Showing posts with label environmental protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental protection. Show all posts

North Carolina’s environmental wellness has taken a hit this month, with a new study revealing that coal ash in Sutton Lake outside Wilmington is killing nearly a million fish every year. According to the Wake Forest University researchers, the wellbeing of other Carolina fish is at stake, with thousands being deformed by the coal ash.


 


In a statement, the research team noted that they ‘found several species of fish showing disturbing mutations of the heads, mouths, spines, and tails,’ after analysing more than 1,400 fish from Sutton Lake. ‘Many fish die before reaching maturity,’ they lamented. ‘In addition, the study found the population of catchable bass has dropped by 50% since 2008, affecting the popular bass fishing economy at the lake.’ Lead researcher Dennis Lemly, a research associate professor of biology at Wake Forest University and a leading expert on selenium poisoning, pointed the finger at Duke Energy, the owner and operator of a power plant that houses four coal ash waste pits. On December 3rd, four conservation groups called for immediate action from Duke Energy.


 


This isn’t only an environmental wellness concern, but one of financial health. Known for its public recreational fishing, commercial fishery, and as a source of food to subsistence fishers who live nearby, Sutton Lake may face major economic problems if the coal ash issue is not soon fixed. The four conservation groups –the Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Centre, the Waterkeeper Alliance and the Cape Fear River Watch – argued that the study’s findings underscore the urgency of solidifying regulations on coal ash, and Duke Energy needs to take immediate action. In the groups’ statement, Frank Holleman, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Centre, commented, ‘Selenium pollution from Duke’s coal ash takes food off the table of North Carolinians who count on Sutton Lake to feed their families, and fish off fishermen’s lines.’


 


Earlier this month, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. – the parent company of Duke Energy –  pleaded guilty to killing eagles with its wind turbines in Wyoming. However, when it comes to coal ash, the battle is being fought nationwide. At the end of October 2013, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were given 60 days to set federal coal ash regulations in a lawsuit against the agency involving, among other parties, the Moapa Band of Paiutes. Still, while this deadline was given by a federal judge, it deals with emissions under the Clean Air Act – not water or ground pollution.


 


This isn’t the first time North Carolina’s drinking water has fallen prey to coal ash contamination. In 2012, a study undertaken by researchers at Duke University in Durham showed high levels of selenium in waters flowing to places like Mountain Island Lake, one of the main sources of drinking water for Charlotte. This was based on an analysis of more than 300 water samples from 11 lakes and rivers. At the time, Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, stated, ‘In several cases, we found contamination levels that far exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for safe drinking water and aquatic life.’


 


Professor Vengosh continued, ‘We are saving the sky by putting in more scrubbers to remove particulates from power plant emissions, but these contaminants don’t just disappear. As our study shows, they remain in high concentrations in the solid waste residue and wastewater the coal-fired power plants produce. Yet there are no systematic monitoring or regulations to reduce water-quality impacts from coal ash ponds because coal ash is not considered as hazardous waste.’ Kelly Martin, with the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, in the conservation groups’ December 3rd statement, pointed out, ‘We know coal ash pollution harms people, wildlife, and our treasured natural places. Duke Energy needs to stop stalling and take responsibility for its ongoing violations.’

As fleas can be damaging to family wellness, you might choose to adorn your dog or cat with a flea collar to protect their wellbeing as well as your own. However, even though you’d assume the chemicals used in these collars have been tested for safety, this isn’t always the case and may end up doing more harm than good to everyone’s wellness. This is according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), which has found that many name-brand collars contain harmful chemicals, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t doing anything to prevent them from being sold.


 


The two chemicals targeted by the report, which are used on brands of flea collars like Hartz and Zodiac, were tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) and propoxur. The former is a kind of nerve-damaging chemical which has actually been banned for residential use or for use on pets, while propoxur belongs to a class of chemicals called carbamates, which also cause nerve damage. Moreover, propoxur is on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, and the NRDC was quick to point out that exposure among toddlers and children was a particular concern, as youngsters are more likely to pet animals and then put their hands in their mouths.


 


According to lead author of the report Gina Solomon, MD, senior scientist at NRDC, it’s not just the manufacturers of these flea collars who are to blame, but also, somewhat surprisingly, the EPA. ‘When we took a look at the EPA’s files for these chemicals, we were stunned to discover that, after making decision to leave them on the market, they had no scientific data on which to base their decision,’ Solomon commented. ‘The fact that the EPA hadn’t bothered to see how much residue would end up on fur was a big surprise.’ So if the Environmental Protection Agency aren’t working to protect your wellbeing against chemical exposure, which is kind of their job, is it up to you to safeguard your family and your pets?


 


‘For an individual, the risk is pretty small,’ says Solomon. ‘But if you multiply the risk across the numbers of people who touch these collars, the number is disturbing…We really want people to reduce exposures because they’re not necessary.’ She adds that the collars may not even be effective, so step number one is to get rid of chemical collars. You may be concerned that the damage has already been done, but the saving grace of the flea-collar chemicals is that they don’t hang around for long. ‘These chemicals are not very persistent in the environment or in our bodies,’ Solomon explains, adding that washing your pets and their bedding will take care of external residues, while your body will eventually excrete internal ones.


 


Once you’ve got rid of the flea collar, it’s time to bath and comb your pets. Generally speaking, you should bathe your dogs every two weeks to prevent flea infestations and remove ticks that are yet to latch onto the skin. Solomon notes, ‘A flea comb will also remove ticks just as well as it does fleas, assuming they aren’t already attached.’ You also need to get hold of a flea treatment that contains insect growth regulators, (IGRs) which your vet can prescribe. Dr Solomon asserts, ‘In the long run, these are more effective because they disrupt breeding cycles of fleas.’ Finally, seeing as both you and your pet can easily succumb to the diseases carried by ticks, it’s worth investing in some of the more potent treatments. Solomon recommends fipronil, selamectin and imidacloprid for persistent tick problems.