Bay Samples Miss Key Targets - Bay Cleanup Planning Deliberately Blinded

The DNR recently released their long-awaited report,“Green Bay Sediment Results from July 2002 Survey.”

We were shocked to discover that the survey deliberately did not sample most of the Bay sites that citizens had expressed concerns about.

This is critically important because that PCB concentration data is needed to verify or disprove the disputed data provided by the DNR and EPA in their Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) a year and a half ago.

As we reported last year, a major conflict arose when our engineering consultant, William Acker, discovered that the RI/FS included two different sets of data that were fundamentally incompatible, from two research groups.

The UW-Sea Grant Institute claimed only 19,000 pounds of PCBs are found in all of Green Bay, while the DNR’s consultant, Remediation Technologies (RETEC), claimed the total is 154,000 pounds (with 69,000 pounds concentrated in the extreme southern end of the Bay.)

Obviously, this throws cleanup planning into a cocked hat.

When the discrepancy was publicized, each group insisted they were correct. The DNR tried to downplay the dispute, because they didn’t intend to clean Bay sediments anyway. On this point, UW-Seagrant agreed.

Unfortunately, at that time, the scientists based their opinions on very few samples. Seagrant took only one sample south of Long-tail Point, DNR took only about 6 samples, and the rest were paper industry consultant samples which we don’t trust. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers generally sampled only in the shipping channel, so that data wasn’t helpful.

Taxpayers spent $13 million for the Green Bay PCB Mass Balance Study a decade ago and another $4 million for the PCB cleanup plan by RETEC and the DNR. It’s an outrage that we don’t have better, more reliable data for the Bay after all this expense. We desperately need more Bay samples taken by trustworthy researchers.

Last year, we insisted that the DNR’s 69,000 pound estimate had a ring of truth to it, because it was only logical that sediments accumulated along the Bay’s eastshore would contain many of the same PCB concentrations as the nearby sediment source, the Fox River. In fact, 90% of the PCBs remaining in the river are concentrated in the last 7 miles, between the DePere Dam and the river mouth. It is inevitable that these sediments would have contributed significant PCBs to areas just beyond the mouth and to the east.

Mr. Acker determined that many thousands of pounds of PCBs could be cleaned up in the southern Bay as cost-effectively as the river cleanup.

We had been counting on the new Bay samples to clear up the scientific controversy and allow for informed decision-making by the agencies. The samples should have been taken to precisely identify the locations and volumes of hotspots. Once identified, we had argued that those PCB hotspots should be cleaned up to the extent possible.

Now, we’ve been handed a highly misleading report which leaves us with many of the same concerns and questions we had last year.

The following are obvious weaknesses in the study:

1. Channel samples inappropriate All of the 39 core samples were clustered along the 11-mile shipping channel, down the center of the Bay (see map). This would be the most disturbed part of the Bay, not where hotspots would be congregated. The shipping channel is 24 feet deep while the water is less than 4 feet deep next to the Inner Bay channel. They sampled near channel side slopes, where PCB sediments would be diluted with cleaner deep sediments or sediments from upstream. The nearby shallow sediments are also churned by waves.

2. Lower Bay samples needed, not northern Only 18 of the 39 cores were taken in the lower Inner Bay where we most needed data (south of Long Tail Point and Point Au Sable) with 11 cores clustered around the mouth of the Fox River. The river mouth samples were elevated, up to 30 ppm PCBs, as we expected. The river flows into the Bay and currents turn east at this point, but no samples were taken to the east of this hotspot.

3. Not deep enough The average core sample was only 10.5 inches deep. 13 of the 18 core samples taken in the Inner Bay (south of Long Tail Point and Point Au Sable) were less than 1.5 feet deep. While the Bay is shallow, the sediments are MUCH deeper than 1.5 feet in many key places. Our greatest concern is for the buried PCBs disturbed only when major storms hit. Also, on the surface, fine particles would tend to be washed, leaving a higher percentage of sand or gravel, skewing the PCB data.

Surface sediments are mixed by storms. PCBs would be most diluted in these layers.

The DNR argued they were sampling near the channel to test areas where dredged sediments were side-cast back in the 1960’s when open-water dumping was allowed. This is fine, but they didn’t go deep enough to locate those old deposits.

To be useful, the researchers should have searched carefully for pockets and thicker deposits of fine-grained sediments, because PCBs stick to fine silts, clays, and organic matter, but not to sand. Cores should have been driven deep into these areas.

All of the Inner Bay samples were in shallow waters, less than 4 feet deep. Samples should have been taken in the 10 feet deep waters east of the shipping channel.

4. Money wasted The researchers wasted precious money and time taking 21 of the 39 core samples along the shipping channel north of Long Tail Point and Point Au Sable, not in the Inner Bay where we desperately needed samples. (Each sample costs hundreds of dollars).

We wouldn’t expect to see PCB hotpots along this northern section, because it is primarily sandy and flushed regularly by freshwater currents coming down the west shore from the Upper Bay. (PCBs are generally low in sandy sediments.)

Frying Pan Shoal is a sand bar just below the water surface, stretching between the two Points. It forms a modest barrier to sediment movement north, and causes the water in the Inner Bay to circle counter-clockwise after leaving the river.

Five of the samples were taken in the Shoal, with 2 of them only 3 inches deep, a ridiculous waste of money. Those could hardly be called “core samples” or more important than Inner Bay samples.

5. Dyckesville and Door County concerns ignored No samples were taken by Dyckesville, north along the eastshore, though everyone acknowledges the presence of a large PCB hotspot there. The neighbors are very concerned. Numerous past studies show that Bay currents tend to go north along the east shore to Door County, but no samples were taken along that path.

6. Questionable companies took samples Samples were taken by RETEC (Remediation Technologies, Inc.) and Superior Special Services, both major industry consultants, when we had specifically asked for the agencies to take the samples themselves.

Both companies have direct financial ties to the paper industry in Wisconsin, and we don’t trust them. RETEC was hired to do the RI/FS by DNR, on the recommendation of the Fox River Group of industries.

7. Kidney Island accumulation ignored The DNR separately took 2 samples from “inside the crescent” of Kidney Island and found low levels (<1 ppm PCBs). But the sample locations deliberately missed the huge bulk of the accumulated sediments between Kidney Island and the mainland at Bay Beach Amusement Park. DNR took samples from an area where a narrow channel now cuts through a continuous sediment bed (dry land some years) which has formed because of Kidney Island’s stagnation of current. Samples there would not be typical of the main sediment bed. This was not a serious effort to characterize this site.

This matters because the 1988 Remedial Action Plan approved by the DNR called for restoration of Bay Beach as a public swimming area, and even now, Brown County government has big plans for boosting water recreation there. Local taxpayers should not be stuck with the future liability of cleaning up this hotspot, when this should be part of the overall River and Bay PCB cleanup.

8. Sampling missed sediment dumping grounds The Study narrative claims the 39 samples took place along areas where dredged sediments were historically dumped, back when open-water dredge spoil disposal was allowed. But, it appears they deliberately missed the main dumping ground in the mid-lower Bay, to the west of the channel. There’s a gap in the sampling.

9. What about the 69,000 lbs of PCBs? The DNR claims the study results were not surprising, but they haven’t responded to our main concern about the 69,000 pounds of PCBs (the same quantity as the entire Fox River) which the DNR last year claimed sits in the Inner Bay. What is the PCB mass now given these results? Given the lack of eastshore, middle-east or westshore samples, can the DNR even hazard a guess?

Furthermore, the obvious data scarcity, and the larger scientific dispute last year about overall Bay PCB levels calls into question the reliability of the computer models which were used to argue against cleaning up Bay hotspots. The DNR and EPA claimed it would be more than 100 years before the PCBs decline to “safe” levels, so it “made no difference” to clean the Inner Bay.

We’ll need much more proof before we can believe this. Many more samples must be taken.

What You Can Do

Write to the new Governor and DNR Secretary, and tell them what you think about the Bay sampling and cleanup:

Governor James Doyle
Room 115 East
State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702

Mr. Scott Hassett, Secretary
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707

ECO-JAM 2003: “Get More Green”

Sunday, April 6, 1 pm til 10 pm, at Historic West Theater

To celebrate Earth Day and our planet’s beauty. Learn how to keep it
eternally GREEN!! Informational booths, food, children’s activities,
African drum circles, cultural dancing, and raffles!

MUSIC, MUSIC, MUSIC!!
by BURNT TOAST & JAM and Little Marsh Overflow

The Precautionary Principle: Bearing Witness to and Alleviating Suffering

by Carolyn Raffensperger

The precautionary principle states that if it is within our power, we have an ethical imperative to prevent rather than merely to treat disease, even in the face of scientific uncertainty. This an overview of what we know about changing patterns of disease, which provides an argument for implementing the precautionary principle, particularly concerning children’s environmentally related developmental disabilities. These statistics are an indicator of suffering. Healthcare practitioners have an opportunity to use the precautionary principle both to bear witness to suffering and to alleviate suffering.

Status of Environmental Health

Where are we now? Some would argue that the precautionary principle is unnecessary because in northern countries, high life expectancy and decreasing child mortality indicate that human health is improving. However, new patterns of human disease are emerging that suggest a crucial connection between an increasingly degraded world and declining human health.

In the past, infectious disease, not chronic disease, was the significant issue in medical care. Infectious disease is stilla pressing problem, particularly in southern countries. AIDS, cholera, dengue fever, and malaria continue to plague large populations of people. Some infectious diseases are of our own making. For instance, antibiotic resistance, including multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, is increasingly common.[1] Some antibiotic resistance may be associated with overuse by physicians. Some also may be related to the extensive use of antibiotics in industrial agricultural animal production. Other infectious diseases, such as West Nile virus, are occurring over a wider geographic area than in the past as a result of global climate change, global trade, and increased travel. The diseases are being homogenized and widely dispersed.

A key health pattern emerging in the United States and other western countries is the increase in chronic diseases, such as hypertension, heart disease, cancer, immune dysfunction, reproductive disorders, and increases in birth defects.
Dr. Ted Schettler has compiled a short list of the chronic problems that can have an environmental cause[2]:

** Asthma prevalence and severity is sharply increasing throughout the world and is often of epidemic proportions.

** Depression and other mental health disorders are becoming new public health threats in many parts of the world, with profound consequences for individuals, families, and communities.

** Nearly 12 million children in the U.S. (17%) suffer from one or more developmental disabilities. Learning disabilities alone affect 5-10% of children in public schools, and these numbers are increasing. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder affects at least 3-6% of all school children, and the numbers may be considerably higher. The incidence of autism is increasing.

** Age-adjusted incidence of melanoma, lung cancer in women, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and cancers of the prostate, liver, testis, thyroid, kidney, breast, brain, esophagus, and bladder has increased over the past 25 years.

**The U.S. incidence of some birth defects, including hypospadias, cryptorchidism, some forms of congenital heart disease, and obstructive disorders of the urinary tract is increasing.

** Sperm density is declining in some parts of the U.S. and elsewhere

Societal Consequences of Developmental Disabilities

Some of these problems, such as cancer, depression, and diabetes, disproportionately affect children. In a statement drafted at an international conference on the environment and children’s health,[3] the signatories said that a quarter of the global burden of disease can be attributed to environmental factors. But more than 40% of environmental diseases affect children under the age of 5 years, even though that age group comprises only 10% of the world’s population.

Of the many environmental health problems, developmental and neurobehavioral disabilities merit special attention because they have exceptional consequences in society. For instance, according to the 2000 US census, special-education enrollment rose twice as fast as overall school enrollment in the past decade. A growing number of children receive Social Security payments because they suffer from serious disabilities.[4] In a 2002 study, financial costs were calculated for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities in U.S. children[5]:

“[T]otal annual costs are estimated to be $54.9 billion (range $48.8-64.8 billion): $43.4 billion for lead poisoning, $2.0 billion for asthma, $0.3 billion for childhood cancer, and $9.2 billion for neurobehavioral disorders. This sum amounts to 2.8 percent of total U.S. health care costs. This estimate is likely low because it considers only four categories of illness, incorporates conservative assumptions, ignores costs of pain and suffering, and does not include late complications for which etiologic associations are poorly quantified. The costs of pediatric environmental disease are high, in contrast with the limited resources directed to research, tracking, and prevention.”

Children with developmental and neurobehavioral disabilities are more likely than healthy children to end up in prison as they mature and become less likely to function well in the outside world. A legal memorandum examined the implications of the Americans With Disabilities Act[6]:

“[A]bout one third of prisoners are unable to perform such simple job-related tasks as locating an intersection on a street map, or identifying and entering basic information on an application. Another one third are unable to perform slightly more difficult tasks such as writing an explanation of a billing error or entering information on an automobile maintenance form. Only about one in twenty can do things such as use a schedule to determine which bus to take. Young prisoners with disabilities are among the least likely to have the skills they need to hold a job.”

A Utah survey[7] found that approximately 24% of male inmates had classic clinical attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). According to a physician within the Utah system,[7] “[O]ther studies and our own experience have led us to believe that upwards of 40% of our residents in a medium security prison have findings along the Tourette/ADD spectrum. If you separate out the nonviolent, impulsive criminals (my basic, charming and even lovable car thieves and traffic offenders), the percentage is much greater.”

The Evidence

The evidence that environmental health problems have environmental causes is growing. Landrigan and others[5] calculated that the fraction of disease attributable to environmental factors was 100% for lead poisoning, 30% forasthma, 5% for cancer, and 10% for neurobehavioral disorders. This suggests that those diseases often may be preventable.

Of course, the link connecting a specific cancer or neurobehavioral problem to a specific exposure is notoriously difficult to establish. Yet we know that chemicals such as neurotoxicants are present in the environment in significant quantities and in all media-air, water, and soil. A great deal is known about lead in paint, mercury in tuna, dioxins in incinerated plastics, and various neurotoxicants in pesticides.

Much of this information, found in the Toxic Release Inventory, which documents the amounts of some toxic substances released into the environment annually, gives a sense of the sheer volume of neurotoxicants (or carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens) in the environment. For instance, more than a billion pounds of neurotoxicants are deposited in the air and water or on land every year. Is it surprising that with every breath, every drink, and every bite that human health is being diminished?

Of course, some of these environmentally linked disorders, such as cancer or birth defects, have a genetic influence, and some of the increase may be the result of better detection. But the authors of the book In Harm’s Way say,[8,9] “We are now certain that complex interactions among genetic and environmental factors play extremely important roles. It is no longer in keeping with the state of scientific understanding to attribute the bulk of these developmental disabilities to genetic inheritance. Rather we now understand the outcomes are the result of interacting factors, among which are exposures to environmental contaminants that are preventable.”

Every one of these preventable illnesses represents the suffering of children and their families.

The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle states that it is an ethical imperative to prevent harms such as developmental disabilities if it is within our power to do so. The principle is of German origin. “Precautionary” is a rough translation of a word that literally means “forecaring,” caring for a difficult future. As codified in several treaties, including the Biosafety Protocol and the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the precautionary principle always contains 3 elements: scientific uncertainty, the plausibility of harm, and precautionary action.

All 3 of these elements are in the Wingspread[10] definition of the precautionary principle, which states: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

The Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle was written by an international group of academics, scientists, and environmentalists in 1998 as an implementation process for the principle that explores those 3 elements of uncertainty, harm, and action.

There are 4 implementation steps in the Wingspread statement:

First, people have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. That is, action must be taken before the harm occurs.

Second, the burden of proof for a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the public. There are some technologies or activities where the proponent has more information — or should have more information — about the potential harms, as well as the uncertainties, and so has a greater obligation to prevent damage. Such technologies include pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, chemicals, and biotechnology. Mechanisms such as performance bonds posted before a technology is released onto the market ensure that the polluter pays for damage rather than externalizing the cost.
The notion that the burden of proof rests with the proponents provides a real impetus for proponents to think carefully about proposed activities before they undertake something hazardous. Is this activity necessary? Are there other ways to accomplish the same ends?

Third, implementing the precautionary principle requires examining “a full range of alternatives”[10] before starting a new activity, whether it is using a new chemical or a new technology. If this activity is potentially harmful, it is necessary to ask if there are other options that are less destructive.

Fourth, decisions applying the precautionary principle must be “open, informed, and democratic”[10] and “must include affected parties.”[10] The precautionary principle requires democratic participation because when we make decisions that are unresolvable with science, these decisions, by their very nature, involve ethics and politics. Also, by involving affected parties, we are more likely to get better science and a better array of options.

Implications of the Principle for Healthcare Practitioners

The precautionary principle provides an impetus not only to bear witness to suffering but to help alleviate suffering. Healthcare practitioners have a special role in implementing the precautionary principle and improving the lives of individuals and their communities. Possibilities abound in both patient care and policy.

Environmental health is a rapidly developing field, with new information appearing almost daily about the connections between human activities and environmental health effects. A handful of books provides basic information about endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxicants, and neurotoxicants,[8,9] as well as the role of biodiversity in human health.[11] The journal Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health, is a good source of up-to-date research.

Patient Care

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility has created an environmental health medical history form that can be used to evaluate the environmental component of a patient’s health and disease. It is useful as a beginning guide to thinking about people within their environmental context.

Where does the patient live vis-a-vis a local incinerator? In his or her neighborhood, are there enough female plants co-planted with male plants to attract the pollen and thereby reduce allergies? How good is the air quality?

Frijtof Capra has said that mapping relationships, not measuring things, is the ecological future.[12] It is also the precautionary future, because mapping helps us to understand connections even when those connections are not certain or quantifiable. A wonderful example of mapping environmental health occurred in 1854 during the cholera outbreak in London. A local physician, John Snow, didn’t fully understand the cause of cholera in London, but he began mapping the outbreaks of disease and traced them to a single water pump.[13] Snow had the foresight to take the handle off the pump so that no one else would catch cholera from the contaminated water.

Fully understanding the environmental context of a patient or client helps the practitioner prevent disease and promote health just as John Snow was able to do by taking the handle off that water pump
.

Greening the Clinic

Healthcare practitioners have a special obligation to provide healthcare services that do not in themselves add to environmental degradation, which can cause illness. The use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, mercury thermometers, and other hazardous materials can be phased out and comparable tools of less dangerous materials may be substituted. A
coalition called Health Care Without Harm is a good resource for information about problematic healthcare practices and safer alternatives.[14]

Alternative healthcare practitioners, particularly those who use herbal remedies, have an opportunity to promote the preservation of biodiversity. Any herbs should be sustainably grown and harvested. The United Plant Savers posts a list of plants that are at risk because of human activity.[15] They have a precautionary goal: “Our intent is to assure the increasing abundance of the medicinal plants which are presently in decline due to expanding popularity and shrinking habitat and range. UpS is not asking for a moratorium on the use of these herbs. Rather, we are initiating programs designed to preserve these important wild medicinal plants.”[15]

Plants from other countries are generally governed by the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity,[16] an international treaty that seeks to conserve biological diversity and compensate developing countries who have the most biologically rich ecosystems. Unfortunately, the United States has not endorsed the treaty and continues to seek free trade in plants that might be otherwise protected under the Convention. It is important to know the source of botanical herbs and promote
just financial arrangements with countries that are sources of these medicinal plants.

But every aspect of a medical care facility can be evaluated for its contribution to the environmental burden, and that burden can be reduced. How much waste goes to landfills or incinerators? Are bike racks as available as car parking? Can energy use be reduced at the facility?

Observing Emerging Health Patterns'

Healthcare practitioners are also in a unique position to monitor emerging patterns of environmental health problems. The analogy is that of the alert practitioner who is charged with observing and reporting adverse drug reactions or unusual infectious diseases. Are you seeing unusual patterns in your practice and your community that may have an environmental link? Are there places to report these connections?

Dr. Allen Parmet is one such alert practitioner who observed that workers at a microwave popcorn plant developed a rare lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, that appears to have been caused by breathing particulates from artificial butterflavoring. Occupational diseases like this are reported to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. There are few places to report environmental health problems if the disease is not occupational, however.[17] The Minnesota Dept. of Health recognized the issue of environmental health problems and created a precautionary principle committee based on the model of the alert practitioner. Its goals were to examine science and policy related to specific emerging issues and to consider prudent avoidance measures.

Similar kinds of committees can be set up on the local, state, and national level. It is possible to include in these committees wildlife biologists, teachers, veterinarians, and healthcare practitioners, among others. Such committees are designed to monitor the health of the public, see patterns that may not have been predicted, and take precautionary action to prevent further harm.

Setting Health Goals

Most states keep statistics on many current, pressing health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and the number of children in special education. Hospitals and other institutions maintain their own records of problems, such as emergency room visits for asthma. These statistics can be used by communities and states to set environmental health goals. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sets generic health goals, such as reducing obesity or cardiovascular disease. The DHHS has never set environmental health goals. Nevertheless, setting such goals could steer public health policy in new directions. Goals could include reduced incidence of asthma, learning disabilities, and cancers.

Examples of Implementation

Implementing the precautionary principle is a tall order. But several jurisdictions in the United States, Europe, and Canada are trying to implement it. The following initiatives are of particular interest to those working on environmental health
matters.

In 1999, the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted the precautionary principle to govern pesticide use in schools. The district’s policy affirms that the “principle recognizes that 1) no pesticide product is free from risk or threat to human health, and 2) industrial producers should be required to prove that their pesticide products demonstrate an absence of [human health risks] rather than the government or the public prove that human health is harmed.”[18]

Verizon Wireless sent a brochure in July 2001 to its U.S. cell-phone customers describing the potential harm to children from radio frequencies emitted by cell phones. Verizon described the precautionary principle by name in its brochure and suggested that parents adopt the principle and limit children’s use of cell phones. Similar wording, without acknowledgment of the precautionary principle, may be found on the company’s Web site.[19]

The City of San Francisco appointed an ad hoc precautionary principle committee that began meeting in early 2002 to identify methods by which city departments could apply the principle. The committee stated that they will [20]:

a. Develop and update a Q&A for the general public
b. Develop Precautionary Principle guidelines, forms, and criteria for departments such as purchasing
c. Suggest initial near term goals
d. Develop indicators to help monitor progress
e. Develop trainings for city staff

The Secretary of the Commission on the Environment will establish and update a public library of key documents and maintain a binder of letters commenting on the Precautionary Principle.

Conclusion

Past environmental decision making predicated on measuring and managing risk has failed to stave off environmental health damage. Many chronic and debilitating diseases are on the rise, and many of these diseases are rooted in ecological damage. This new and emerging set of problems requires new methods for considering and preventing further ecological injury and thereby preventing human illness. The precautionary principle provides a new way of thinking about environmental health that invites healthcare practitioners to become knowledgeable about the issues and observe and report environmental health links that arise in their own practice. Healthcare professionals also can take environmental action to the workplace by reducing waste and finding alternatives to environmentally harmful medical supplies and therapies.

There is so much suffering in the world. Every child who cannot learn to read because she was exposed to mercury or lead, every child who cannot draw a breath of air because of asthma, every child who was born with a deformed penis because of exposure to an endocrine disruptor suffers for a lifetime. We can envision a healthy world where the offspring of all species are healthy and vibrant. And we can act. We can implement the precautionary principle, which urges us to take precautionary action even in the face of uncertainty. Frogs, white pelicans, sea otters, humans, and Monarch butterflies are worth our every effort. May we not only bear witness to and alleviate suffering but may we bear witness to beauty.

This article first appeared in the Sept./Oct. issue of Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. Copyright 2002.

Used with permission. Carolyn Raffensperger, M.A., J.D., is the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network in Ames, Iowa. Reprinted from RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #761 and #762, Environmental Research Foundation ,www.rachel.org

References

1. Center for Disease Control. Antibiotic resistance. http://www.cdc.gov/antibioticresistance/.

2. Schettler T. 2001 Problem statement: why ecological medicine? [handout]. Presented at: Ecological Medicine Workshop; February 7-10, 2002; Bolinas, Calif.

3. The Bangkok Statement: a pledge to promote the protection of children’s environmental health. Presented at: International Conference on Environmental Threats to the Health of Children; March 3-7, 2002; Bangkok, Thailand.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/bangkok/.

4. Chon D. Number of children with handicaps grows. San Francisco Chronicle. July 6, 2002:A3.

5. Landrigan JL, Schechter CB, Lipton JM, Fahs MC, Schwartz J. Environmental pollutants and disease in American children: estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities. Environmental Health Perspectives July 2002;110(7).

6. NY State Dept. of State Counsel’s Office. Legal memorandum LG06: Americans with Disabilities Act applies to local jails and prisoners. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/adajail.html.

7. McCallon TD. If he outgrew it, what is he doing in my prison? Focus, Fall 1998. http://www.add.org/images2/prison.htm.

8. Stein J, Schettler T, Reich F, Valenti M, Palmigiano M, Watts J. In harm’s way: toxic threats to child development [report]. Cambridge, Mass: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility; 2000.
http://www.igc.org/psr/ihw-report_dwnld.htm#ihwRptDwnld.

9. Schettler T, Solomon GM, Valenti M, Huddle A. Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environ. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1999.

10. Raffensperger C, Tickner J, Jackson W. Protecting Public Health and the Environ: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1999.

11. Grifo F, Rosenthal J. Biodiversity and Human Health. Wash, DC: Island Press; 1997.

12. Capra F. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 1982.

13. Univ. of Calif. Los Angeles. John Snow.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html.

14. Campaign for Environ. Responsible Health Care. Health care without harm. http://www.noharm.org.

15. United Plant Savers http://www.plantsavers.org.

16. UN Environment Programme. Convention on Biological Diversity convention text; 1992.
http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp.

17. Associated Press. Popcorn plant workers develop rare lung disease; artificial butter flavoring is blamed. 10/4/01
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/ap20011004_893.html.

18. Kriebel D, Tickner J. Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Pub Health. September 2001;91(9):1351-1355.

19. Verizon Wireless Consumer Disclosures. http://www.verizonwireless.com/jsp/disclosures.jsp.

20. San Francisco Commission on the Environment. http://www.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/sfenvcomm/prprin/d042502.htm.

Up to Top

ARCTIC REFUGE SAVED (For Now)

Good News!

A bipartisan group of Senators prevailed in safeguarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the native people who depend on it, despite heavy lobbying by the Bush Admin. and oil industry. Senators passed an amendment to strip Arctic drilling revenues from the Budget Resolution, marking a pivotal vote in the 25-year fight.

Bush tried to advance Arctic drilling through the budget process by slipping in an assumed $2.15 billion in expected revenues to the federal treasury from leasing and development of the Refuge. When the Budget was brought to the floor, Senator Boxer offered an amendment to strip Arctic revenues from the bill, which prevailed by a vote of 52-48.

Americans consistently support protecting the Arctic, but drilling there is the centerpiece of Bush’s energy policy, and he has tried to exploit the current world political tensions and concerns about rising gas prices to gain support for drilling. Americans are concerned about security, but Arctic drilling would not put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil, would do nothing to strengthen our national security, and would not save consumers a dime. We cannot drill our way to energy independence.

The US sits on just 3% of the world’s known petroleum reserves. Government estimates indicate there is less than a 6 month supply of oil in the Refuge, and even the oil industry admits it would take ten years to make it to US markets.

Senators Boxer (D-CA), Chafee (R-RI) Feingold (D-WI) Snowe (R-ME), Lieberman (D-CT), and Kerry (D-MA) led the winning Senate effort. Wisconsin’s two Senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, voted with the majority.

Environmentalists are thanking Senators who stood firm on this issue. As one stated, “The Refuge is too valuable to be just another number in the budget process.”

A recent National Academy of Sciences report on the cumulative effects of drilling on Alaska’s North Slope reaffirmed the devastating impacts that drilling has already caused in the region and provided further evidence that we need to protect the Arctic Refuge. The coastal plainof the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure—home to polar bears, wolves, and countless migratory birds. The coastal plain is also the birthing grounds for the 129,000-member Porcupine River caribou herd and it is sacred land to the Gwich’in Indians, a native people whose traditional lifestyle depends on the caribou.

Any further informations in german needed? Click here to read our topics in german!