Plastic Packaging: Potato plastics and bioplastic validity

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

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!

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

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=home). 

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

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?

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

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?)