Coal Plant Suspended
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, August 24, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Use of Lead Based Consumer Paints Remains A Global Concern
In a new study conducted by the University of Cincinnati (UC), environmental health researchers found that major countries in three continents fail to acknowledge the hazards of lead based paint, allowing manufacturers to continue selling consumer paints containing dangerously high levels of lead. According to study, 73 percent of consumer paint
brands tested from 12 countries representing 46 percent of the world’s population exceeded current U.S. standard of 600 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, 69 percent of the brands had at least one sample exceeding 10,000 ppm. Scott Clark, a professor of environmental health at UC, stated that "lead paint exposure remains a serious global health threat" considering the majority of American consumer goods are being produced overseas.
The study was published today in the journal Environmental Research online. According to a press release issued by UC, "the report comes on the tail of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s enforcement of heightened restrictions on lead in American consumer paints, which will take effect Aug. 9, 2009, and will lower the allowable lead limit from 600 ppm to 90 ppm."
Professor Clark’s research team has been studying the global use of lead-based consumer paints for several years, publishing one of the first scientific reports in September 2006 showing that unregulated Asian countries produced and sold new consumer paints that greatly exceeded U.S. lead safety levels. According to the earlier study, "75 percent of the consumer paint samples tested from countries without controls— including India, Malaysia and China—had levels exceeding U.S. regulations."
Lead poisoning in children is a widely recognized health concern, yet lead based paints remain widely used. Why? Is the cost of lead based paint cheaper and therefore more essential in these developing nations? Apparently no. According to the UC press release, Clark states "our studies have shown that when comparing the prices of the same size can of paint produced by several companies within India with a wide range of lead concentrations, there is no significant consumer price difference between leaded and unleaded consumer paint."
Maybe the technology needed to create high-quality unleaded consumer paint is not available? Not according to the study. During the course of the UC study, one large multi-national company produced low lead paint in each country studied and another manufacturer
was found to cease the use of lead in paints in at least one of the countries studied. Clark further states that the "technology is available to manufacturers, which do not need to use lead to produce high-quality paint...there is no legitimate reason paint manufacturers should knowingly distribute a product that has long been known to be dangerous to people."
For more information visit http://www.healthnews.uc.edu/ and
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622821/description#description
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v2NxZKeTD178-CTh5unU64VBpYU20LvIgQZwnmEndqS1sYcK_tjaa95FBJY3MxSIl25kR_7MNNkV58LkQ0xbK0feX34O4NINPNEwE3QL2wBZtCkcNBgalQjwSGboPiX7vGrYLLOkWqXw14DltsGd7G=s0-d)
brands tested from 12 countries representing 46 percent of the world’s population exceeded current U.S. standard of 600 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, 69 percent of the brands had at least one sample exceeding 10,000 ppm. Scott Clark, a professor of environmental health at UC, stated that "lead paint exposure remains a serious global health threat" considering the majority of American consumer goods are being produced overseas.
The study was published today in the journal Environmental Research online. According to a press release issued by UC, "the report comes on the tail of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s enforcement of heightened restrictions on lead in American consumer paints, which will take effect Aug. 9, 2009, and will lower the allowable lead limit from 600 ppm to 90 ppm."
Professor Clark’s research team has been studying the global use of lead-based consumer paints for several years, publishing one of the first scientific reports in September 2006 showing that unregulated Asian countries produced and sold new consumer paints that greatly exceeded U.S. lead safety levels. According to the earlier study, "75 percent of the consumer paint samples tested from countries without controls— including India, Malaysia and China—had levels exceeding U.S. regulations."
Lead poisoning in children is a widely recognized health concern, yet lead based paints remain widely used. Why? Is the cost of lead based paint cheaper and therefore more essential in these developing nations? Apparently no. According to the UC press release, Clark states "our studies have shown that when comparing the prices of the same size can of paint produced by several companies within India with a wide range of lead concentrations, there is no significant consumer price difference between leaded and unleaded consumer paint."
Maybe the technology needed to create high-quality unleaded consumer paint is not available? Not according to the study. During the course of the UC study, one large multi-national company produced low lead paint in each country studied and another manufacturer
was found to cease the use of lead in paints in at least one of the countries studied. Clark further states that the "technology is available to manufacturers, which do not need to use lead to produce high-quality paint...there is no legitimate reason paint manufacturers should knowingly distribute a product that has long been known to be dangerous to people."
For more information visit http://www.healthnews.uc.edu/ and
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622821/description#description
USDA Proposes Label for Bio-based Products
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed a labeling system to identify products made with renewable plant, animal and other bio-based materials.
The BioPreferred labeling proposal is an outgrowth of the federal government's BioPreferred purchasing program, which was created in the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill expanded the program to also promote the sale of bio-based products outside of the government.
The proposal would set up a system in which companies could voluntarily apply the BioPreferred label to their products. The USDA has already identified more than 15,000 bio-based products in about 200 categories.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tluC7EszYl5cZy01zcL69xa0yHUn5JgLnFHvPr7lQ3qAsvfbJH6TvPd5qM8mwrSO_usdchWnmP4bbKcwlC0vNT8SVyxVRBiVUtgnCODtVR_OoCFNWVjaJ8Nwxj3bKlI5DaI4XRc0FTcIimBursOHU=s0-d)
The BioPreferred labeling proposal is an outgrowth of the federal government's BioPreferred purchasing program, which was created in the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill expanded the program to also promote the sale of bio-based products outside of the government.
The proposal would set up a system in which companies could voluntarily apply the BioPreferred label to their products. The USDA has already identified more than 15,000 bio-based products in about 200 categories.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Stimulus cash targets leaking tanks
$3.3 million from feds to boost cleanup effort
By SAMMY FRETWELL
sfretwell@thestate.com
South Carolina’s much-criticized effort to clean up pollution from leaking underground storage tanks is getting a $3.3 million stimulus boost from the federal government.
The nation’s Environmental Protection Agency announced the award Friday to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. The money will be used to assess and clean up underground storage tank petroleum leaks.
It’s a significant chunk of money that will help DHEC with a backlog of sites that have not been cleaned up, agency officials say.
“The 3.3 million is going to be quite a shot in the arm for us,” DHEC spokesman Adam Myrick said. “It is going to help us clear out the backlog a little bit.”
As of last year, South Carolina had about 3,000 sites in need of cleanup — one of the nation’s highest backlogs of sites polluted by underground storage tanks. The EPA previously has threatened federal action if the state did not make more progress to clear the backlog, The State newspaper reported last year.
Leaking underground storage tanks are the largest contributor to underground pollution in South Carolina, a state in which 25 percent to 30 percent of people depend on wells.
DHEC will use the money to concentrate on 66 sites that are high priority for cleanup, Myrick said.The money for South Carolina is part of $197 million appropriated under the federal Recovery Act to address shovel-ready sites nationwide contaminated by petroleum from leaking underground storage tanks.
The funds will be used for overseeing assessment and cleanup of leaks from underground storage tanks or directly paying for assessment and cleanup of leaks from federally regulated tanks where the responsible party is
unknown, unwilling or unable to finance, or the cleanup is an emergency response.
The greatest potential hazard from a leaking underground storage tank is that the petroleum or other hazardous substances seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly one-third of all Americans.
“We’re providing immediate growth opportunities for communities across the nation, as well as long-term protection from dangerous pollution in the land and water,” said EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “EPA is putting people to work by serving our core mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
“The Recovery Act funds will help South Carolina in its effort to provide long-term protection from pollution caused by leaking underground storage tanks,” said Stan Meiburg, EPA acting regional administrator in Atlanta. “The state will use the funds to assess and clean up abandoned tank sites while providing a boost to its economy through the creation of green jobs.”
EPA Region 4’s underground storage tank program will enter into a cooperative agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control in July. This cooperative agreement will include more detailed descriptions of the state’s spending plan.
President Obama signed the ARRA on Feb. 17, and has directed that the Recovery Act be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can visit Recovery.gov to see how every dollar is being invested.
Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u3-Bh6SE2-LugpqRMxtCEZeVnckhLsRoFjXyRGk0yLsidHjvVjnlRtchkGLndzUD3crHp7xQupgC8y7G8qerCJ6lF-zyW5TAe2UHPxEfjVjcsZ4iA4sPBJsqk64P0Y0EGsXbkr3qdrosYqN0sHgNXp=s0-d)
By SAMMY FRETWELL
sfretwell@thestate.com
South Carolina’s much-criticized effort to clean up pollution from leaking underground storage tanks is getting a $3.3 million stimulus boost from the federal government.
The nation’s Environmental Protection Agency announced the award Friday to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. The money will be used to assess and clean up underground storage tank petroleum leaks.
It’s a significant chunk of money that will help DHEC with a backlog of sites that have not been cleaned up, agency officials say.
“The 3.3 million is going to be quite a shot in the arm for us,” DHEC spokesman Adam Myrick said. “It is going to help us clear out the backlog a little bit.”
As of last year, South Carolina had about 3,000 sites in need of cleanup — one of the nation’s highest backlogs of sites polluted by underground storage tanks. The EPA previously has threatened federal action if the state did not make more progress to clear the backlog, The State newspaper reported last year.
Leaking underground storage tanks are the largest contributor to underground pollution in South Carolina, a state in which 25 percent to 30 percent of people depend on wells.
DHEC will use the money to concentrate on 66 sites that are high priority for cleanup, Myrick said.The money for South Carolina is part of $197 million appropriated under the federal Recovery Act to address shovel-ready sites nationwide contaminated by petroleum from leaking underground storage tanks.
The funds will be used for overseeing assessment and cleanup of leaks from underground storage tanks or directly paying for assessment and cleanup of leaks from federally regulated tanks where the responsible party is
unknown, unwilling or unable to finance, or the cleanup is an emergency response.
The greatest potential hazard from a leaking underground storage tank is that the petroleum or other hazardous substances seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly one-third of all Americans.
“We’re providing immediate growth opportunities for communities across the nation, as well as long-term protection from dangerous pollution in the land and water,” said EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “EPA is putting people to work by serving our core mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
“The Recovery Act funds will help South Carolina in its effort to provide long-term protection from pollution caused by leaking underground storage tanks,” said Stan Meiburg, EPA acting regional administrator in Atlanta. “The state will use the funds to assess and clean up abandoned tank sites while providing a boost to its economy through the creation of green jobs.”
EPA Region 4’s underground storage tank program will enter into a cooperative agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control in July. This cooperative agreement will include more detailed descriptions of the state’s spending plan.
President Obama signed the ARRA on Feb. 17, and has directed that the Recovery Act be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can visit Recovery.gov to see how every dollar is being invested.
Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)