Is an electric car really better for the environment?

The Question

A family member recently asked me this...

"I read that hybrid cars are not environmentally friendly because they use rare minerals (from China) that destroy the land as they are mined.  Also, the battery does not last long so when it is tossed, it also pollutes the soil. Regular petrol cars have improved in mileage and pollutants and are pretty much environmentally safe."

She also forwarded an article from The Economist that reviews a published paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focusing on the number of lives lost from air pollution over the life cycle of various cars. 

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21636715-why-electric-car-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-what?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fvi%2Fst%2Fwhyelectriccarsarentalwaysgreener

The Short Answer

Electric cars are better for the environment. 

The Long Answer

I recently attended a lecture at the Commonwealth Club. One of the guest speakers was Dr. Mark Jacobson, a professor of environmental engineering at Stanford. He had three points about the current state of things. 

1. Electricity is more efficient than gasoline. In an electric car, 80% of the energy is used to propel the car forward and 20% is lost to waste heat. In a conventional car, 20% is used to propel the car and 80% is lost to heat. 

2. Mining for oil is indefinite. Mining for rare minerals is not. Mining for minerals is "orders of magnitude better for the environment" than mining for fossil fuels. 

3. Given the current energy mix, air pollution from conventional cars leads to significantly more deaths (more on this topic a bit later). And those deaths disproportionately affect the poor.  

He also had a few things to say about the likely future state of things.

1. Scientists are currently studying how to efficiently recover rare minerals from recycled consumer products. In the future, it is possible that the majority of rare minerals will come from existing stock, not mining. 

2. Electric cars can support a smarter, more flexible energy grid by using their batteries to store up energy in off-peak times.

3. Renewable energy (wind, water, solar, etc) is getting cheaper and more efficient every year. 

Now let's tackle that article from The Economist....

First off, the article grossly misinterprets the findings from the scientific paper. In the paper, the authors state that they ran a variety of simulations to see which scenarios were better or worse in terms of the number of deaths caused from air pollution. For example, in scenario A all cars were conventional. In scenario B all cars were electric cars, where the electricity came from coal power plants. In scenario C all cars were electric and the electricity came from solar and wind. And so on for 11 different scenarios. In the scenario where all cars are electric and the electricity comes from coal power plants, there were more deaths than the scenario with conventional cars. 

But the current mix of energy is nowhere near 100% coal. In fact, coal has been declining as a source of energy over the last few decades in the United States (currently it is near 30% of the mix). The authors are very upfront about the fact that their assumptions have obvious limitations. They realized that they could not predict what the energy mix will be years into the future, so they had to create baselines. 

Let's be clear that I am not blaming the scientists who wrote that paper. I think that their underlying methodology was clearly explained, along with the pros and cons. The fault lies with The Economist. The newspaper used a provocative title to draw in readers, but waited until the very last paragraph to discuss where the energy comes from. 

Just to reiterate, given current trends, the most likely scenario is where electricity comes from sources other than coal. Under those conditions, the scientific paper states that electric cars will save vastly many more lives. 

Environmentally friendly options for outdoor plants

A while back I did a post on household plants that filter indoor air pollution. I selected those that, in my experience, were hardy and could do well if neglected (I also had a special subset that were non-toxic, and thus safe for homes with cats and dogs). You can check out the post here.

Today, I'm looking at outdoor plants. Like most city dwellers, I do not have a lot of room (or time) for outdoor plants. Also, I am not a very good gardener (Okay, fine, I'm a terrible gardener). But I do have a little balcony, and I would like to look out from time to time and see some nice flowers or something. For my situation, I'm looking for plants that are 1) pretty, 2) drought tolerant (i.e., low maintenance), 3) well suited for containers, and 4) native and/or beneficial to local butterflies and bees.

Thankfully, my sister is an amazing gardener. And trained horticulturalist. And specializes in natives and xeriscaping (drought tolerant landscaping). And, did I mention, amazing? Anyway, her main advice is to buy organic plants and potting soil. Too often the plants and soil is laced with pesticides that hurt bees and butterflies.

Here are the plants that even I can't kill. Not all of them are native, but none are invasive and they otherwise meet the conditions of growing well in pots, being drought tolerant, and providing food for butterflies and bees.

Top left: nasturtium; top right: cape honeysuckle; bottom left: sage; bottom right: California poppy and cacti; middle: lavender.

Here's a great resource I found while researching the topic.

http://lifeonthebalcony.com/great-drought-tolerant-plants-for-container-gardens/

Comedy Saves the Earth

I don't know where I first read it, but I believed it then and I believe it now. One of the best ways to fight ignorance, especially embattled ignorance, is through comedy. There is no rational way to persuade people who do not believe in science or empirical evidence. So, instead of pursuing a logical path, you have to find a way around it.

Comedy is one of those ways (narrative is another way, but that is a topic for another day). By using jokes, you can break the ice, catch the other person off guard, and stick something in his or her brain that will last a lot longer than an impersonal and disregarded fact.

Here is my small collection of ammunition, to which I hope to add more as time goes on.

1. Obama talking about climate change with help from his "anger translator".

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/obama-just-skewered-republican-climate-deniers-epic-anger-translator-rant

2. Daily Show's John Oliver on the real global warming debate. God bless Bill Nye!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

3. Sierra Club's Eco-Comedy Video Competition Winners -- This one is from 2013 on plastic bags. Hilarious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpxEstCqUfY

4. Bikini's as proof of global warming

Should I upgrade to LED bulbs?

The Question

A family member recently asked for my opinion about an article from Wired that urges readers to go out and buy new Philips LED bulbs (the subtitle is "Officially too cheap to ignore"). 

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/philips-cheap-led-bulbs/

The Answer

You absolutely can if you want to. There is no downside to doing it (excepting figuring out the best way to dispose of the old bulbs). However, the upside is probably smaller than you imagine. My advice would be to buy new LED bulbs as your old bulbs burn out. Prices will keep going down, so there is no need to rush out and buy them now (plus, newer models of LED bulbs are getting better for enclosed and recessed lighting fixtures). 

The average home uses 5-10% of their energy on lighting. Unless you have a large number of bulbs that you are using very, very frequently, I would not expect any noticeable savings on the energy bill. 

Much more of your overall energy use comes from heating (anywhere from 35 to 50% from the estimates I've read, see graphic below). It would be much better to focus on more efficient ways of heating a room than to focus on lighting. 

What's up with the "Dirty Dozen"?

The Question

Recently a friend asked for my opinion of an article out of Life Hacker (see link below). The author recommends that people not buy organic produce based on the "Dirty Dozen" list produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The article has 3 main points.

1. Organic produce still has pesticides on it.

2. The methodology is inherently flawed because the dirty dozen is based on ranking rather than absolute amounts of pesticides. As an example, the author states, "if farmers increased their pesticide use by a million times overnight, or if they abandoned pesticides in droves, next year's list wouldn't reflect the change in your actual risk."

3. The current amount of pesticides on most foods is already below the level that the USDA considers to be safe. 

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/why-you-shouldnt-buy-organic-based-on-the-dirty-dozen-1689190822

The Answer

1. True, organic produce can have pesticides. Organic farmers are legally allowed to use certain pesticides. However, I am not concerned by that. Here's why.

USDA certified organic is like the lowest common denominator -- it is merely a standard that people could agree to. Many think it is too lax and some think it is too strict. But I would be willing to bet money that the certified-organic farmer at the local farmers' market in California is using much less pesticide than the limit allowed under the certification standards. (If you are buying your organic produce from a huge corporate giant, then I might worry.)

2. True, but that's the point. If consumers drive down the total amount of pesticides being used, that would be fantastic!

The dirty dozen just gives people something to focus on if the goal of going totally organic seems overwhelming.

3. Not true. 

I have read too many cases where the USDA or some similar agency declares that something is safe, only to be proven wrong later. And I'm not talking about edge cases, complex interactions, or other "gotchas". The process by which the federal government determines whether a new chemical is safe for public consumption is inherently flawed.

But here's the real problem....

The EWG provides a wonderful service to people. The database that they have put together is a truly amazing resource. But it is just that, a resource. It is not a definitive guide. It can not tell you what you should and should not do. Only you can determine that for yourself.

At the end of the day, the EWG needs to drive people to their website to justify their continued existence. Sometimes they use fear mongering to generate views. That's what bothers me most about EWG. Their messages should be about empowerment, not fear. There is no such thing as zero risk, so let's stop pretending we can get there. We need to view things holistically and figure out where we can reduce the most amount of risk.

Do this, not that! The water dilemma

Question # 1

A friend recently asked if it's better to waste a cup or use the water to clean a reusable thermos every day. We are in California, which is experiencing an extreme drought, so conserving water is top of mind for all of us.

Answer

Technically, yes, using a disposable paper cup uses less water than washing a thermos, but only at an extremely local level. If you look at the larger picture, it takes a half gallon of water to make the cup (plus more water to make the sleeve and the lid). Let's just round off the numbers and say it takes about 1 gallon of water for your average starbucks cup.

By comparison, washing the thermos by hand should use less than 2 cups of water (let's estimate it at 1 cup of hot water for soaping and 1 cup for rinsing) or about 1/8th of a gallon.

What if you use a dishwasher? Modern dishwashers use about 4 gallons per load (older models use about 6 gallons) and can fit anywhere from 30 to 50 items (not including utensils). Even using the more conservative numbers, if you only run the dishwasher when you have a full load (and I know you do!) that's about 1/5th of a gallon per item (30 items per 6 gallons is 5 items per gallon, so 1/5th gallon per item).

Still way less than the paper cup!!

Of course, there are many, many more reasons not to use a paper cup. They use huge amounts of petroleum to make, they are covered in plastic to make them waterproof, they can't be recycled and there are potential issues with composting them. But here is one new reason I came across when researching this article.

Every time you use a paper cup you are supporting the Koch brothers.

Holy crap! That's a shocker, right?! The Koch brothers, the billionares that fund the extreme wing of the Republican Party, aren't just in the oil business. They have an entire empire of evil including oil, chemicals, synthetic fertilizers, mining, and, yes that's right, paper products. Their subsidary, Georgia-Pacific, makes cups, plates, napkins, towerls, and toilet paper. Support democracy and forgo the paper cup!

Question # 2

This spawned a related question: How many gallons of water does it take to make a paper diaper versus wash a cloth diaper?

Answer

Okay, so this is a trickier question. In the first analysis, we basically ignored the amount of water used to create the reusable thermos because the average person only needs one thermos over the course of his or her lifetime. This means that the environmental costs of the mug are amortized out to nearly nothing.

Things are a little different with diapers. For cloth diapers you might need 5 in a day (so maybe 40 total diapers to get you through the week till you have enough for a load of laundry) and will only use them for 2 or 3 years. In this case, it might make sense to include the water used to make the cloth as part of the analysis. If you threw away the diapers after your toddler is potty trained, then cloth diapers actually use more water.

But let's assume that you plan to use the same cloth diapers on the next child and then after that as rags for cleaning around the house. This allows us to disregard the amount of water used in growing and manufacturing cotton (which is actually a darn lot of water!). Now we are left only with the amount of water used to clean the diaper. The average washing machine uses 40 gallons per load (15 gallons if you use a high efficiency, front loading washer). Let's also assume that you fit all 40 diapers in to that one load -- that's about 1 gallon per diaper.

How about the disposable diaper? I found a UK study that calculated the total amount of water used to manufacture all the diapers a child needs (4,200 diapers assuming 2.5 years and 4.6 changes per day). Its about 34,000 kilograms, so that works out to about 2 gallons per disposable diaper.

Based on these assumptions, the cloth diaper wins!

Of course, there are a number of other reasons to use cloth diapers. Disposable diapers are made with tons of nasty chemicals, use non-renewable resources (we're looking at you, petroleum!), and so on.

Beyond just the absolute amounts of water or energy or chemicals, I'd like to make a pitch for reusable products. Forgoing disposables makes us think more about the consumer products we buy: how long they'll last and what we'll do with them when they're no longer of use to us. It's a fundamentally different frame of mind that I think is better for our health and for the environment. 

Changing how we talk about the Earth

Lately I've been thinking about mental frames. Frames are powerful tools for persuasion that work at a nearly subconscious level. We use frames every day, often without thinking about it.

What is framing?

To briefly illustrate how framing works, I'll summarize a clever study done by two researchers from Stanford (see endote for citation). 

Two groups of students each read a fictitious news article about crime. In one version, the article refers to crime as an infection; in the other, crime is a wild animal. In all other ways, the two articles are otherwise identical. After reading the article, the students are asked what they think should be done to prevent crime. 

Students who had read about crime as a "beast preying on the city" thought that there should be more enforcement. Students who read about crime as a "virus infecting the city" thought more should be done about social reform. When asked to identify what in the article had influenced their thinking, most students pointed to the stats in the article, not the metaphor. 

 

So what do frames have to do with environmentalism?

Lately, I've wondered if we are framing our relationship to Earth in the wrong way. We always say "Mother Earth". But, at least in the United States, you do not take care of your mother. You respect your mother, but your mother is not your responsibility in the same way your child is your responsibility. 

The connotation of mother brings along other images besides one of respect. For example, I associate my mother with caring for me and for punishing me when I've been naughty. Let's explore those two frames a little more. 

The "caring mother" frame is pretty obvious to identify in mainstream media-- take, for example, movies like Avatar. Interestingly enough, the "punishing mother" frame is ALSO frequently reflected in the general media. For example, apocalytpic movies like The Day After Tomorrow show Mother Earth as finally reaching the breaking point and giving us a really bad spanking. Alternatively, Mother Earth can ground us (sending us to bed without dinner, not letting us watch TV, etc) by turning into a post-apocalytpic world wherein our old standards of living can not be met. We see examples of this type of "punishing mother" frame in movies like Water World or Wall-E. 

What I am wondering is if maybe there is a better frame for Earth. What if we thought about the Earth as our BABY? If the Earth was our child, it would be our responsibility to care for it. It would also bring up feelings and images of parental love. These sorts of feelings, I believe, are often associated with campaigns protecting charistmatic mega-fauna. That these campaigns have worked well would suggest that we should capitalize on this framing. 

Seems like an idea at least worthy of a little more exploration. Your thoughts?

Thibodeau & Boroditsky (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS One 6(2).

 

Make this one small change to your cosmetics (for a safer you and a greener world)

Okay, again, I admit, this is a steal from this month's beauty guide section in Real Simple. Again, apologies for not posting a link, but I think it is too recent to be on the online version.

Real Simple interviewed Jody Villecco, the coordinator for Whole Foods Market on global quality standards (pretty cool job!) about which small change to your cosmetic line up would have the biggest bang for the buck.

"If you would like to keep as many of your conventionally formulated favorites in your routine as possible but still minimize your exposure to synthetics, body lotion is the best switch to make." This is because it covers the largest percentage of your skin.

The article doesn't mention this, but I would imagine, you use more lotion in total than other products, so using a biodegradable/non-synthetic lotion is better for the world too. 

How can I dispose of nail polish safely? Three solutions

The Question

You buy a huge pot of nail polish, only to wear it a couple times. Why does the polish container have to be so big? Does anyone actually ever use all of it?!? Then it just sits there, making you feel guilty for buying it in the first place. How can you get rid of it safely?

The Answer

Alternative 1: I recently read the solution in Real Simple. This month's edition has a section on environmentally friendly cosmetics (Sorry! I can't find the article on their online edition, otherwise I would put the link here). Real Simple found someone from EPA to ask! Enesta Jones, the US EPA spokesperson, said that you should take your old polishes to a household hazardous waste facility (see my blog article about that here and even more about it here). You should also drop off your unused hair dye there too.

Alternative 2:  Here was another good tip the article gave, "If there isn't a HHW facility in your area, let the polishes dry out by loosening the caps and leaving them outside... for 48 hours, then throw them away. This process allows the solvents in the polish to break down and evaporate, which means that they won't seep into the groundwater surrounding a landfill, says Doug Schoon, the president of Schoon Scientific, a company that provides regulatory technical consultation tot he beauty industry."

I admit I don't know who this Schoon guy is, but the advice makes sense. Oxidation -- either through air, sunlight, or fire -- is a good way to break down bad chemicals. This is why so many of the toxic chemicals taken to HHW facilities are incinerated. (FYI, the other way to break down nasty chemicals is by having bacteria eat them up and digest them. I've heard about this being used to break down used plastic baby diapers! Yucky!) Anyway, if you take them to the HHW facility, then poor people can use the nail polishes that you don't want anymore but aren't so old as to be crusty and gross.

Alternative 3: Then, searching on the internet, I found this other cool thing. There is a nail polish company called Zoya that holds an Earth week nail polish exchange, so you can bring in your old polish and exchange it for new ones. They take care of properly disposing the old stuff. Sounds pretty cool, assuming they are sincere (here is the link). I guess the Zoya prides itself on making nail polish that is less hazardous than normal polishes. I've never tried them, so I can't vouch for their products, but it seems like a nice thing to do.

Speaking of which, have you seen some of the Earth Day nails out there? Woah. Some people really get into it. (See youtube tutorial here for the nails pictured below. Holy crap, I could never do that in a hundred years.)

One easy thing you can do to combat climate change

The Question

What is one easy thing I can do to combat climate change?

The Short Answer

This one thing is so easy, you'll want to start doing it today. In fact, it is so easy, you'll think it doesn't really count. But if you read the long answer, you'll see why it does count and why you should pat yourself on the back every time you do it. Ready for it?

Tell someone you know that you believe in climate change and so do your friends and neighbors. Tell them that you support taking action against climate change -- and so do 80% of your fellow Americans.

The Long Answer

I recently read a great book that had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It is called, "Smarter than you think: How technology is changing our minds for the better", written by Clive Thompson. It is a great book that I highly recommend. But why am I talking about it here? 

Well, one of the topics Clive discusses is "ambient awareness". In other words, social media allows people to be more aware of what the other people in their lives are doing or thinking. Ambient awareness can work at a very small or a very big scale. For example, Chinese protesters stopped a copper smelting plant from being built. A small group of citizens used social media to bring the problem to the attention of their community. When everyone in the community found out and realized that everyone else was against it too, the crowd reached a tipping point and took action.

Clive talks about racial segregation in the US in the '60s. At that point, there were laws against it, but people were still engaging in racist behavior. Sociologist Hubert O'Gorman researched the issue, polling Americans across the country. He found that most people did not support segregation, but many people thought that their neighbors did support segregation. In other words, most moderate Whites thought they were surrounded by a bunch of racists and were afraid of upsetting the status quo.

This made me think of the recent sea change on gay rights. Suddenly, a whole bunch of Americans (and their legislators) realized that not only did they support gay rights, but so did their neighbors (and employers and fellow church goers, and so on). The president came out for gay rights (May 2012), DOMA fell (June 2013), and all the while states across the country are repealing anti-gay laws or putting in place laws protecting gay marriage.

Wouldn't it be amazing if something like that happened for climate change?

The amazing thing is that it could. Everything about communication research tells us that this is right. George Lakoff, celebrated cognitive linguist, said that the most important thing we can do is keep climate change top of mind (he also says we should frame it as a climate crisis, not as global warming, but more on that here).

Or take for example the cognitive scientists studying risk perception at Yale Law School. One of their studies showed that conservatives who are the most educated are the most polarized on climate change. Science literate conservatives have a strong personal interest in having beliefs in line with their friends and family, but because they are science literate, they have to work extra hard to find faults with climate science (Read more about it here).

The team behind Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication does a lot of public polling on America's attitudes about the climate crisis. As a professional survey methodologist, I have great respect for their methods and reporting. Their reports show that not only do the vast majority of Americans believe climate change is real, but they want to take action against it. (Read their reports here). In November 2013, that figure was above 80%. That's awesome!

Now all we need to do is spread the word. You don't have to evangelize, you don't have to confront a climate denier. Just quietly and consistently mention it. Put a post on your Facebook about it. Discuss a related news item with a coworker.

See, isn't that easy?

In the news: Uplifting stories III

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

The BBC does a great job of reporting environmental news that is truly newsworthy -- personal, prompt, and prominent. Here are some recent articles that caught my attention.

Apple to use ethically sourced materials -- yeah! Read it here.

The city's impact on wildlife is not as bad as we thought. Endemic species still manage to survive. Find the article here.

Logging laws can be hard to enforce. A new application allows tree loss to be detected in near real time. The system uses both satellite imagery as well as citizen reports to update a map showing tree cover. Indigenous peoples of the Brazilian rainforest are already using smartphones to flag illegal logging. This is the next step in citizen reporting! Again, from the BBC.

Chicago to eat the Asian carp into extinction. Finally, an invasive species gets what is coming to it. Read more over here.

Why is the weather so horrible all of a sudden? This great article from the BBC explains it in lay terms.

Poorly designed cities are bad for your health. Read it here, then go support local green space initiatives near you!

Distant planet terrified it may one day be infested by humans. Okay, this one is just for laughs. From the Onion.

Is fluoride safe?

The Question

A friend of mine asked me to check out this article: 
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

"I am wondering how different the amount China's environment has compared to toothpaste...or US fluorinated water..." 

In other words, should we be worried about drinking fluoridated water or using regular toothpaste?

The Short Answer

There are two types of risk to consider here: acute fluoride poisoning and long term exposure to fluoride.

1. Acute: Most people in the United States are not at risk for acute fluoride poisoning. High levels of fluoride can cause brain damage in children similar to mercury or lead. If you have a young child, use fluoride-free toothpaste until you are sure your child can spit out the toothpaste.

2. Long term: this type of exposure to moderate levels of fluoride may cause teeth and bones to weaken. The risk is real, but small. Some areas of the country do not even bother to fluoridate water, so check with your local water district before starting to worry. If the levels of fluoride in your local tap water are higher than 2ppm and you drink a lot of tap water (versus juice, sparkling water, etc), consider reducing your exposure to fluoride by switching to fluoride-free toothpaste. 

The Long Answer

First of all, let's cover some basics. How does fluoride work and why do we bother with it?

Remember back to chemistry class when your teacher taught you that nature works towards equilibrium? For example, salt will cross a membrane until the solution on both sides is equally salty. The same thing happens with teeth and bones. If there is a lot of acid in your mouth (from sugar or plaque) your teeth will start to lose minerals. If you eat lots of mineral dense food and water, minerals like fluoride and calcium will sink back into the teeth. If there is too much, though, teeth can be hypermineralized meaning there is not enough collagen in the tooth matrix to keep it strong. This can make teeth or bones too brittle and more likely to break.

This hypermineralization from overexposure to fluoride is called fluorosis, and, again, children are more susceptible to this risk than are adults because their teeth and bones are still developing. Children under 6 years of age should not use toothpaste or mouthwash with fluoride [WebMD on fluorosis]. However most adults do not need to worry about this unless they live in an area where there is too much fluoride in the water.

What about the article your friend mentioned? The article is a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies conducted in China where there are high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water. Elevated levels of fluoride were linked to small problems in brain development, similar to what is seen with exposure to mercury or lead. The article does not mention specifics, but it seems like they are dealing with cases that are closer to acute toxicity than to what we might see in the USA with long-term damage from lower levels.

The article also seems to skip a lot of other details that would be useful to know when trying to draw conclusions. For example, what other factors might also explain the phenomenon? Water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride might also have elevated levels of lead or mercury. Also, the study does not discuss what type of fluoride occurs in the water -- there are many different types of fluoride isotopes, and this naturally occurring fluoride may not be equivalent to what is typically added in toothpaste or public drinking water. In other words, natural fluoride might be more chemically reactive and therefore more dangerous.

So what other information do we have? A study from the National Academy of Science sheds a little more light on the topic. Their brief states that the EPA level of max 4ppm of fluoride in water is too high for people who drink fluoridated water over their lifetime. But again, the risk here is long term exposure to low levels. No mention is made of problems with brain development for children. The report also estimates how much fluoride exposure comes from water and how much comes from toothpaste and mouthwash. From what I've read, it looks like switching to fluoride-free toothpaste could reduce your ingestion of fluoride from anywhere between 10 and 40%.

Peeps in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. You have no need to worry. Santa Clara county water district started fluoridating their water in 2011 [see their website], but levels are at 2 mg/lt (milligrams per litter which is nearly equivalent to parts per million) [see their Jan'14 report]. San Mateo's 2012 water quality report showed 0.17 ppm of fluoride.

Will my Brita water filter remove fluoride?

Nope. Only distillation and reverse osmosis will remove fluoride. But, again, check with your local water district's water quality report before deciding if you need to make any changes. 

How do I take care of my period in an environmentally friendly way?

Over the last two years, I have been quietly evangelizing the diva cup to my close female friends. So far, all of them have had positive reactions, so I think it is time for my advice to go prime time. 

The Question

How do I take care of my period in an environmentally friendly way?

The Answer

Most women in the United States deal with their period by using tampons or pads. For a long time, I thought that these were the only options. However, there is a third, superior option that is popular in Canada and other Western countries. It is called a menstrual cup. 

What is a menstrual cup? Good question, I'm glad you asked. A menstrual cup is a small cup made of medical grade silicone that you insert in to yourself in order to catch your flow. It can stay in for up to 12 hours before you take it out, empty it, wash it, then re-insert. A single cup can be used for several years. 

Where do I buy one? There are two menstrual cups commonly available on the market called the moon cup or the diva cup. I found mine at Whole Foods, but they can easily be ordered online through Amazon. A cup costs about $40 and comes in one of two sizes -- narrow (for women under 30 who have not had children) and wide (over 30 or who have had children). The size is important because the "channel" widens as you age or after you have children. 

The cup takes some time to get used to because it can be tricky to learn how to insert it. However, once you get used to it, you will never go back. For me, it completely changed the way I thought about my period. I only have to think about it twice a day -- once in the morning and again before night. Also, some women report that using the cup reduces their cramps. Even women who hate tampons say that they can easily forget that the cup is there at all. Again, all of the female friends I have told now use the cup and love it. 

Of course, this solution is environmentally friendly, because you are using fewer resources. Also, it is ideal for avid backpackers, because there is no trash to throw away -- you dispose of your flow in the same way that you dispose of your poop (i.e., in a hole, preferably in the same hole as your poop). 

Try it for yourself, I promise you will not be disappointed. 

-- Your personal green expert

In the news: Uplifting stories II

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

1. The Economist covers a new business model for R&D designed to spur green technology -- in this case, the paper industry. Businesses from one industry pool resources to develop a cleaner technology, then each company races to put the developed technology into production.

2. The Hollywood Reporter states a Captain Planet movie is in the works. Need I say more?

3. Taiwan builds an enviro-friendly stadium that looks like a dragon, as shown in the blog GreenBuzz.

4. Philipinne delegate to the climate talks goes on hunger strike after typhoon destroys his homeland, as covered in the BBC News.

5. Elephant whisperer. Yeah, that's right. This 14-year old girl saves towns in India from lost and rampaging elephants. Reported by the BBC News.

 

Are artificial sweeteners safe?

The Question

A friend of mine recently asked about artificial sweeteners. Are they safe? Do they have any environmental impact? Which, if any, should I use?

The Answer

Short answer: Eat real food, use honey as a sweetener, train yourself to prefer less sugary food.

Long answer:The fact is that we don't really know if artificial sweeteners are safe or not. Just because they are allowed on the US food market now, does not mean they are not harmful to consume. The US Government assumes that if there is no proof that it hurts consumers then it must be safe. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where something once thought benign turned out to be toxic after many, many people had suffered (e.g., cigarettes, chemicals in hair spray, BPA in plastic). 

Let's keep in mind that not all countries treat their citizens like guinea pigs. For example, in the European Union, they follow the Precautionary Principle. If there is a reasonable assessment that some new product could be dangerous, then it is up to the industry to prove that it is safe. Of course, this decision is weighed against other considerations, such as, is there a viable alternative (e.g., some new medical procedures or medicines carry great risk, but there is no current alternative, so the procedure or medicine is approved). 

So the question is, is there a reasonable assessment that sweeteners are risky to consume? And if so, is there a viable alternative?

Understanding how artificial sweeteners work and are made is the first step to evaluating the risk of consuming them. First, it is important to know that sugar is very inefficient at delivering the perception of sweetness to our taste buds. Artificial sweeteners have the same calorie content as sugar or honey, but because they are so efficient at delivering the perception of sweetness, only a tiny amount is needed to get the same level of perceived sweetness as in sugar. Most of the powder in a packet of sweetener is actually just filler, like sand, so that the sweetener can be measured out.

Yeah, that's right, sand. Look for it on the label as "silica". But, honestly, that is probably the safest part of what you are consuming. 

So, how do they get such an efficient perception of sweetness out of such a small amount of material? For every sweetener on the market, with the exception of stevia, it means chemically processing some existing sweet thing (like sugar) so as to strip off the part that has the calories. Because these chemicals are used as part of the "process" they do not need to be labeled as ingredients, but there are residues in the food. For example, some estimates put the arsenic in Splenda to be about 2% of volume. Keep in mind that arsenic is a bioaccumulator. That means it builds up in the body over time. Scary!

What was that you said about stevia? Right. So, stevia is the only sweetener currently available on the mass market that is made through a physical process rather than a chemical process. It starts as a plant that grows in South America; the leaves get harvested and dried, then soaked in water to extract the part responsible for sweetness. The processing sort of reminds me of how we get caffeine out of tea leaves or coffee beans. Overall, pretty harmless. 

BUT (you could feel the "but" coming, couldn't you?), there is still reason to be cautious. Some people (including nutritionists, doctors, and scientists) are concerned about what the fake sweets are doing to our bodies. Keep in mind that our bodies evolved for thousands of years only knowing sweetness as fruit and honey, and knowing that there would be calories and essential vitamins and minerals in those foods. Scientists are now studying how the body reacts when it perceives sweetness but then does not get the associated calories and nutrients. So far, the results are still out -- not enough evidence has amounted one way or the other. 

So what does that leave us with? In my opinion, the healthiest thing you could do is just eat real food. No soda, no candy, no pastries, no meal-replacement bars... not with sugar, corn syrup, or artificial sweeteners. If you want something sweet, eat fruit or add a little honey. You can train your body not to like overly sweet things (same is true for salty things). It might be hard at first, but you will be healthier in the long run for it. 

If you want to read more about which foods to eat and not eat, I highly recommend In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan. It is very easy to read, but very well researched and presented. It gives clear advice on what to eat and why.

And if you're in doubt, ask your personal green expert.

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!