Diversity is beautiful!

This summer I went on a trip to Mendocino. My partner and I went on a number of hikes, including one in particular that went from the ocean to the top of a nearby mountain (Russian Gulch State Park). The diversity of the plant life was amazing to me -- each zone had a rainbow of colors (and even more amazing, almost no invasive plants!). I documented the plants I could identify and grouped them into three zones. To me, this was a reminder that diversity is key to a thriving ecosystem, something humans need to keep in mind!

Coastal Zone
Lupin -- top right
Seaside daisy -- top left
Indian paintbrush -- middle left
California Poppy -- bottom left
Queen Anne's lace -- bottom right

Foothill Zone
Wild cucumber -- far left
Red columbine (not sure of this identification) -- top middle
Buttercups (not sure of this identification) -- top right
Forget me nots -- bottom right

Mountain Zone
Giant rhododendron -- top
Sorrel -- bottom left
Mountain iris -- bottom right

Indoor air safety: Creating a safe and beautiful home environment

The Question

"I've been reading about indoor air pollution, particularly from plastic. I guess you don't even have to touch it or put it in your mouth for it to be dangerous -- it's just the dust that comes off of it. What do I do?!?"

The Answer

Yes, indoor air pollution is a growing concern, particularly with the prevalence of plastics in our everyday lives. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are off gassed from a variety of sources, including fresh paint, new appliances, new carpeting, and many varieties of soft plastics (including some children's toys!).

One of the ways to deal with this is to have indoor plants. A while back, NASA conducted a study to see which common indoor plants are best at filtering pollution out of the air. The recommendation was that the average household should have one plant per 100 square feet (read, one per room).

Many of my friends have pets or babies, so I cross-referenced this list with non-toxic plants as listed on the APSCA website. Here is a short list of plants that are both non-toxic when chewed on and will help make your home non-toxic too!

Safe for dogs, cats, and babies

Bamboo palm (Chamaedorea sefritzii) -- far left

Cast iron plant (aspidistra elatior) -- middle

Gerbera Daisy (Gerbera jamesonii) -- upper right

Spider plant (Chlorophytum comosum) -- lower right

If you do not need to worry about pets or babies, here is a list of plants that I found easy to care for (read: water once a month and otherwise neglect) and easy to find at the local hardware store (I prefer Osh).

Plants that are easy to find and care for

Rubber Plant (Ficus elastica) -- far right

Heartleaf philodendron (Philodendron oxycardium) -- upper middle

Elephant ear philodendron (Philodendron domesticum) -- lower middle

Mother-in-law's tongue (Sansevieria trifasciata 'Laurentii') -- far right

I've also had good luck with the spider plant and cast iron plant listed above. Most of these plants are medium sized and thus relatively inexpensive (exceptions are the rubber plant and bamboo palm, both of which can get very big). Be warned though, nice pots will set you back a bit.

Happy planting!

Understanding risk: A reasonable level of certainty

I love what the EWG is doing. The EWG website has multiple guides for consumer products from makeup to cleaning products. The products are easy to search and clearly rated. Having all of the available data put together in one easy-to-search place is an invaluable aid. The EWG is also doing a good job of getting the message out there that not everything in consumer products is consumer friendly. However, the website does not replace common sense.

Let's review.

The precautionary principle says that if there is a reasonable belief of risk and there is an acceptable alternative, then use the acceptable alternative. This sounds simple, but in practice it can be difficult to interpret and apply to daily life. What is a "reasonable" level of certainty that the risk exists? What level does the risk need to surpass before I believe it is a clear and present danger? How convenient and available must the alternative be before I switch over?

In a previous blog article I talked about zero risk. The main point of the article is that there is no such thing as zero risk. But what is a reasonable level of certainty that the risk exists?

The principle I follow is that if the manufacturing process uses traditional methods and there is little evidence of harm, then the product is okay. Here I mean traditional methods to be those involving physical changes (e.g., freezing, drying, pulverizing into a powder) and well established chemical changes (fermenting, roasting, and so on). If the manufacturing process is relatively new (I'm thinking last 50 years as "new"), then more substantial proof is needed to affirm the safety of the product. If the process is extremely new (let's say last 10-20 years) and involves a radical departure from traditional methods (e.g., genetic changes or extreme chemical changes), then very substantial proof is needed.

For example, there have been very few long term studies on the risks of gmo foods. Because gmos are so new and represent such a large departure from normal practices, I personally feel that more proof is needed to establish the safety of such products. Similarly, I feel that many of the chemicals produced for or as a byproduct of plastics need similar vetting before I can deem them safe.

Here is a counter example. Retinyl acetate is listed on the EWG as an 8 (0 being the best and 10 being the worst for cosmetic products). Retinyl acetate is more commonly known as vitamin A. Clearly, vitamin A has been around for a long time and is vital for normal functions of the body. However, because it is fat soluble too much vitamin A can lead to problems. Lathering your entire body in pure vitamin A every day would quickly lead to high levels of toxicity. Yet it is not clear to me that the level of vitamin A in these products is likely to lead to such high levels of build up. So, knowing that there is vitamin A in a product, by itself, is not enough information to be useful.

Here is another counter example. EWG lists lavender oil as a C (A being best and F being worst for cleaning products). However they present no evidence as to how or why lavender oil is bad (except perhaps that there are no studies on it?). Some of the cleaning products are listed as bad merely because they do not list all of their ingredients. I am in favor of clear and complete labeling, but the absence of complete labeling does not automatically mean that the product is going to cause me harm.

Conclusion: EWG is doing a great job of making valuable information accessible. However that does not replace our need to understand risk -- both its certainty and its level.

Organic foods cause food born illness?

The Question

"A friend sent me this...her 'anti-organic' mother-in-law sent it to her. My friend wants to know if there is anything they should do different...she washes her fruits/veggies 3 times. Hmm...I just rinse mine!"

 

http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/the-hidden-dangers-in-organic-food/

The Answer

This 2002 article from a conservative think tank argues that because organic farmers fertilize their foods with manure, organic produce is leading to an increase in serious food born illnesses. Specifically they point out a virulent strain of E coli -- regular E. coli might give you an upset stomach -- E. coli strain 0157 can lead to hospitalization and, in rare cases, death. They state that in 1996, the CDC reported that there were 250 deaths caused by this strain of E coli.

So, the question is, is this true and what should I do about it?

The short answer: The risk is real, but very small. Most people already practice safe food habits, so there is no need to do anything different.

Safe food habits include buying from a reputable producer (i.e., not a rundown roadside stand), buy only produce that looks fresh (i.e., avoid bruised or moldy produce), and wash your hands with soap and water before preparing and eating food.

The long answer: After reading this article, I did some fact checking. I could not find numbers from 1996, but I figured that since then consumption of organic food has really boomed, so current numbers from the CDC should show even more deaths from food related illnesses. In 2010, the most recent year for which the CDC has verified data, there were only 23 deaths from all food related illnesses combined. If you include hospitalizations, the number goes up to 1,184. (Check for yourself here). That right there makes me think the article was cherry picking the data, but maybe 1996 was a bumper year for food born illness or maybe 2010 was a abnormally quiet year. Let's pretend for argument's sake that 250 deaths per year is the real number for most years. Is this something the average person should worry about?

By itself the number does not really provide a lot of information. If only 250 people ate organic produce and 250 people died, then, yes, I would be terrified! However, this is far from the truth. A Harris poll in 2007 (see the NY Times article here) states that 30% of Americans eat organic produce some of the time. So, if the population of the US is 300 million, then 90 million people eat organic produce at least occasionally. In that case 250/90 million= 0.0003% chance of dying from a food related illness.

Take, by comparison, heart disease. Every year nearly 600,000 people die of heart disease! Atherosclerosis is caused by an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise (as per the Mayo Clinic). If anything, the article should have been written about the dangers of fast food!

Okay, but what about conventional produce? Consider this: "the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide poisonings occur each year among the approximately 2 million U.S. agricultural workers" (as per this CDC article). Let's pretend that absolutely none of the harmful chemicals that sicken these workers actually stays on our food to accumulate in our bodies. Even with that assumption, would you really want to contribute to that? Umm... no, thanks.

What is the real story here? To me, it is the fact that there is no such thing as zero risk. We all live with risk every day of our lives. What we have to do is learn how to evaluate how much the risk affects us and why it scares us. Being hospitalized from a case of really bad food poisoning seems a lot scarier than eating fast food because the results are immediate and understandable. That means it is easier for the human brain to process the message "organic food = food poisoning = bad." By contrast, the relationship between fast food and heart disease is less immediate and clear to us, so we are less likely to behave in a way that benefits us in the long term. I see a similar story play out with environmental problems like climate change all the time.

Being a savvy information consumer is an important skill in today's world. And if you need a second opinion, always ask your personal green expert.

In the news: Uplifting stories

In the last month, I've read a number of inspiring stories in the news. Here is a quick recap (with links) of what I've learned.

1. In Canada's Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente writes about how a 29-year old entrepreneur, Jon Dwyer, created an alternative fuel that doesn't need government subsidies or specialized technology to work. Flax fuel is cheaper than diesel and runs in diesel motors (without modification). The new form of biodiesel is being used to power Toronto's city fleet and other buildings in the city.

2. In a similar story on NPR, guest host on Morning Edition, John Ydstie, talked about social entrepreneur David Green, who is lowering the price of medical technologies by making cheaper products to compete with conventional ones. This competition drives down prices. Green successfully made a hearing aid with off-the-shelf blue tooth technology at a fraction of the cost of a traditional hearing aid. He's also helped 18 million people see better by making cataract surgery cheaper.

3. Check out the Economist's review of Nature's Fortune, written by Mark Tercek and Jonathan Adams from the Nature Conservancy. The authors describe how putting a price on an ecosystem service allows governments and businesses to incorporate the ecosystem in their planning and thus preserve it. The best known example of this is New York City's decision to restore the Catskill watershed because it was cheaper than building a water purification plant.

4. I wish mainstream news in the US would report more on uplifting human achievements, like BBC did in this article on green heroes. The UK's National Trust was the world's first organization dedicated to conserving natural and historical places (started in 1895!). Each year they celebrate three exceptional volunteers with the Octavia Hill award.Check this out: In 1985 they had three volunteers, now they have over 60,000!

Repurpose part two: New clever ideas!

For some reason, I had thought that chain letters had died in the last decade. So I was a little curious when my mom sent me what looked like the typical chain email. I was pleasantly surprised to find photos of ingenious ways to reuse ordinary things! One of my secret hobbies is to troll through websites like Apartment Therapy and Homesteading/Survivalism's Facebook page looking at just these sorts of photos. I'm sharing here only the best photos from the chain mail that were new to me.

 Here is one I'm including because it was so beautiful, but, I think, a little sacrilegious. Also, it is not very practical because how many people have a baby grand piano just lying around?

 This one was not part of the email chain, but is one that I use personally. It is a melted wine bottle that is used as a spoon rest. Actually, the one my sister gave me is even better than this one because it is divided into three sections, so there is room to lay two or three different spoons (which I find often happens in my kitchen where there might be multiple things cooking at once).

Rules for recycling, compost, and trash

The Question

A coworker recently asked me for a clear guide for what should be recycled, composted, or trashed.

The Answer

This question is actually surprisingly difficult to answer. This is because recycling rules differ from county to county and even from city to city within a single county. I'll outline some basics, places to go for more info, and some interesting facts about recycling and composting.

Recycling
Most waste haulers offer a single-stream recycling system. This means that all recyclables can go into a single bin that later gets sorted. You may think that single-stream recycling is universal and obvious, but really it isn't. In Japan, some cities have 30 different recycling bins!

The single-stream recycling bin can take most metal, plastic, paper, and glass. The most common exceptions to this list are light bulbs, broken glass, dirty paper or cardboard, juice boxes (or any other box that holds liquid like soup boxes, etc), and plastic bags.

Recology, a waste hauler that serves many places in the Bay Area has a lovely graphic display for their recycling rules. You can find it here.

Why can't I recycling plastic bags?
When I say plastic bags I don't just mean the ones you use in the grocery store to protect your produce or to pack your groceries in -- I mean ALL plastic bags. That includes the ones that your salad mix comes in and the bread bag too. The recycling centers use automated machines to sort all of the items and the plastic bags end up getting stuck in the machinery like string in a vacuum cleaner. If you've ever had that happen to you, you know what I mean, it is not fun.

Do I need to wash out my jars and cans and stuff before I put it in the recycling bin?
For most recyclers, the answer is no, not really, but it's nice. I usually just fill up my jar with water, shake it vigorously to remove the big food pieces, then drain and throw into the bin. Most recycling plants have processes to remove impurities before recycling the item. Check your local waste hauler's website to be sure.

Composting
If your waste hauler offers composting, you should jump on the chance to use it. State law requires composting and recycling to be cheaper than garbage, meaning most people save money when they add composting because they significantly reduce the amount of real garbage they need to have hauled away.

Composting at the smallest scale requires a mix of different plant matter to operate most successfully. When composting at home you should mix together grass cuttings, dead leaves, and your vegan kitchen scraps (no dairy to meat) into a heap about 1 meter cubed. On an industrial scale, however, you can compost a lot more than that. Industrial composting can handle meat (even bones!), dairy, soiled paper (used paper cups, pizza boxes, etc), and bigger yard trimmings (even small branches!).

Some places only offer bins for yard waste, not compostables, so check your local waste hauler's website to be sure. You can find the Recology compost rules graphic here.

Trash
Trash includes everything that doesn't go into the recycle or compost bin, unless it falls under the hazardous waste category. Check out my previous post for information on household hazardous waste. Sadly, most often this trash goes straight to the dump to be preserved for generations upon generations.

In some places, like San Jose, the waste hauler has a MRF system (pronounced "murf") which prevents most waste from ending up at the landfill. Actually, the single-stream recycling also goes to a MRF system, but that is a "clean" MRF, not a "dirty" MRF. The GreenWaste MRF in San Jose can actually sort recycling and compostables from trash thereby removing the vast majority of materials from the waste stream. Pretty cool!