E-waste stands for electronic waste. This includes anything from discarded and broken cell phones, computers, iPods, and small appliances.

Developed nations are dealing with a crisis of overconsumption, which produces many harmful consequences. One of these consequences is e-waste, which is created when electronic products are thrown away. Unfortunately, the production, consumption and ultimate disposal of e-waste is sped up with planned obsolescence, when products are intentionally designed to have a short lifespan—they either break quickly and cannot be repaired inexpensively, or new versions are continually being designed to replace older ones. With the technology available to us, products can be designed to last for decades, if not longer. However, things seem to be lasting for less and less time. This is all in the name of profit, benefitting corporations that want consumers to keep buying products. According to Greenpeace USA, the average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

But the dangers don’t come solely from the waste itself; even more severe problems occur when the waste is broken apart. When e-waste is disposed of, it is often sent overseas where people in struggling developing nations take apart the products to recycle the e-waste and attempt to salvage parts with any value. Some recycling companies that appear to be reputable engage in this careless practice as well. North America and Europe are known to export a large percentage of their e-waste to countries like India, China, and Ghana.

In the process of taking apart the electronics, these overseas workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, putting themselves, their families and their environment at risk. These toxins include heavy metals such as lead, beryllium and mercury, as well as chlorinated solvents, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These are all deadly chemicals. Why should people in developing countries have to pay for the greed of our wasteful consumer society? 

What can you do about E-waste?

1. Rethink the amount of electronics you buy: don’t buy a new cell phone just because your contract expires and you can get the newest version that everyone else is getting. Also, look into getting your small appliances repaired before buying new ones. Reduce, re-use and recycle, in that order. Remember that no matter what advertising tells us, things don’t make us happy.
2. When you do have to get rid of electronics, recycle them with reputable companies. You can also contact the company where your product came from in the first place, and ask them if they have a take-back program. Always ask the recycling depot or company if they send the electronics overseas. If they don’t give a clear answer, choose somewhere else. Or, do some research and check with environmental organizations that would be able to direct you to a recycling depot in your area.
3. Support groups that are against e-waste. Recently, students from Simon Fraser University have formed a group to ban e-waste on campus. With plans to make an educational documentary to raise awareness of e-waste, teach people where they can safely recycle their electronics, challenge the amount of electronic waste people produce, and create an “E-waste Day” at SFU, the group is determined to tackle the issue of e-waste. To support them, join the Facebook group “Stop E-waste at SFU”, and follow the blog http://e-waste2011.blogspot.com/, which they update with their weekly progress, and you can find links to educational resources on e-waste and recycling depots around Vancouver.

Photo credit: Greenpeace India

Supporters of clean air and water this week pushed back against a Republican Party proposal to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect Americans from air pollution.

As Republicans pressed forward with an anti-EPA bill, a coalition of environmental, public health and civil rights organizations emphasized the need for government oversight over coal and oil companies who are among the biggest polluters in the country and the biggest contributors to what amounts to a public health crisis. Now more than ever, this coalition, which includes the Sierra Club, the NAACP and Physicians for Social Responsibility, insisted the EPA is needed to lead the effort to regulate pollution-causing emissions.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, explained, “Coal and oil are polluting our air. They give us asthma. They’re fouling our water with cancer-causing toxins.”

“Coal and oil are polluting our political process and they are draining the life from our economy,” he told reporters on a conference call sponsored by the coalition. “As we’ve seen time and time again with situations like the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, big oil and dirty coal can’t be trusted to police themselves.”

“To these polluters, our health matters less than our profits,” he said.

It is the Environmental Protection Agency that stands in the way of their unrestrained habits that are making us sick. “There’s a reason why ‘protection’ is the EPA’s middle name,” Brune said.

With the agency’s effort to regulation pollution, the data shows that as many as 1.7 million asthma attacks and $110 billion in health costs were avoided in 2010 alone, Brune explained.

But the effort to protect public health hasn’t ended. EPA oversight should be expanded to protect the public from the adverse affects of pollution that causes global warming and to ensure an equitable enforcement of standards for all communities in the country.

Jacqueline Patterson, director of the environmental and climate justice program at the NAACP, discussed ongoing racially- and class-based inequalities in terms of exposure to harmful toxins and pollution.

“Communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to airborne toxins that lead to respiratory illnesses ranging to asthma, chronic bronchitis, COPD, and even lung cancer and other illnesses,” Patterson noted.

Based on studies conducted by her office, Patterson added, 71 percent of African Americans live in counties that are in violation of federal clean air standards. Almost eight in 10 African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Within a three-mile radius of any coal-fired power plant, the population is disproportionately people of color. People who are likely to live within what is considered to be the “detrimental” range of a coal-fired power plant earn about 15 percent less than the national average income.

Simply put, race and income are the top two factors in considering where to locate pollution-causing facilities like coal-fired power plants.

Patterson also cited studies that indicate pollution from coal-fired power plants cause more than 30,000 premature deaths, 7,000 asthma-related emergency room visits, and 18,000 cases of chronic bronchitis each year. Asthma related illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths occur among African Americans at far higher rates than among whites, she said.

Economist Matthew Kotchen rejected claims that EPA regulation of pollution weakens the economy. He noted that the harmful effects of air pollution increase overall healthcare costs, reduce property values, and lower work productivity due to more sick days, all of which result in quantifiable harmful economic effects that outweigh lost profits for specific oil and coal corporations. “There are real costs associated with this air pollution,” he said. But unfortunately, as pollution standards exist now, corporations have little or no incentive to study and account for these costs.

Kotchen said that a federal cap-and-trade program or EPA-originated safeguards extended to such emissions would create the incentive for polluting corporations to consider the broader economic consequences of air pollution.

Americans in large majorities agree that the EPA needs to be allowed to continue to fight harmful air pollution. New polling data released by Public Policy Polling this week showed the public disagrees with the Republicans’ efforts to keep the EPA from doing its job.

Specifically, the poll was conducted in the districts of leading Republicans who advocate placing limits on EPA regulation of air pollution. According to Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, the findings showed strong opposition even among independents and Republicans to this agenda.

“What we see in the findings across the board is a strikingly consistent affirmation by Americans that they support the EPA and its anti-pollution, pro-public health role,” Jensen told reporters. “Whether they are in rural or urban districts, Americans clearly believe that Congress should be doing what’s best for public health, not polluters.”

Pete Altman, climate campaign director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sponsored the surveys, said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chair, “and other members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will now be hard-pressed to ignore the fact that their constituents want Congress to let the EPA do its job of safeguarding the health of American families.”

Upton’s committee is currently considering a bill that would weaken Clean Air Act provisions and prevent the EPA from regulating air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Kristen Welker-Hood, director of environment and health at Physicians for Social Responsibility, explained that greenhouse gases actually contribute to the development of smog and harmful pollutants that adversely affect public health. She said that the Republican bill would “absolutely have an impact on the ability of the EPA to regulate air pollutants.”

This article was first published in People’s World on February 10th, 2011.
Author: Joel Wendland.

Our society is suffering from estrogen overload. No, I’m not referring to Sex and The City reruns—estrogen overload refers to the increasing amount of estrogen in our environment, our food and our bodies.

“Good” Estrogen

Estrogen, the primary female sex hormone, is responsible for normal body processes in women such as secondary female sex characteristics, menstruation, fertility, protein synthesis, bone density, metabolism and much more. Actually, there are three kinds of estrogens in the body: estrone, estradiol, and estriol, which all have specialized roles to play at different points in a woman’s life.

Although estrogen levels are greater in women, estrogen is also needed for libido and maturation of sperm in men.

Sources of Environmental Estrogens

Synthetic (or environmental) estrogens are known as xenoestrogens, or estrogen-mimickers. Although they are not strictly estrogen, their similar structure allows them to bind to estrogen receptors in the human body, causing estrogenic activity.  

• Drugs and Medicines

A primary source of estrogen comes from taking oral contraceptives, which contain high amounts of synthetic female sex hormones. And what happens to all the hormones in drugs and oral contraceptives? Well, the excess estrogen leaves the body in urine, which then enters the water supply which everyone (men and children included) consumes daily. 

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), is another form of synthetic hormones, often used for women suffering from menopause symptoms. HRT has been linked to breast cancer, blood clots, heart disease and strokes.

• Natural Food Sources

Plants with estrogenic activity are called phytoestrogens, the most common of them being soy. Although this estrogen is not synthetic, it can still affect one’s health by raising estrogenic activity. For this reason, people, especially men, may wish to avoid excessive soy intake. (For a great look at the issues surrounding soy, read Liz Thompson’s Green Blog article “Soy: Super Food or Troublemaker?”)

• Synthetic Food Sources: Dairy and Meat

In the USA, dairy and beef cattle are given synthetic estrogens so they grow faster and produce more milk. In Canada, growth hormones are only allowed in beef cattle. However, since hormones are stored in fat cells in the body, these growth hormones end up in the milk, cream, yogurt, cheese and meat we eat on a daily basis.

• Synthetic Food Sources: Pesticides and Herbicides

Pesticides can be dangerous estrogen-mimickers, and unfortunately, its hard to tell what has chemicals and what doesn’t. Generally, most food that is not 100% certified organic has come been grown with pesticides and herbicides, or has come into contact with the chemicals during processing. As well, many lawns, gardens and parks receive chemical treatments on a regular basis.  

• Plastics

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a harmful xenoestrogen found in number 7 plastics. Primarily, its used in water bottles, tin cans, baby bottles and food storage containers. Heating and freezing these plastics (even by leaving a water bottle in a hot car) further the release of the toxins into the water, to be ingested. (See “BPA Update: Examining the Plastic Debate 1 Year Later” in this blog for more details.)

While bisphenol-A was designed to keep plastics hard and unbreakable, phthalates are a type of plastic designed to keep plastics soft and flexible. Research has shown that phthalates are powerful endocrine disruptors for growing bodies and can even cause birth defects. The iconic rubber duck is a prime of example of phthalates at their worst. Even worse, they’re marketed to the most vulnerable demographic—children. The recent book Slow Death By Rubber Duck tackles this issue in full http://slowdeathbyrubberduck.com/. The writers also analyse many other household toxins, including more examples and effects of xenoestrogens.

• Cosmetics and Other Products

Sadly, so many products marketed to women and used every day contain dangerous chemicals. Cosmetics, hair dyes, nail polish, chlorine-bleached feminine sanitary napkins, sunscreens and household cleaning products are just some of the products that contain dangerous xenoestrogens.

Effects of Environmental Estrogens

So we’re getting lots of estrogen…does it matter? Well, although big business doesn’t want you to think so, it matters. It is well known that oral contraceptives with synthetic estrogens can cause breast cancer, strokes and blood clots. What is less publicized, however, is how the smaller amounts of environmental estrogens affect people.

In women, environmental estrogens can wreak havoc on the body’s delicate reproductive system, causing all kinds of problems. Some examples include: early puberty, painful period cramps, irregular menstrual cycles, heavy periods, PMS, fibroids, endometriosis, cysts, low sex drive, infertility and menopause symptoms.

Unfortunately, when these conditions become too difficult and painful to deal with, doctors recommend (often unnecessary) hysterectomies. Canada and the USA have the highest rates of hysterectomies in the world. However, even after childbearing years, the uterus is important extremely important. Removal of the uterus has been linked to depression, osteoporosis, risk of heart disease and stroke, loss of libido, and increased rate of reproductive cancers.

But…I’m a Guy

Men can be affected too! In fact, recent research has suggested that men are being affected in extreme ways that we are only beginning to realize. The CBC documentary “The Disappearing Male” provides an insightful look at these issues and is definitely a must-watch! To give a glimpse, here are some scary but true statistics from the documentary:

• “The quality of sperm is declining. Eighty-five per cent of the sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged.
• The average sperm count of a North American college student today is less than half of what it was 50 years ago.
• The number of boys born with penis abnormalities and genital defects has increased by 200% in the past two decades.
• Paternal exposure to solvents, pesticides, and metals has now been associated in animals and humans with the occurrence of spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, birth defects, childhood leukemia, brain cancer, change in the male to female sex ratio of offspring.”

(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/index.html)

Prevent Estrogen Dominance

• Diet

Dietary estrogens are one of the easiest to avoid. If you eat meat of dairy, avoid commercially produced brands. Instead, opt for local or organic dairy and meat products which do not contain growth hormones.

If you consume soy on a regular basis, look for alternatives. Other protein sources include beans and lentils, lean meats and fish, nuts and seeds, and grains like quinoa. Non-dairy milk alternatives include beverages made from almonds, hemp, potatoes or rice. 

Whenever possible, eat organic produce and grain products as well. Remember, xenoestrogenic activity is caused by pesticides and herbicides as well.

• Supplements

At your local health food store, you can find supplements to reduce environmental estrogens, while restoring the healthy estrogens. Examples include herbs like vitex and black cohosh. Women’s supplements can treat menopause symptoms, low libido, PMS and more. There are hormone-balancing supplements for men as well.

Liver supplements (milk thistle, green tea extract, etc) are extremely important for men and women, since the liver is responsible for cleansing the body of toxins.

• Avoid Environmental Estrogens

Try to avoid plastics as much as possible, especially in children’s toys. In water bottles and food containers, avoid number 7 plastics. Never freeze or heat plastic containers or bottles. Don’t use pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals on your lawns or gardens. Use natural cosmetics, skin, nail and hair care products whenever possible. Use natural cleaning products in your home.

I Think I Have Too Much Estrogen!

If you believe you’re suffering from estrogen dominant conditions, look into visiting a naturopath who can prescribe natural hormone-balancing vitamins, herbs and homeopathic remedies.

Many young girls who experience period cramps or other estrogen dominant conditions are put on oral contraceptives by doctors. The birth control pill doesn’t fix these symptoms, it hides them, while exposing girls to further health risks from the pill. 

If you’ve been to a doctor and had hormone tests, and the results come back normal, don’t be convinced. The range of estrogen levels doctors consider “normal” is too wide to be accurate. Everyone is different—what may be normal for someone else may be too high for you. A good naturopath will take thorough hormone tests, combined with other methods to determine your individual situation. For those who have not been to a naturopath before, it is a shockingly different experience than a traditional trip to the doctor. The visits can last over an hour and the naturopath takes time to listen and understand all your detailed concerns, symptoms and history, before suggesting treatment of any kind.

By now, most people have now heard of BPA (or bisphenol-A), the chemical found in polycarbonate plastics. BPA is most often founds in clear, hard plastic water bottles, food containers and baby bottles (when in doubt, BPA is found in number 7 plastics). As of April 2008, BPA has received considerable press attention for health and safety concerns. Canada is the first country to ban the import of baby bottles that contain BPA. Furthermore, in October of last year, the Canadian federal government added BPA to its list of toxic substances.

The reason? BPA mimics the hormone estrogen. Over the years, estrogens and estrogen mimickers are becoming increasingly prevalent in our society. Common causes include dairy and meat growth hormones, hormones from birth control pills being released into the water supply and polycarbonate plastics. Even certain foods, such as soy, can mimic human estrogen, causing a rise in hormone levels in the body. Harmful to both men and women, BPA exposure has been linked to insulin resistance, obesity and infertility. BPA has also been linked to abnormal growth in breast, uterine, ovarian and prostate cells, which may lead to cancer. Infants are especially sensitive to such chemicals, explaining the ban on BPA baby bottles. The plastic industry, of course, denies such claims.

However, even those who support the use of BPA explain that plastics made from BPA should be used carefully. For example, they should not be frozen or heated at high temperatures. This is extremely difficult, though, when infant bottles are meant to have milk heated inside them. Also, may people bring their plastic water bottles on a hot day, or leave them in a hot car. These actions further the release of the toxins into the water, to be ingested.

Although the recent concern over BPA is due to safety concerns for humans, the chemical is also dangerous to the ecosystem. An environmental pollutant, BPA is also harmful to the reproductive systems of fish and other marine life. Indirectly, plastics are well known to stay in landfills for hundreds of years or pollute oceans.

Since the media spotlight on BPA, some companies have made wonderful changes. On the other hand, many big-name brands haven’t done much. Perhaps the most remarkable change is the opportunity for small companies that catered to (previously) niche markets of stainless steel and glass products to become mainstream. Still, the hype for “BPA free” everything has resulted in confusion over what “BPA free” truly means.

Water Bottles

The most BPA confusion has resulted from the water bottle industry. Since 2008, companies such as Mountain Co-op and Lululemon voluntarily removed water bottles containing BPA. Retailers like Starbucks, however, continue to sell number 7 plastic containers for hot and cold beverages.

As far as plastic alternatives go, not all metal bottles are created equal. Aluminum bottles (such as SIGG) may be lightweight, but they are always coated with a thin plastic layer. There is much controversy regarding how safe the plastic lining is, and whether it may contain trace amounts of toxins.

To avoid these controversial plastics, choose bottles made from 100% food grade stainless steel with no plastic lining. Stainless steel is non-toxic, durable, easy to clean and does not rust. Also, make sure that the plastic used for the lid is BPA free. Good examples include Klean Kanteen, Green Bottle, Purica and Bilt.

Tin Cans

Many people don’t know that the lining of tin cans contain BPA. However, since most people use tin cans more often than water bottles, they’re more of a concern than previously thought. As well, most food is heated at extremely high temperatures before being packed in cans, increasing their BPA content. There are very few brands of canned products that are not lined with BPA. Over the past year, many companies has expressed interest in using BPA free cans, but have not made the switch yet.

Eden Organics has been producing BPA-free canned products since 1999. Instead, they line their cans with “Oleoresin”, an expensive but naturally-derived oil and a resin mixture. Their line includes delicious canned beans, tomatoes, rice, lentils and chili.

For other BPA free alternatives, opt for dried soup mixes, and products such as pasta sauces in glass bottles. When cans are unavoidable, refrain from heating the cans and use the product as soon as possible, since the lining leaches more BPA over time. Keep in mind that BPA breaks down and leaches into food faster in the presence of fatty foods like fish, and acidic foods like tomatoes.

Food Storage

Replacing Tupperware with BPA free alternatives has never been easier. Preserve brand plastic food storage containers are made from recycled number 5 plastic, and come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Of course, Pyrex glassware is a dependable staple for food storage and cooking.

Baby Bottles

There have been substantial gains in the baby bottle industry. As mentioned, baby bottles that contain BPA were banned in Canada. The company Born Free offers glass bottles that are growing in popularity. For those who prefer plastic bottles that have less chance of breaking, Green to Grow bottles are made from recycled material, dishwasher safe and BPA lead, phthalate and PVC free. Still, there is a long way to go, since many “BPA free” plastic baby bottles were recently found to contain trace amounts of the chemical.

Thus, the past year has opened up a lot of discussion in the BPA debate, and no doubt there is much more on the way. I appreciate any discussion on the topic, whether you agree or disagree, or if you know of more bisphenol-A alternatives I haven’t mentioned.