Note: Thanks for moving with me to my blog's new weblink!

Dave Sent Me an Article

2009-02-12T13:36:00.000-08:00

Original Post: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A friend of mine, Dave, refills his Vitamin Water bottle with tapwater every morning before class. I remind him to buy an aluminum Sigg water bottle, and he rolls his eyes at me, thinking my anti-plastic bottle mission is a bad reaction to propaganda.

However,

Dave sent me the link to this article, "What Plastics Do to Your Body." http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-plastics-do-to-your-body.html

This article discusses many of my concerns surrounding plastic water bottles. It identifies which number imprints we should be avoiding on our plastic products, and the health risks tied to BPA use. I'm concerned. If the FDA has identified BPA as a harmful toxin, as have the Canadian government and the National Health Institute (in America), why are we consumers not more conscious about the plastics we're purchasing?

Read the article. It's a good quickie.

I'm now taking note of the plastic-wrapped foods I'm buying from Shaw's (or Meijers, or Kroger... wherever you live). And styrofoam will be a no-go. I want to further investigate the toxin amounts in Nalgene bottles, and how paranoid we should be about using any plastic. I would hate to throw out all the plastic forks in my dorm room.

I'm Alarmed!

2009-02-12T13:32:00.000-08:00

Original Post: Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Beginning this blog, I want to put out there that I do already feel alarmed by the issue of toxins in plastics, particularly in water bottles. While I hope to find research proving that Nalgene or Aquafina bottles aren't so bad after all, I also expect to find great contrasts in research on this topic.

I want the Coca Cola capitalist and eco- green opinions on here to get the most well-rounded idea of what's happening. We as consumers need to be educated about harmful products, and if we need to be pulling from trends like using plastics, we should start now.

I encourage you all to be alarmed and check out this issue with me. Meanwhile, I'll be here wondering whether my aluminum water bottle was an unnecessary investment.

Melanie