Author: admin

  • Bottled water pumps up female hormones

    From Discovery News

    With all of the bad press swirling around certain types of plastic lately, regular old plastic water bottles have maintained a reputation as safe, at least as far as human health is concerned. New evidence, however, suggests that plastic water bottles may not be so benign after all.

    Scientists in Germany have found that PET plastics — the kind used to make water bottles, among many other common products — may also harbor hormone-disrupting chemicals that leach into the water.

    It’s too soon to say whether drinking out of PET plastic bottles is harmful to human health, said lead researcher Martin Wagner, an ecotoxicologist at Goethe University in Frankfurt. But it now appears possible that some as-yet unidentified chemicals in these plastics have the potential to interfere with estrogen and other reproductive hormones, just as the infamous plasticizers BPA and phthalates do.

    “What we found was really surprising to us,” Wagner said. “If you drink water from plastic bottles, you have a high probability of drinking estrogenic compounds.”

    The study adds to growing concerns about products that span the plastic spectrum, added Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York.

    “This is coming at a good time because the use of bottles for consuming water is getting very bad press now because of its carbon footprint,” she said. “It’s just another nail in the coffin of bottled water, the way I see it.”

    Wagner and a colleague used genetically engineered yeast to analyze 20 samples of mineral water. Nine samples came our of glass bottles. Nine were bottled in PET plastic. And two were in cardboard, juice-like boxes.

    The specialized yeast — which change color in the presence of estrogen-like compounds — revealed estrogenic activity in seven of the nine plastic bottles (and both cardboard samples), compared with just three of the nine glass ones. Overall, Wagner said, levels of these compounds in the water were surprisingly high.

    German mineral water comes from natural springs. So, to see if the estrogenic compounds were actually coming from the water itself, Wagner emptied the bottles and replaced the water with a pure snail medium and a tiny species of snail that is especially sensitive to estrogenic compounds.

    Eight weeks later, female snails living in plastic bottles had more than twice as many embryos inside their bodies compared to the glass-grown snails. “Something from the plastic,” Wagner said, “must have leached out and changed the reproductive patterns of our snails.”

    Wagner cautions against jumping to conclusions. Water is still a healthy beverage, he said. And until the compounds at work in the snail study have been identified, it’s just not possible to know if PET plastics pose a human health risk.

    Still, tests in his lab have shown far less estrogenic activity in tap water than in even the most “ultra-pure” bottled waters.

    “Having done all of these experiments, I started drinking tap water,” Wagner told Discovery News. “It might have other stuff in it, but at least it doesn’t have estrogenic compounds.”

    It may also be time, Swan said, to reconsider how safe the so-called “safe” plastics really are.

    “I used to say: ‘4, 5, 1, and 2. All the rest are bad for you,’” she said, referring to the recycling codes on plastic products. “Now, I’m not saying that anymore. We don’t know about 4, 5, 1, or 2. This raises questions about all plastic bottles.”

  • Wind farms shut down for migrating birds

    Related story from The UK Guardian

    US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year but radar systems developed for Nasa can prevent fatal collisions by detecting approaching birds and analysing weather conditions

    It could be considered an air traffic control system for birds who have flown perilously off course. A wind farm in southern Texas, situated on a flight path used by millions of birds each autumn and spring, is pioneering the use of radar technology to avoid deadly collisions between a 2,500lb rotating blade and bird.

    US wind farms kill about 7,000 birds a year, according to a recent study. Other studies of individual wind farms suggest a higher toll on bats and birds, who crash into towers, blades, power lines and other installations. Estimates from a single wind farm in Altamont, California showed as many as 1,300 birds of prey killed each year – or about three a day.

    Such direct threats to wildlife, and concerns for habitats, have increasingly pitted conservationists against the renewable energy industry. A handful of wind power projects in the US have been shelved because of wildlife concerns.

    But new radar technology now in use at the Peñascal wind farm in Texas claims to have found a balance between competing environmental concerns – taking action against global warming and protecting wildlife – by protecting migrating birds at times of peak danger.

    The 202MW farm, operated by the Spanish firm, Iberdrola Renewables, is the first in the world to use radar systems to enable it to shut down automatically if bad weather hits in peak migration times.

    The installation, which opened late last month, uses radar systems originally developed for Nasa and the US Air Force to detect approaching birds from as far as four miles away, analyse weather conditions, and then determine in real time whether they are in danger of flying into the rotating blades.

    If they are, the turbines are programmed to shut down, restarting once the birds are safely on their way, said Gary Andrews, the chairman of DeTect, Inc, the Florida company that developed the technology.

    The system spots the birds and assesses their altitude, numbers and the visibility. “With all these pieces coming together properly … the turbines will shut down,” said Andrews.

    Conservationists however are sceptical of such an easy fix. They argue that wind farms should still be sited away from migration routes in the first place, and that the technology does nothing to solve the problem of installations that disturb bird and animal habitats and nesting grounds.

    “The bottom line with wind energy is that it has great potential but it must be done correctly,” said Doug Inkley, a senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. “The windiest site may not be the most suitable and one may have to live with having less windy conditions and less impact on wildlife.”

    Even in Texas – where there are virtually no environmental restrictions on wind farms – there was controversy when the Peñascal project was first proposed and local conservationist organisations tried to block the project in the courts.

    The Peñascal wind farm is located on the Central Flyway, a main route for migratory birds in the Americas.

    Millions of birds funnel through the narrow air corridor during the semiannual migration. A study in the autumn of 2007 found 4,000 birds an hour passing overhead.

    More than 30 species of warbler alone fly the route, along with waterfowl, raptors, and hawks. The area is also known as a nesting ground for reddish egret, which the Audubon Society views as threatened, terns and pelicans.

    In ordinary circumstances, the birds would be thousands of feet above the wind farm, passing the turbines without incident. But that can change dramatically in a sudden storm.

    A sudden cold snap, like the legendary Texan “Blue Northern”, can prove fatal for migrating birds, bringing strong head winds and fog. The birds, which typically fly at night, become disoriented and exhausted, elevating the risk they will lose altitude and crash into 400ft wind towers along their route, wildlife experts say.

    “If inclement weather hits the birds that are aloft at that point may be very vulnerable,” said Christopher Shackleford, an ornithologist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

    Andrews says his radar systems can avoid such consequences – and at relatively little cost to the wind farm. Forecasts suggest the wind farm would be forced to close only between 40 to 60 hours during peak migration times.

    The US Air Force has been using similar technologies for more than a decade. Nasa also turned to such systems after a turkey buzzard flew into the Discovery shuttle moments after its launch in 2005.

    The radar sets developed by DeTect draw on a network of 148 weather radar to provide real-time information about bird activity. It is updated every six minutes.

    The wind power industry has used such data before when planning wind farms, Andrews said. It is illegal, under US law, to kill migratory birds or damage their nesting areas. But this is the first time that a wind farm will use such data in real time.

    Andrews’s company is also working on a variation that will allow wind farms to detect raptor if they start diving to close to the turbines as they chase down their prey.

    Conservationists are reserving judgment. “The wind energy industry makes bold claims, and they need to prove them,” said Andrew Kasner, director of bird conservation for Audubon Texas.

    He added: “It’s possible for them to do [switch off the turbines], but I don’t know whether they would do it during peak wind time.”

  • Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban

    Related story from  Food Production Daily

    Monsanto has filed a lawsuit against the German government after the EU member state banned planting of its genetically modified MON810 maize last week.

    MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.

    However German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had “legitimate reasons” to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer’s harvest.

    Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany.

    The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is “arbitrary”. A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.

    If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto’s favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m.

    Aigner, a member of the Christian Social Union, has denied that the decision to ban the MON810 plantings is politically motivated. She said the ban is an individual case, and should not be taken as an indication of future policy on genetically modified crops.

    Other bans

    Germany is not the only country to have banned MON810. France also invoked the clause on new scientific evidence that cast doubt over its safety last year.

    However a review conducted by the European Food Safety Authority, requested by the European Commission, concluded that “in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, the provided information package does not present new scientific evidence that would invalidate the previous risk assessments of maize MON810”.

    Other countries to implement bans are Hungary and Austria. Last month European ministers voted – for the fourth time – against forcing these countries to lift their bans, despite EFSA’s view.

  • UK government to fathom depth of marine energy potential

    UK government to fathom depth of marine energy potential

    A new study will provide the British government with data on how much renewable power the seas could generate. From the BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network

    A new government-commissioned study is to examine the full energy potential of English and Welsh waters, as part of ongoing efforts to accelerate the development and deployment of wave and tidal generation technologies.

    The new study, which will be carried out by environmental consultancies AEA and Hartley Anderson, will seek input from developers, utilities and small businesses about how and where they plan to install marine renewable energy projects.

    Speaking at the British Wind Energy Agency (BWEA) tidal and wave conference earlier today, energy minister Lord Hunt said the study marked a “significant step forward” in the government’s plans to bolster the UK’s marine energy sector, adding that it came at “a pivotal stage” for the emerging industry as growing numbers of firms deliver devices that are ready to be deployed.

    “The screening exercise will allow us to better understand the energy potential of marine energy devices and the realistic timescale of when multiple devices will be installed and commissioned,” he said.

    The government said that the results of the preliminary study will be used to decide whether or not a full-scale Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) is required for English and Welsh waters, in addition to the SEAs that have already been carried out off the coast of Scotland and in the Severn Estuary.

    However, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) expressed disappointment at the move, arguing that there was no need for a screening exercise and that a full SEA should be given the go-ahead straight away. “It’s good that government seems to recognise the need for an SEA but we’d rather have heard that the work was actually going to start,” said Steph Merry, head of marine renewable energy at the REA. “The screening exercise is an unfortunate delay and the timescale needs to be expedited.”

    Scientists and engineers have long argued that the UK has some of the richest marine energy resources in the world, and the country is already home to a number of the world’s leading marine energy firms.

    Previous studies have suggested that tidal technologies in the Severn Estuary could generate five per cent of the UK’s electricity, while Scottish first minister Alex Salmond recently delivered a high-profile commitment to make Scotland the “Saudi Arabia of marine energy”.

    The REA said that under present English and Welsh rules The Crown Estate, which manages UK marine resources, will only grant short-term leases for demonstration projects no larger than 10MW, effectively blocking larger developments. In contrast, the Scottish government has followed its SEA by opening bidding in the Penland Firth for tidal devices up to 300MW in size.

    “An SEA would make a huge difference to the development of commercial-scale wet renewables in England and Wales,” said Merry. “The UK is currently a world leader in the development of wave and tidal stream devices. It is imperative that we keep hold of that lead in order to meet our renewable energy targets and to ensure jobs and investment in UK manufacturing now and in the future.”

    A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that there was no fixed date for a report, but that the screening exercise would take about six months.

    • This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • BHP Billiton plans biggest pit of all at Olympic Dam

    BHP Billiton plans biggest pit of all at Olympic Dam

    Jamie Walker and Michael Owen | May 02, 2009

    Article from:  The Australian

    BHP Billiton has shrugged off the global economic blues to press ahead with plans to turn its Olympic Dam mine in South Australia into the largest open cut on earth and help kick the economy back into prosperity.

    But the company will stick to its controversial plan to send uranium-infused copper concentrate to China for processing, if it moves ahead with the multi-billion-dollar expansion.

    A 4600-page environmental impact statement, released by the company yesterday, set out an ambitious timetable for the conversion of the copper, gold, silver and uranium mine from underground to pit operations. Preparatory work would start as early as April next year, with excavation scheduled for July.

    Under the plan, the mine’s workforce would double from 4000 to 8000 when it reached full capacity next decade.

    The open cut envisaged by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam would become the biggest man-made hole on the planet and yield $1 trillion worth of ore over its century-long life, more than $100 million of which would be paid in royalties to the South Australian Government. Production would lift sixfold from 12million tonnes of ore a year to 72 million tonnes after 2020.

    The news was welcomed by residents of the nearby mining town of Roxby Downs, where the boom had turned to gloom amid recent job cuts at Olympic Dam and falling local property values.

    BHP’s Uranium Australia division chief operating officer Dean Dalla Valle defended the decision to send the copper concentrate to China, saying it was “exactly” what other mines did and safe transportation would not be a problem.

    “The go-forward case we’ve been running for quite a while now has processing offsite for a proportion of our material,” he said. “It lets us concentrate on the things we do best.”

  • No green shoots on climate change

    No green shoots on climate change

    The first ‘green budget’ is very balanced – every measure to stop climate change is balanced with one that makes it worse

    Faced with worsening projections for global warming and energy security, learning that the wind turbine maker Vestas will be closing its factory on the Isle of Wight is a bit like hearing that pharmaceutical companies are closing down the production of flu vaccines just as the alert for swine flu goes from level five to full pandemic.

    The comparison is useful in more ways than one. It reveals how governments can recognise and act to avert systemic risk in some areas like high finance and flu, but have blind spots or grossly inadequate responses in others, such as climate change. It’s also a useful reminder that when natural systems cross a critical threshold – for example, the number and distribution of people infected with a virulent flu virus, or the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – humanity quickly finds that it is no longer in the driving seat and able to control the direction of travel.

    Last month the budget demonstrated the continuing confusion of a political system still struggling to come to terms with the inescapable parameters set by natural systems. The budget was balanced, but only in the sense that anything positive done to promote a low-carbon economy was cancelled out by other measures that will lock in fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure. Both the car and oil industry were happy recipients of budget bungs.

    Grasping at the few optimistic straws still blowing around the economy, the chancellor, Alastair Darling, pointed out that the global economy still stood to double in size over the next 20 years.

    What he forgot to mention, or didn’t know, is that with each “doubling” of the economy, you use as many resources as with all the previous doublings combined.

    Prof Roderick Smith of the Royal Academy of Engineering at Imperial College identified these resource implications of economic doubling. Engineers, it seems, are more adept at understanding material limits. He wrote that the physical view of the economy “is governed by the laws of thermodynamics and continuity” and so, “the question of how much natural resource we have to fuel the economy, and how much energy we have to extract, process and manufacture is central to our existence”.

    This year, on a conservative analysis, the UK started to live beyond its environmental means – consuming more and producing more waste than the UK itself can handle – by Easter Sunday, 12 April. This was our “ecological debt day“.

    Given that both the UK and the world as a whole already use more resources and produce more waste than collectively our forests, fields, oceans and atmosphere can safely provide and absorb, where, we must ask, will the resources come from to double the size of the global economy?

    Darling’s speech was to introduce the first “green budget”, a package meant to put the country on a path to sustainability. It included the world’s first legally binding carbon budget. Yet its targets to reduce emissions are roughly half of what is necessary, according to the climate research work of Prof Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Centre at Manchester University.

    The budget also included roughly £1.4bn of apparently new money to reduce emissions across a range of measures for energy efficiency and renewables. That sum amounts to about 0.09% of the UK’s GDP, and compares sadly to the 20% of GDP that the International Monetary Fund estimates the UK set aside for bailing out its financial sector.

    But even here the green hue is darkened by our continuing dependence on oil, coal and gas, and plans to build more runways, roads and new coal fired power stations that capture only a small proportion of their carbon emissions.

    Support in the budget to extract an additional 2bn barrels of North Sea oil will produce extra greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the UK’s entire emissions in 2006, including shipping and aviation. Funds for car scrappage schemes, lacking any meaningful environmental criteria, could also see emissions rise rather than fall.

    Plans for electric cars may sound attractive, but you still need the clean energy to power them. More than a low-carbon vehicle strategy, if the UK is to improve its own energy security and environment, and tackle climate change, we need a low-car vehicle strategy.

    Ultimately, the message sent by the budget was confusion. Setting an emissions reduction target in these circumstances is like setting someone a deadline to give up smoking, and then pushing them into a smoke-filled bar where all the walls are lined with cigarette machines.

    Nature may be beautiful, but it also has a mind of its own and can take or leave humanity. That’s why we have to respect it and work within its parameters. Both flu pandemics and global warming are lethal. One difference is that if we go through the next 91 months without changing course, the climate roulette of runaway warming will not blow over. It will endure.

     

    91 months and counting

     

    • Each month Andrew Simms is analysing how much closer the world has moved to catastrophic climate change. Read his previous blog here