Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Threat Seen From Antibacterial Soap Chemicals
Maria Cone, LA Times
The compounds end up in sewage sludge that is spread on farm fields across the country.
————-
Tons of chemicals in antibacterial soaps used in the bathrooms and kitchens of virtually every home are being released into the environment, yet no government agency is monitoring or regulating them in water supplies or food.
About 75% of a potent bacteria-killing chemical that people flush down their drains survives treatment at sewage plants, and most of that ends up in sludge spread on farm fields, according to Johns Hopkins University research. Every year, it says, an estimated 200 tons of two compounds — triclocarban and triclosan — are applied to agricultural lands nationwide.
The findings, in a study published last week in Environmental Science & Technology, add to the growing concerns of many scientists that the Environmental Protection Agency needs to address thousands of pharmaceuticals and consumer product chemicals that wind up in the environment when they are flushed into sewers.
From dishwashing soaps to cutting boards, about 1,500 new antibacterial consumer products containing the two chemicals have been introduced into the marketplace since 2000. Some experts worry that widespread use of such products may be helping turn some dangerous germs into “superbugs” resistant to antibiotics.
(10 May 2006)
NY Times defends its coverage of climate change
Laura Chang (Science Editor), NY Times
…Q. I read the both the BBC and NY Times science sections daily. To me, it appears that many stories about climate change are given much more prominence on BBC and other European news outlets than they are here in the U.S. . . . Do you feel more complete coverage is being given outside the U.S. to climate change than it is here? Do you think Americans are less interested in hearing about climate change than Europeans (i.e., that Americans are in “a state of denial”) and accordingly, give the subject less prominence in your reporting?
— Frank McAdam
A. It may seem paradoxical, but a story that unfolds over so many years and has such enormous implications as climate change soon begins to seem routine if a paper keeps playing it on page one under screaming headlines. The fact is, The Times has frequently placed climate news on the front page: shifting fortunes of the Kyoto Protocol, assessments of climate data by an international commission of scientists, measurements of rapid thawing of the polar ice cap.
We also go beyond the news. “The Big Melt,” an original three-part series published last year, drew on the resources of our foreign, business, science and television staffs to document tumultuous changes within the Arctic Circle – not only the environmental consequences of warming, but also the economic and sociological effects on the three million people who live there.
Probably the best person to address the current state of scientific debate on this highly politicized subject is Andrew C. Revkin, our lead reporter on … the differences in climate coverage between American and European news media:
“European media have given a lot more play to climate stories in recent years than American media, but in some cases have also underplayed the scientific complexities underlying some of the more alarming scenarios for what may come — including the prospect of abrupt cooling around the North Atlantic in a warming world. Somewhere in between would be ideal.
“In general, climate remains the antithesis of traditional news, and thus it is hard for traditional news media to give it space or prominence when readers tend still to want to know about what happened today (an earthquake, a bomb blast, a sports score) or is most relevant to their daily lives (a new cancer study).
“This is changing a bit, but media still are having a hard time grasping that this century will see a lot of non-newsy phenomena — whether an unbalanced climate system or trade deficits — become very important.”
(10 May 2006)
David Roberts of Gristmill finds this defense medium lame:
The NYT’s climate coverage is actually quite good relative to other U.S. media, but, as a reader points out, a little tepid compared to, say, the BBC’s.
The fact is that no media has figured out how to cover the climate crisis well. As the NYT’s Andy Revkin is always quick to point out, it’s “the antithesis of traditional news.” But here’s a suggestion, one Chang and Revkin both skip over: How about moving climate coverage off the science pages?
Even conservative estimates of average-global-temperature increase would mean substantial effects on all of society — the economy, security, health, and so on. Project the issue past the science geeks, I say. Get it out into the real, day-to-day world.
My impression is that the climate change coverage by the NY Times is high quality and competent — it just doesn’t have much juice, much fire. It tends to be treated as an interesting scientific puzzle, rather than as anything to get excited about. To be fair to the NY Times though, we need to give them something to write about. As Scoop Nisker, legendary radio journalist has said, “If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.”
To see how how the media might cover climate change, see the MediaLens story about Michael McCarthy, environment editor at the UK Independent
-BA
Don’t dump old medicine in toilet
Jane Kay, SF Chronicle
Sewage plants’ operators ask public to change habit
————
The Tylenol, antibiotics, ibuprofen and Prozac that people toss into the toilet or down the drain may be flowing straight to the bay and contaminating fish, warn local sewage treatment officials who want to stop it.
Sewage plant operators who have curtailed everything from industrial waste to household chemicals and pesticides and mercury from dental offices are now trying to reduce pharmaceuticals from homes by offering a safer disposal method for unwanted pills.
The out-of-sight, out-of-mind flush recommended for years doesn’t work, say representatives for the 40 agencies that operate sewage plants around San Francisco Bay.
The plants are designed to treat human waste and other biodegradable organic materials — not the medicines and chemicals in consumer products that make it through treatment and remain in the effluent that spills into the bay or ocean, and in the sludge that is used for landfill cover, incinerated or placed in farmland.
…The Bay Area events will accept all pharmaceuticals. In the future, sewage treatment districts will develop drop-off programs similar to those for hazardous and electronic waste. Most plants recommend that consumers put pills in the garbage until there are proper drop-off plans.
(11 May 2006)
Al Gore’s movie
Eric Steig, RealClimate
Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore’s efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration’s lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).
Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.
Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little. But it is a very good slide show, in the vein of Carl Sagan (lots of beautiful imagery, and some very slick graphics and digital animation). And it is interspersed with personal reflections from Gore that add a very nice human element. Gore in the classroom in 1968, listening to the great geochemist Roger Revelle describe the first few years of data on carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. Gore on the family farm, talking about his father’s tobacco business, and how he shut it down when his daughter (Al Gore’s sister) got lung cancer. Gore on the campaign trail, and his disappointment at the Supreme Court decision. This isn’t the “wooden” Gore of the 2000 campgain; he is clearly in his element here, talking about something he has cared deeply about for over 30 years.
(10 May 2006)
David Robert’s summarizes the review: “The verdict [about the science in the movie]: Aside from a few small and largely inconsequential errors, the science is right on.”
