Kevin Maillefer / Unsplash
By Lynne Peeples
Editor's note: This story is part of a nine-month investigation of drinking water contamination across the U.S. The series is supported by funding from the Park Foundation and Water Foundation. Read the launch story, "Thirsting for Solutions," here.
In late September 2020, officials in Wrangell, Alaska, warned residents who were elderly, pregnant or had health problems to avoid drinking the city's tap water — unless they could filter it on their own.
<p style="">More than 3,000 miles (4,800 kilometers) away, the people of <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7208933-Scituate-Water-Notification-9-10-2020.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Scituate, Massachusetts</a>, received a letter that same month cautioning about the same group of contaminants in their <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>.</p>
<p>At issue wasn't any of the well-known and widely feared water infiltrators such as <em>E. coli </em>or <a href="https://ensia.com/features/drinking-water-contamination-pfas-health/" target="_blank">per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)</a>. The culprit chemicals tainting taps from <a href="https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/environment/2016/05/31/elevated-disinfection-byproducts-taint-cocoa-water/85184636/" target="_blank">Cocoa, Florida</a>, to the <a href="https://auburnpub.com/news/local/several-cayuga-county-water-systems-violate-standard-for-chlorination-byproduct/article_d5568ecc-edd0-55b1-a858-37aaf2b1c82f.html" target="_blank">Finger Lakes of New York</a> to a correctional facility in <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/drinking-water-enforcement-tennessee-98500/" target="_blank">Only, Tennessee</a>, are, in fact, less recognized yet more ubiquitous: disinfection by-products.</p><p>"Take a glass of water. You may or may not have pesticides, pharmaceuticals, PFAS and lead in it. Usually not," says Susan Richardson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. "But there's always something that is in your drinking water, and that's disinfection by-products."</p><p>Aptly named, the chemicals form in water when disinfectants that are widely used to kill pathogens in municipal drinking water facilities react with organic compounds. These compounds may be present in the water as a result of natural processes such as the decay of leaves and animal matter, as well as human activities that may release solvents, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and industrial chemicals. Exposure to disinfection by-products through drinking, bathing or <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b00808" target="_blank">swimming</a> has been linked to potential <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343720302876" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increased risks</a> of <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/23264/study-disinfection-byproducts-drinking-water-may-increase-risk-low-birth" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">low birthweight babies</a>, birth defects, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29676755/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">miscarriages</a> and <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP4495" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cancer</a>.</p><p>"Disinfection is hugely important. We've got to kill those pathogens," says Richardson. "We had millions of people dying from waterborne illnesses before we started disinfecting water in the 1800s."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ1OTg0Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MjIyNTA3OH0.DKXIFu4fZ0XqVAZV7df25Oy2M3D8In7XWlMAwuQZJbA/img.jpg?width=980" id="a78a8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="83c6c4c4dcac6fa45d912d7316b69bdb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="426" /><p>Cholera and typhoid fever were once deadly and pervasive threats. Still today, when concentrations of disinfectants fall too low, drinking water can become a breeding ground for dangerous pathogens such as <a href="https://ensia.com/features/legionella-pathogens-drinking-water/" target="_blank">Legionella</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12638998/" target="_blank"><em>E. coli</em></a><em>, </em>even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/19/world/cholera-kills-1100-in-peru-and-marches-on-reaching-the-brazilian-border.html" target="_blank">cholera</a>.</p><p>"It's a trade-off between inactivating pathogens that are going to make people sick today versus the long-term, low-level risk of chemicals in the water," says Christy Remucal, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343720302876" target="_blank">Striking a balance</a> may be even more challenging today as waters become increasingly compromised due to population growth, wastewater intrusion, energy exploration, climate change — and now the Covid-19 pandemic, according to Richardson.</p><p>During the pandemic, many places have increased use of chlorine for disinfection in indoor and outdoor settings and during wastewater treatment, resulting in the potential for higher levels of disinfection by-products. Authors of a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c04394" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> published in October warn that this "upsurge and overuse of chlorine-based disinfectants" may pose a threat to human health "by impacting water quality."</p><p>Concentrations of harmful chemicals have also likely increased in buildings left vacant during Covid-19 shutdowns. The longer that water sits in pipes, explains Richardson, the longer it has to react with disinfectants and form more by-products.</p><p>Still, Gregory Korshin, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, encourages perspective on the issue of disinfection by-products. The answer, he and others say, is not to stop disinfecting water, nor is it for everyone to buy bottled water.</p><p>"There is a dark side of disinfection," adds Korshin. "But this doesn't compromise the notion that drinking water in the U.S. is safe."</p>
Unintended Consequences
<p>Chemists first discovered disinfection by-products in treated drinking water in the 1970s. The trihalomethanes they found, they determined, had resulted from the reaction of chlorine with natural organic matter. Since then, scientists have identified more than 700 additional disinfection by-products. "And those only represent a portion. We still don't know half of them," says Richardson, whose lab has identified hundreds of disinfection by-products. </p><p>Identification of disinfection by-products is incredibly difficult, she explains, because these chemicals are not simply flowing down a river from an industrial site or running off a farm. "They didn't exist before," she adds. "It's a complete unknown — there's no preconceived idea of what these chemicals look like."</p><p>Another research team recently discovered more previously unidentified disinfection by-products. As they described in a January 2020 <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b04926" target="_blank">study</a>, potentially carcinogenic chemicals are formed through the interaction of chlorine and not only organic matter in the environment but also manmade materials that include phenols such as <a href="https://ensia.com/features/what-will-it-take-to-rid-our-store-shelves-of-bpa/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bisphenol A (BPA)</a> and other plasticizers, as well as sunscreen agents and antimicrobials.</p><p>"These phenol compounds are incredibly widespread because of their properties," says Carsten Prasse, a coauthor on the study and an assistant professor of environmental health and environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. He highlights their use in both plastic pipes and plastic bottles, which frequently carry drinking water.</p>
What’s Regulated and What’s Not?
<p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently regulates 11 disinfection by-products — including a handful of trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic acids (HAA). While these represent only a small fraction of all disinfection by-products, EPA aims to use their presence to indicate the presence of other disinfection by-products. "The general idea is if you control THMs and HAAs, you implicitly or by default control everything else as well," says Korshin.</p><p>EPA also requires drinking water facilities to use techniques to reduce the concentration of organic materials before applying disinfectants, and regulates the quantity of disinfectants that systems use. These rules ultimately can help control levels of disinfection by-products in drinking water.</p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/reviewed-disinfection-byproducts.php" target="_blank"><img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ1OTg1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzYyNTAwNX0.1IaCMF-b4X9jtCSFsZuQfRvQCO54EqgfRcGulUoMP10/img.jpg?width=980" id="36d2f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e8502b4c0de9cbd99651d4978548af81" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1144" data-height="1036" /></a>
Click the image for an interactive version of this chart on the Environmental Working Group website.
<p>Still, some scientists and advocates argue that current regulations do not go far enough to protect the public. Many question whether the government is regulating the right disinfection by-products, and if water systems are doing enough to reduce disinfection by-products. EPA is now seeking public input as it considers potential revisions to regulations, including the possibility of regulating additional by-products. The agency held a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/potential-revisions-microbial-and-disinfection-byproducts-rules" target="_blank">two-day public meeting</a> in October 2020 and plans to hold additional public meetings throughout 2021.</p><p>When EPA set regulations on disinfection by-products between the 1970s and early 2000s, the agency, as well as the scientific community, was primarily focused on by-products of reactions between organics and chlorine — historically the most common drinking water disinfectant. But the science has become increasingly clear that these chlorinated chemicals represent a fraction of the by-product problem.</p><p>For example, bromide or iodide can get caught up in the reaction, too. This is common where seawater penetrates a drinking water source. By itself, bromide is innocuous, says Korshin. "But it is extremely [reactive] with organics," he says. "As bromide levels increase with normal treatment, then concentrations of brominated disinfection by-products will increase quite rapidly."</p><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15487777/" target="_blank">Emerging</a> <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05440" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">data</a> indicate that brominated and iodinated by-products are potentially more harmful than the regulated by-products.</p><p>Almost half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of either the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, where saltwater intrusion can be a problem for drinking water supplies. "In the U.S., the rule of thumb is the closer to the sea, the more bromide you have," says Korshin, noting there are also places where bromide naturally leaches out from the soil. Still, some coastal areas tend to be spared. For example, the city of Seattle's water comes from the mountains, never making contact with seawater and tending to pick up minimal organic matter.</p><p>Hazardous disinfection by-products can also be an issue with desalination for drinking water. "As <a href="https://ensia.com/features/can-saltwater-quench-our-growing-thirst/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">desalination</a> practices become more economical, then the issue of controlling bromide becomes quite important," adds Korshin.</p>Other Hot Spots
<p>Coastal areas represent just one type of hot spot for disinfection by-products. Agricultural regions tend to send organic matter — such as fertilizer and animal waste — into waterways. Areas with warmer climates generally have higher levels of natural organic matter. And nearly any urban area can be prone to stormwater runoff or combined sewer overflows, which can contain rainwater as well as untreated human waste, industrial wastewater, hazardous materials and organic debris. These events are especially common along the East Coast, notes Sydney Evans, a science analyst with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG, a collaborator on <a href="https://ensia.com/ensia-collections/troubled-waters/" target="_blank">this reporting project</a>).</p><p>The only drinking water sources that might be altogether free of disinfection by-products, suggests Richardson, are private wells that are not treated with disinfectants. She used to drink water from her own well. "It was always cold, coming from great depth through clay and granite," she says. "It was fabulous."</p><p>Today, Richardson gets her water from a city system that uses chloramine.</p>Toxic Treadmill
<p>Most community water systems in the U.S. use chlorine for disinfection in their treatment plant. Because disinfectants are needed to prevent bacteria growth as the water travels to the homes at the ends of the distribution lines, sometimes a second round of disinfection is also added in the pipes.</p><p>Here, systems usually opt for either chlorine or chloramine. "Chloramination is more long-lasting and does not form as many disinfection by-products through the system," says Steve Via, director of federal relations at the American Water Works Association. "Some studies show that chloramination may be more protective against organisms that inhabit biofilms such as Legionella."</p><p>If a drinking water facility fails to meet EPA regulations for disinfection by-products, one relatively easy and cheap modification is to add ammonia to the existing treatment, turning chlorine to chloramine. Many large community water systems in the U.S. now use chloramine. By doing so, according to Richardson, they have dropped levels of regulated disinfection by-products by up to as much as 90%.</p><p>However, there is one major drawback to this shift: the creation of potentially more harmful by-products. "It might push down on regulated disinfection by-products, but then other things pop up that are even more toxic," says Richardson, whose research team discovered previously unknown disinfection by-products in chloraminated drinking water. One of those finds, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es304786b" target="_blank">iodoacetic acid</a>, is the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30919613/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">most DNA-damaging disinfection by-product</a> known to date.</p><p>Prasse underscored the concern: "From a regulatory perspective, we could say we're fine. But it's a false sense of security."</p><p>Rather than continuing on the toxic treadmill of replacing one potentially toxic chemical for another, a more effective solution may be to focus upstream in the treatment process — such as keeping organics out of the system in the first place. "That requires engineers, chemists, toxicologists and regulators to come together and figure something out," says Prasse.</p>
Alternative Approaches
<p>When he moved to the U.S. from Germany, Prasse says he immediately noticed the bad taste of the water. "You can taste the chlorine here. That's not the case in Germany," he says.</p><p>In his home country, water systems use chlorine — if at all — at lower concentrations and at the very end of treatment. In the Netherlands, <a href="https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009.pdf" target="_blank">chlorine isn't used at all</a> as the risks are considered to outweigh the benefits, says Prasse. He notes the challenge in making a convincing connection between exposure to low concentrations of disinfection by-products and health effects, such as cancer, that can occur decades later. In contrast, exposure to a pathogen can make someone sick very quickly.</p><p>But many countries in Europe have not waited for proof and have taken a precautionary approach to reduce potential risk. The emphasis there is on alternative approaches for primary disinfection such as ozone or <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/eco-friendly-way-disinfect-water-using-light/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ultraviolet light</a>. Reverse osmosis is among the "high-end" options, used to remove organic and inorganics from the water. While expensive, says Prasse, the method of forcing water through a semipermeable membrane is growing in popularity for systems that want to reuse wastewater for drinking water purposes.</p><p>Remucal notes that some treatment technologies may be good at removing a particular type of contaminant while being ineffective at removing another. "We need to think about the whole soup when we think about treatment," she says. What's more, Remucal explains, the mixture of contaminants may impact the body differently than any one chemical on its own. </p><p>Richardson's preferred treatment method is filtering the water with granulated activated carbon, followed by a low dose of chlorine.</p><p>Granulated activated carbon is essentially the same stuff that's in a household filter. (EWG recommends that consumers use a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/reviewed-disinfection-byproducts.php#:~:text=EWG%20recommends%20using%20a%20home,as%20trihalomethanes%20and%20haloacetic%20acids." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">countertop carbon filter</a> to reduce levels of disinfection by-products.) While such a filter "would remove disinfection by-products after they're formed, in the plant they remove precursors before they form by-products," explains Richardson. She coauthored a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b00023" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2019 paper</a> that concluded the treatment method is effective in reducing a wide range of regulated and unregulated disinfection by-products.</p><br><img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ1OTg2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjI3OTk2NX0.XuxufjUTyOygRCpgnG2jXqOIy4isl7Vz1QlnMmKSyHM/img.jpg?width=980" id="003a3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0da178217c0a9dd4c3c880e1c05a86f9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1144" data-height="312" />
Greater Cincinnati Water Works installed a granulated activated carbon system in 1992, and is still one of relatively few full-scale plants that uses the technology. Courtesy of Greater Cincinnati Water Works.
<p>Despite the technology and its benefits being known for decades, relatively few full-scale plants use granulated active carbon. They often cite its high cost, Richardson says. "They say that, but the city of Cincinnati [Ohio] has not gone bankrupt using it," she says. "So, I'm not buying that argument anymore."</p><p>Greater Cincinnati Water Works installed a granulated activated carbon system in 1992. On a video call in December, Jeff Swertfeger, the superintendent of Greater Cincinnati Water Works, poured grains of what looks like black sand out of a glass tube and into his hand. It was actually crushed coal that has been baked in a furnace. Under a microscope, each grain looks like a sponge, said Swertfeger. When water passes over the carbon grains, he explained, open tunnels and pores provide extensive surface area to absorb contaminants.</p><p>While the granulated activated carbon initially was installed to address chemical spills and other industrial contamination concerns in the Ohio River, Cincinnati's main drinking water source, Swertfeger notes that the substance has turned out to "remove a lot of other stuff, too," including <a href="https://ensia.com/features/drinking-water-contamination-pfas-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PFAS</a> and disinfection by-product precursors.</p><p>"We use about one-third the amount of chlorine as we did before. It smells and tastes a lot better," he says. "The use of granulated activated carbon has resulted in lower disinfection by-products across the board."</p><p>Richardson is optimistic about being able to reduce risks from disinfection by-products in the future. "If we're smart, we can still kill those pathogens and lower our chemical disinfection by-product exposure at the same time," she says.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://ensia.com/features/drinking-water-disinfection-byproducts-pathogens/" target="_blank">Ensia</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649953730#/" target="_self"></a></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder Among Officials to Be Charged in Flint Water Crisis
13 January
Politics
Former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is seen testifying on Flint, Michigan's tainted water scandal on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 17, 2016. Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images
Former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and other state officials face new charges over the Flint water crisis, The Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
<p>Snyder governed Michigan in 2014, when a state-appointed special manager of Flint, Michigan, switched the majority Black city's water supply to the Flint River. The river's highly corrosive water was not treated, enabling it to leach <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" target="_self">lead</a> from aging pipes that contaminated the water system. Bacteria in the water was also blamed for an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease that sickened at least 90 and killed 12.</p><p>"The very fact that people are being held accountable is an amazing feat," LeeAnne Walters, a Flint mother of four who is credited with exposing the contamination, told The Associated Press. "But when people's lives have been lost and children have been severely hurt, it doesn't seem like enough."</p><p>Walters wanted more details about the charges, which are so far unclear. The Associated Press learned from two people with knowledge of the investigation that the state attorney general's office had informed defense lawyers about pending charges and court appointments.</p><p>A source told <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/12/flint-water-probe-snyder-charges/6642737002/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Detroit News</a> Tuesday that Snyder, top aide Rich Baird and former health director Nick Lyon would face criminal charges. Former Flint public works director Howard Croft will likely be charged as well, his lawyer confirmed. Indictments of up to 10 people could be announced as soon as Thursday. But the attorney general's office has said it is not ready to release more information.</p>
<p>"It's an ongoing investigation," Courtney Covington, the attorney general's office spokeswoman, told The Detroit News. "The team is working diligently, though and we do hope to have an announcement on the status of that investigation soon."</p><p>The new charges would be part of an investigation into the Flint water crisis instigated by prosecutors working for Attorney General Dana Nessel. A previous investigation launched by former Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette had already charged Lyon, among others, but Nessel's office <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/flint-water-crisis-criminal-charges-2638815965.html" target="_self">decided to drop</a> all previous charges in 2019 and start over, arguing that there were major problems with the initial investigation.</p><p>Snyder's lawyer spoke out against any potential charges, arguing they were politically motivated.</p><p>"It is outrageous to think any criminal charges would be filed against Gov. Snyder. Any charges would be meritless," attorney Brian Lennon said in a written statement reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/us/michigan-former-governor-snyder-flint-water-charges/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "Rather than following the evidence to find the truth, the Office of Special Counsel appears to be targeting former Gov. Snyder in a political escapade."</p>
<p>However, there is already some evidence Snyder knew more about the crisis than he claimed. In mid-January 2016, he told reporters he had just learned about the Legionnaires' outbreak, The Associated Press reported. But his urban affairs adviser Harvey Hollins later told a judge that Snyder had been informed on Christmas Eve 2015.</p><p>Flint politicians and activists spoke out in favor of Snyder's conviction.</p><p>"It's just wonderful. It's finally here. It's hitting me right now," former Flint Mayor Karen Weaver told The Detroit News. "It's about time. All evidence pointed to him that he knew, that he knew what was going on. It was a cover-up for 18 long months that something was going on with Flint and the water."</p><p>The criminal investigation is separate from a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/flint-michigan-water-crisis-settlement-2647038028.html" target="_self">$600 million settlement</a> that the state of Michigan reached with victims in August 2020.</p><p>In the meantime, Flint is still repairing its infrastructure. Current Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeley told the<a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/12/former-michigan-governor-charges-flint-water-crisis/6644125002/https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/12/former-michigan-governor-charges-flint-water-crisis/6644125002/" target="_blank"> Detroit Free Press </a>that a project to replace all lead home service lines was almost finished, with less than 500 left to be excavated.</p><p>"Our community has been through a tragedy it never should have faced, but Flint is strong and we will continue moving forward," Neeley told the Detroit Free Press.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- What You Need to Know About the Flint Water Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Michigan Agrees to Pay $600 Million to Flint Water Crisis Victims ... ›
- Michael Moore: 10 Things They Won't Tell You About the Flint Water ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Charlotte's Web: A Review of the Certified B Corp CBD Brand ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- CBD Oil for Dogs: 7 Benefits & Treatment Guide - EcoWatch ›
- NuLeaf Naturals CBD Review | Are They Worth The Cost? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Capsules & Pills - Buyer's Guide (Update for 2021) - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal
02 December 2020
Health + Wellness
A plane sprays pesticide over the Wynwood neighborhood in the hope of controlling and reducing the number of mosquitos, some of which may be capable of spreading the Zika virus on Aug. 6, 2016 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
A national nonprofit revealed Tuesday that testing commissioned by the group as well as separate analysis conducted by Massachusetts officials show samples of an aerially sprayed pesticide used by the commonwealth and at least 25 other states to control mosquito-borne illnesses contain toxic substances that critics call "forever chemicals."
<p>Officially known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">PFAS</a>), this group of man-made chemicals — including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX — earned the nickname because they do not break down in the environment and build up in the body. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a> has been linked to suppressed immune function, cancers, and other health issues.</p><p>Lawmakers and regulators at various levels of government have worked to clean up <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> contaminated by PFAS. The newly released results of pesticide testing by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) generated alarm about the effectiveness of such efforts.</p><p>"In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads," PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/aerially-sprayed-pesticide-contains-pfas-forever-chemicals-potentially-spread" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday.</p><p>"The frightening thing is that we do not know how many insecticides, herbicides, or even disinfectants contain PFAS," added Bennett, who arranged for the testing. "PEER found patents showing chemical companies using PFAS in these products, and recent articles discuss the variety of pesticides that contain PFAS as either an active or an inert ingredient."</p>
<div id="d4091" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="64ed42ca263b7280932e8f8d4e445802"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333816394283065344" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: @PEERorg found that toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were sprayed on millions of acres in MA & 25 other states.… https://t.co/TcR3vCuXna</div> — Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch)<a href="https://twitter.com/foodandwater/statuses/1333816394283065344">1606841584.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The product tested initially by PEER and subsequently MADEP, once the nonprofit alerted the department of its findings, is Anvil 10+10, produced by the Illinois company Clarke.</p><p>Karen Larson, Clarke's vice president of government affairs, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/01/metro/toxic-forever-chemicals-found-pesticide-used-millions-mass-acres-when-spraying-mosquitos/" target="_blank">told</a> the Boston Globe that "when this was first brought to our attention, we conducted an internal inquiry of our manufacturing and supply chain to ensure that PFAS was not an ingredient in the production, manufacturing, or distribution of either the active or inactive ingredients of Anvil."</p><p>"No PFAS ingredients are used in the formulation of Anvil, nor in the production of any source material in Anvil. PFAS components are not added at any point in the production of Anvil," she said. Larson added that while it is unclear why the Clarke pesticide contained PFAS, the company "will continue to work closely with the EPA to conduct our own testing."</p>
<p>PEER executive director Tim Whitehouse detailed the recent testing results in a <a href="https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MA-DEP-Ltr-Anvil-11-25-20-1.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">letter</a> sent last week to MADEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg that called for halting the use of Anvil 10+10, ensuring any replacement does not contain forever chemicals, and requiring pesticide companies to comprehensively test their products for PFAS:</p><blockquote>This fall, PEER conducted several tests for PFAS of a 2.5 gallon jug of Anvil 10+10, the pesticide used in the aerial spraying programs of Massachusetts and many other states. Our tests revealed that Anvil 10+10 contains roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 260–500 ppt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a GenX replacement for PFOA. Both these results are hovering around the detection limits of the laboratory's equipment, but there is no doubt that these PFAS are in the insecticide. While PFAS may be useful when added to pesticides as surfactants, dispersants, and anti-foaming agents, it is unclear whether the PFAS found in Anvil 10+10 is an ingredient added by the manufacturer, contained in one of the ingredients supplied to Anvil's manufacturer by other companies, or whether it is a contaminant from the manufacturing/storage process. Moreover, since we were only able to test for 36 PFAS out of the 9,252 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) inventory, it is impossible to know how many other PFAS might be in Anvil 10+10.<br>[...]<br>When PEER obtained its first positive PFAS results on Anvil 10+10, we immediately contacted DEP because of the far-reaching implications. MADEP independently tested nine samples of Anvil 10+10 from five different containers, and found eight different PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. Some PFAS levels were over 700 ppt. As such, there appears to be no doubt that there are PFAS in the pesticide Massachusetts has chosen for mosquito control.</blockquote>
<p>Whitehouse noted that Massachusetts aerially sprayed 2.2 million acres with Anvil 10+10 last year and more than 200,000 acres this year. The Boston Globe explained that "most of the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/service-details/mosquito-control-and-spraying?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">spraying</a> has been done in the southeastern part of the state, where EEE, a rare but deadly mosquito-borne disease, has been most prevalent."</p><p>The EPA, which has been lambasted by lawmakers as well as environmental and public health advocates for its handling of PFAS contamination on a national scale, is working on "an analytical method" to detect the forever chemicals in pesticides and plans to conduct its own tests of Anvil 10+10, according to the newspaper.</p><p>"There are significant unanswered questions about the data currently available," Dave Deegan, a spokesperson for the federal agency's offices in New England, told the Boston Globe. "EPA will continue to work closely with and support the state on this issue. Aggressively addressing PFAS continues to be an important, active, and ongoing priority for EPA."</p>
<p>Bennett and other critics of the EPA's response to PFAS reiterated concerns about the agency in the wake of the revelations in Massachusetts.</p><p>"This PFAS fiasco shows that public trust in EPA having a full accounting of these materials and their safety is utterly misplaced," said Bennett. "Until EPA acts, states need to adopt their own safeguards and chemical disclosure requirements because they certainly cannot depend upon the diligence of EPA."</p><p>In a statement about the testing on Tuesday, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/pfas-discovered-common-pesticide-sprayed-millions-acres" target="_blank">declared</a> that "these findings shock the conscience — states likely have unknowingly contaminated communities' water with PFAS hidden in pesticides. Once again, the EPA has failed to protect the American people from harmful pollution."</p><p>Emphasizing that "we need to stop the introduction of toxic forever chemicals into the environment and our water sources to protect public health," Hauter said that "the EPA must ban all pesticides with PFAS components, designate PFAS as hazardous substances to hold polluters accountable for cleanup of contamination, and set strong enforceable standards for PFAS in our drinking water."</p><p>"The GOP-controlled Senate must step up and pass the PFAS Action Act, which passed the House in January, to regulated these toxic compounds and hold polluters accountable, and Congress must pass he WATER Act to provide the financial relief to community water providers and households with wells to remove PFAS from drinking water or find alternative sources where treatment fails," she added. "Now is the time for decisive action to protect people's health and safety."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/tests-reveal-toxic-forever-chemicals-aerial-pesticide-showered-over-millions-acres" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Will the Biden Administration Tackle 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Are Forever Chemicals Harming Ocean Life? - EcoWatch ›
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A team of scientists found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. Mariusz Potocki / National Geographic
Apparently, there ain't no mountain high enough to keep away the twin pressures of plastic pollution and the climate crisis.
<p>A series of newly-published studies based on a National Geographic expedition to Mount Everest in 2019 provide a shocking picture of how human activity is impacting the highest point from sea level on Earth. One of the studies even found <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastics</a> just below the summit, at 8,440 meters (approximately 27,690 feet).</p><p>"Mt. Everest is somewhere I have always considered remote and pristine," University of Plymouth scientist and National Geographic Explorer Dr. Imogen Napper, who was the lead author on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> study, told EcoWatch in an email. "To know we are polluting near the top of the tallest mountain on earth is a real eye opener – we need to protect and care for our planet."</p>
<h3>Microplastics at the Top of the World</h3><p>Napper's study, published in the journal <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30550-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>One Earth</em></a> Friday, found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. The findings join a growing body of research showing the extent of microplastic pollution in even the most remote corners of the planet.</p><p>"These are the highest microplastics currently ever discovered," Napper told EcoWatch. "Although it sounds exciting, this means that microplastics have been discovered from the depths of the ocean all the way to the highest mountain on earth."</p><p>There has been growing awareness in recent years of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/china-mount-everest-trash-2629508814.html?share_id=4408439" target="_self">buildup of trash</a> on Mount Everest left behind by tourists and climbers. In 2019, the Tibet Autonomous Region Sports Bureau said it removed 9.3 tons of waste, and China closed its Everest base camp to tourists to prevent more pollution. Some media outlets have even begun to refer to the mountain as the "world's highest garbage dump."</p><p>However, Napper's study is the first to focus on the accumulation of microplastics on the mountain specifically. Microplastics are plastics less than five millimeters in length that typically slough off of larger plastics as they degrade. Their small size means they are easily ingested by animals by mistake and are also extremely difficult to clean up.</p>
<p>Napper's team found more microplastics collected near the base camp, where climbers tend to congregate. But they still found five microfibers at the mountain's "balcony," the highest point they studied. Those fibers numbered one clear acrylic fiber, one red polyester fiber and three blue polyester fibers.</p><p>In general, many of the microplastics found on Everest were fibers that could have been brought by climbers.</p><p>"Samples collected on the mountain and in the valley below it revealed significant quantities of polyester, acrylic, nylon, and polypropylene fibres," Napper told EcoWatch. "The materials are increasingly being used to make the high performance outdoor clothing commonly used by climbers, as well as the tents and climbing ropes used in attempts to climb the mountain."</p>
<p>However, other studies have shown that microplastics can be carried to remote environments by the atmosphere. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">2019 study</a> found that plastics were being lifted in the air and deposited as snow in the Arctic and the Alps. Napper said similar mechanisms could be bringing the plastics to Everest.</p><p>"[T]he microplastics may have been transported from lower altitudes by the extreme winds which regularly impact the mountain's higher slopes," Napper said.</p><p>So how can we keep Everest, and other remote environments, plastic free? Napper argued that, while reducing plastic use and improving recycling were both important, it is also crucial to develop new materials. This is particularly the case for the kind of specialized gear used to explore remote areas.</p><p>"There are a lot of promising developments in industry at the moment. We need to keep up the momentum, and ensure that athletic gear is tested and evaluated before use," Napper told EcoWatch. "Solutions need to deliver a positive account, not create future issues."</p>
<h3>Glaciers Melting Into Air</h3><p>Napper's article was just one of at least 16 that came out of the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition. That expedition brought 10 research teams including 34 international and Nepali scientists to Everest from April and June of last year in order to study the impacts of human activity on the mountain.</p><p>In addition to the accumulation of microplastics, studies focused on the impacts of the climate crisis on the mountain. One, <a href="https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(20)30915-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">published in iScience</a>, detailed how global warming is actually increasing the oxygen available to human climbers as warmer temperatures have increased air pressure. Another, published in <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30549-2" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">OneEarth</a>, documented how Everest's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glaciers%5D" target="_self">glaciers</a> have thinned by more than 100 meters (approximately 328 feet) since the 1960s. Not only that, but the ice loss is accelerating, and glaciers are losing mass even at high altitudes.</p><p>Study leader and University of St. Andrews glaciologist Dr. Owen King said the melting of the higher glaciers was the "biggest surprise" from the results. His team measured thinning at the 5,700 meter (approximately 18,702 foot) Khumbu icefall and the 6,000 meter (approximately 19,685 foot) Rongbuk and Rongbuk East glaciers.</p><p>"The conditions found at this altitude are usually considered ideal for snow and ice accumulation, but our data suggest that they have now become more susceptible to ice melt," King said in an email to EcoWatch.</p>
<p>The melting of mountain glaciers is a big deal, because they are an important source of water to surrounding communities.</p><p>"Continued and, as we have shown, accelerating ice loss raises concerns about the sustainability of the supply of glacial meltwater, particularly at times of the year when monsoon rainfall cannot provide a backup, or in times of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought" target="_self">drought</a>," King said.</p><p>Understanding how climate change will impact mountain glaciers is the ultimate goal of the Perpetual Planet expeditions, of which the Everest trip was the first.</p><p>"The 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition was selected as a fantastic opportunity to support ground breaking research that fills a critical data gap in our understanding of how mountain systems are changing," Nicole Alexiev, vice president of science and innovation at the National Geographic Society, told EcoWatch in an email. "High mountain glaciers serve as the world's water towers, storing and providing water resources for 1/5 of the global populations. Despite the importance of high mountain systems, there is very little research conducted above 5,000m [approximately 16,404 feet] – especially interdisciplinary research – so we were excited to support this expedition which aimed to examine the world's highest mountain and its glaciers using expertise from the disciplines of biology, geology, glaciology, meteorology, and mapping."</p><p>Future expeditions will explore the Andes and western Canada, where mountain glaciers supply water to Santiago, Chile and the Columbia and Fraser river watersheds.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Antarctica's Food Chain for First Time ... ›
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Things to Know About Plastic Pollution and How to Stop It - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Michigan Governor Moves to Prevent Great Lakes Oil Spill by Shutting Down Aging Pipeline
16 November 2020
Energy
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer Celebrates Great Lakes and Fresh Water Week, on Aug. 14, 2020. Michigan EGLE / YouTube
Enbridge's aging Line 5 pipeline may finally be forced into retirement.
<p>Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director Dan Eichinger informed Enbridge Friday that they were revoking the Canadian company's easement to run twin <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipelines</a> under the Straits of Mackinac, which divide Lakes Michigan and Huron, the <a href="https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/11/13/whitmer-revoke-enbridge-line-5-oil-pipeline-easement/6277027002/" target="_blank">Detroit Free Press reported</a>.</p><p>"Here in Michigan, the Great Lakes define our borders, but they also define who we are as people," Whitmer said in a statement reported by the Detroit Free Press. "Enbridge has routinely refused to take action to protect our Great Lakes and the millions of Americans who depend on them for clean <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> and good jobs."</p><p>The Line 5 pipeline has carried <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> beneath the Straits since 1953, when it was granted an easement to do so by the state of Michigan. It currently carries 23 million gallons of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas" target="_self">oil and gas</a> each day through Michigan's Upper Peninsula, splits in two to transport it beneath the lakes and then carries it in another single pipeline through the Lower Peninsula into Ontario.</p>
<p>Whitmer argued that Enbridge had violated the terms of the easement by ignoring structural problems that increased the risk of a devastating <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill" target="_self">oil spill</a> in the Lakes. For example, Enbridge was aware that a section of the underwater coating on the twin pipelines was damaged in 2014 but did not inform the state for three years. Whitmer is giving the company until May of 2021 to cease operations in the Straits.</p><p>At the same time, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a complaint in Ingham County Circuit Court asking the judge to uphold the governor's action, <a href="https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/11/enbridge-line-5-ordered-shut-down-by-michigan-gov-whitmer.html" target="_blank">Michigan Live reported</a>.</p><p>Whitmer contends that the pipelines violate the "public trust" doctrine, which entrusts Michigan with protecting the bottom of the Great Lakes for its residents.</p>
<p>"Transporting millions of gallons of petroleum products each day through two 67-year old pipelines that lie exposed in the Straits below uniquely vulnerable and busy shipping lanes presents an extraordinary, unreasonable threat to public rights because of the very real risk of further anchor strikes and other external impacts to the Pipelines, the inherent risks of pipeline operations, and the foreseeable, catastrophic effects if an oil spill occurs at the Straits," the notice she sent to the company read.<br></p><p>Enbridge, however, countered that the pipelines remained safe.</p><p>"This notice and the report from Michigan Department of Natural Resources are a distraction from the fundamental facts," Enbridge Liquids Pipelines Executive Vice President and President Vern Yu said in a statement reported by Michigan Live.</p><p>Alberta Premier Jason Kenney also opposed the move.</p><p>"The impact of this would be devastating," Kenney said, as <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7464389/enbridge-line-5-pipeline-michigan/" target="_blank">Global News reported</a>. "It is the single largest supply of gasoline ultimately in southern Ontario, for aviation fuel out of the Detroit airport, for heating fuel in northern Michigan, for the refineries in northern Ohio that fuel much of the midwest U.S. economy, so this is a very very big deal."</p>
<p>However, environmental groups, who have long raised alarms about the pipeline, praised Whitmer's decision.</p><p>"Line 5 should have never been built in the first place," Mike Shriberg, regional executive director of the <a href="https://www.nwf.org/great-lakes" target="_blank">National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Regional Center</a>, told the Detroit Free Press. "Gov. Whitmer is now bravely, and correctly, standing up for the Great Lakes. This is a legacy-defining action by the governor. She is standing on the side not only of clean water, but clean energy and the jobs that go along with the transition to a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/renewable-energy" target="_self">renewable energy</a> economy."</p><p>The National Wildlife Federation <a href="https://blog.nwf.org/2020/11/a-win-a-decade-in-the-making-governor-whitmer-moves-to-shut-down-line-5/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">noted</a> that another Enbridge pipeline was responsible in 2010 for one of the worst inland oil spills in U.S. history, when its Line 6b spilled more than one million gallons of tar sands into 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River.</p>
<p>Whitmer's action will not immediately affect <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/enbridge-line-5-replacement-2609955963.html" target="_self">plans to replace</a> Line 5 with a new pipeline to be installed in a tunnel drilled into the bedrock beneath the Straits, according to Global News. The deal to build the replacement was struck between Enbridge and Whitmer's predecessor Republican Rick Snyder. However, Enbridge is still in the process of seeking state and federal permits for the project.</p><p>Environmental groups oppose the replacement as well, arguing that the Great Lakes would be vulnerable to spills during the seven to 10 year construction process and that there are better ways to meet Michigan's energy needs. Now, Shriberg argued that Whitmer's shutdown of the existing pipelines would bolster the case of those who oppose their replacement.</p><p>"Enbridge could still go ahead with their current tunnel proposal, but it's going to be much harder to prove to regulators there's a need if Line 5 is already shut down," he told the Detroit Free Press.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Standing Rock Veterans Lead Fight to Shut Down Enbridge Line 5 ... ›
- Great Lakes 'At Risk' From Plan to Replace Aging Enbridge ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Thanasis Zovoilis / Stone / Getty Images
By Scott Faber
No candidate for president has ever pledged to make the toxic "forever chemicals" known as PFAS a priority – until now.
<p>In his environmental justice plan, President-elect Joe Biden <a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/" target="_blank">pledged</a> to set enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water and to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund cleanup law. </p><p>Here's why that matters.</p>
<p>PFAS chemicals are building up in the blood of every American, posing the risk of serious health problems. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/06/pfas-chemicals-harm-immune-system-decrease-response-vaccines-new-ewg" target="_blank">PFAS makes vaccines less effective</a> and are linked to cancer, harm to the reproductive system and other health hazards.</p><p>More than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/study-more-200-million-americans-could-have-toxic-pfas-their-drinking-water" target="_blank">200 million Americans</a> are likely drinking water and eating food contaminated with PFAS. Nevertheless, the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Protection Agency,</a> Food and Drug Administration and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/dodpfastimeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Defense Department</a> have for decades failed to address the chemicals' health risks. There are no federal limits on PFAS releases and uses and no requirements to clean up PFAS pollution.</p><p>Setting a national drinking water standard for PFAS under the federal Safe Drinking Water would have a huge impact on public health. Right now, only a <a href="https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/SummaryStateRegulationPFASDrinkingWaterFeb2020.pdf?ver=2020-02-03-091914-153" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">few states</a> require drinking water utilities to meet tough standards for PFAS in tap water. A national standard that would apply to all utilities would dramatically reduce our overall exposure to PFAS.</p><p>Designating PFAS as "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/07/it-s-time-designate-pfas-hazardous-substance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hazardous substances</a>" under Superfund would also be historic. By doing so, the Biden-Harris administration would not only kick-start the cleanup process but also require polluters to pay their fair share of cleanup costs.</p><p>But that's not all the Biden team has pledged. The president-elect also pledged to prioritize PFAS substitutes in the marketplace. That means Biden could direct the EPA and the FDA to quickly phase out non-essential uses of PFAS in food packaging, cosmetics, sunscreens and other everyday products.</p><p>The Biden team will have other tools at its disposal. The president-elect could quickly restrict industrial discharges of PFAS into the air and water by using the tools provided by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and expand reporting of these releases through the Toxic Release Inventory. Right now, more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/04/updated-thousands-industrial-facilities-likely-discharging-toxic-forever" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2,500 manufacturers</a> are thought to be releasing PFAS with no limits.</p><p>The Biden-Harris administration can also direct the Defense Department to accelerate efforts to end the use of PFAS-based firefighting foam, impose a moratorium on the incineration of remaining stocks of PFAS foam, and accelerate PFAS cleanup at military installations. More than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-military-pfas-sites/map/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">300 military installations</a> are known to be contaminated with PFAS.</p><p>No candidates have ever pledged to do as much to address America's environmental challenges as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And that is especially the case for PFAS pollution.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.ewg.org/experts/scott-faber.php" target="_blank">Scott Faber</a> is the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at the Environmental Working Group. </em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Detected in California Drinking Water ... ›
- How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal - EcoWatch ›
- Harmful PFAS Compounds Pollute Water in Every State - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Brain-Eating Amoeba Found in Texas City's Water Spurs Disaster Declaration
28 September 2020
Health + Wellness
Brain-eating amoeba, naegleria fowleri, was detected in the water storage tank for the Lake Jackson Civic Center Splash Pad, according to Lake Jackson city officials. Lake Jackson Civic Center
Environmental officials have warned residents of Lake Jackson, Texas to boil their water before using it for cooking or drinking after a six-year-old boy died from a brain-eating amoeba in the water. Tests for naegleria fowleri showed its presence in three of 11 samples in the Lake Jackson area, including one from a hose at the boy's home, according to the AP.
<p>Lake Jackson is a suburb of Houston, just over 50 miles south of the city.</p><p>Texas Governor Greg Abbot referred to the water sample tests when he issued a <a href="https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/DISASTER_Brazoria_County_water_disaster_IMAGE_09-27-2020.pdf" target="_blank">disaster declaration</a> Sunday. He said, "the presence of naegleria fowleri, which can cause a rare and devastating infection of the brain called primary amebic meningoencephalitis, was identified in three of 11 tests of the water supply, posing an imminent threat to public health and safety, including loss of life," as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-governor-issues-disaster-declaration-over-brain-eating-amoeba-found-in-lake-jackson-water-supply/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p>
<p>Health officials let Lake Jackson know that a boy had become infected with the brain-eating amoeba in early September. Exposure to the microbe usually happens through the nose and the boy's family believes he was exposed through the family's hose or from the nearby Lake Jackson Civic Center Splash Pad where water sprays up from the ground, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/water-supply-brain-eating-amoeba.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The splash pad was tested and the brain-eating amoeba was detected in both the splash pad's storage tank and a nearby fire hydrant, said Lake Jackson city officials, as NBC News reported.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/general.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> (CDC), the dangerous species is found in freshwater lakes, warm rivers, hot springs and soil. It can also thrive in poorly maintained pools or unchlorinated ones, as well as warm water waste from factories, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/26/us/brain-eating-amoeba-found-in-texas-water-supply-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>"You cannot get infected from swallowing water contaminated with Naegleria," said the CDC in guidance on parasites posted on its website, as <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/houston-area-water-may-be-tainted-brain-eating-microbe-n1241185" target="_blank">NBC News</a> reported.</p><p>Initially, eight communities were warned not to use tap water for anything except flushing the toilet. However, further testing localized the problem and the warning was lifted on Saturday for all cities in Brazoria County except for Lake Jackson, according to CBS News.</p><p>Then late in the day, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality relaxed its decree for Lake Jackson, changing it from an order not to use the water to a notice to boil the water before consumption. It also warned residents not to let water up their nose during various activities such as bathing, swimming and washing their face, according to the AP.</p>
<p>Lake Jackson, a city of 27,000, will see its water flushed and then tested before the "do not drink" order is lifted, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54313110" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p><p>"During this period of disinfection and flushing, boiling the tap water makes it safe for drinking and cooking," said the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a statement, as the AP reported. "Naegleria fowleri is a type of amoeba that can be managed using standard treatment and disinfection processes."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Flesh-Eating Bacteria Infects Three as Experts Warn Warming ... ›
- Deadly Brain-Eating Amoeba Confirmed in Florida - EcoWatch ›
- Can Texas Stop Its Taps From Running Dry? ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump looks on as EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks during an event to unveil changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on Jan. 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The Trump administration announced that it would roll back a rule from 2015 that was put in place to limit the amount of toxic chemicals that are in the wastewater of coal plants, according to The Washington Post.
<p>The rule insisted that coal plants invest in newer technologies to treat their wastewater so toxic heavy metals like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead">lead</a>, selenium and arsenic are not leached into nearby <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams where they can damage fragile ecosystems and also seep into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>, as The Washington Post reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/2020-steam-electric-reconsideration-rule" target="_blank">regulations</a> put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), which is run by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, allows coal plants to dial back their investment in new technologies; the regulations delay the date that plants needed to be in compliance, and they exempt some coal-fired plants from taking any corrective or pollution-limiting action, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/climate/trump-coal-plants.html" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The compliance date is pushed back to 2025 for some plants. The ones exempted from the rule are done so with the expectation that they will be retired by 2028.</p><p>The "effluent limitations" regulations that the EPA rolled out Monday will save the coal industry $140 million, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-coal/u-s-epa-rolls-back-limits-on-waste-water-from-coal-plants-idUSKBN25R2QK" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>"Newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation's phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time," said Wheeler, as Reuters reports.</p><p>The Obama administration had said that the 2015 rule would limit 1.4 billion pounds of toxic pollutants from entering U.S. waterways each year. Coal plants use scrubbers to capture mercury, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals that would be emitted through smoke stacks. That rule has been in place since the 1980s, but what to do with those trapped pollutants is a thorny issue. Coal plants had been allowed to dump them into nearby waterways until the 2015 rule took effect, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>And yet, without evidence, the current EPA said it expects the same or even greater pollution reductions because coal plants will supposedly adopt the newer technologies voluntarily. The EPA's math is based on the assumption that 30 percent of coal plants will implement technologies that are beyond the regulations required by the EPA, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/trump-toxic-water-pollution-wastewater" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"It's clear from this rule that a relatively inexpensive treatment technology is available – the one that they made voluntary – that would eliminate the toxic contamination of drinking water supplies and is very affordable. And yet they did not require it," said Betsy Southerland, an Obama EPA water official, to The Guardian. "People should be very concerned."</p>
<p>Environmental activists quickly criticized the rule as a gift to the coal industry and a shortsighted measure that ignored the health of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and people that live near coal plants, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>Thomas Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice, told The New York Times that the EPA's actions will allow older, dirtier coal plants to stay alive longer since they do not have to invest in upgrades.</p><p>"There are dozens of water bodies around the country where the local water is significantly impacted by this type of direct dumping of toxic metals from power plants," said Cmar to The Times.</p><p>Cmar said Earthjustice will attempt to stop the rollback in court.</p><p>"Giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty," Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email, to The Washington Post. "This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways, threatening public health and pushing hundreds of aquatic endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and hellbender salamanders, closer to extinction."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More ... ›
- EPA Moves to Overhaul Obama-Era Coal Ash Disposal Rule ... ›
- EPA Delays Toxic Waste Rule for Coal-Fired Power Plants - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Legionnaire's Bacteria Found in Drinking Water at Nine Reopened Schools
28 August 2020
Health + Wellness
Nine schools in Ohio and Pennsylvania have found legionella bacteria in their drinking water. FREDERIC J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images
In addition to taking precautions against the novel coronavirus, schools across the country find themselves needing to worry about a new scourge: legionella bacteria in their drinking water, according to The New York Times.
<p>Recently, nine schools in Ohio and Pennsylvania found the harmful bacteria in their water. In Fox Chapel, PA, a suburb of Pittsburgh, four out of the town's six schools tested positive for the bacteria. Because the schools were unused for so long, nearly six months, the water just sat in the pipes and did not have a chance to move. That created a condition for the bacteria to thrive, according to <a href="https://www.wpxi.com/news/back-to-school/legionella-found-water-4-6-fox-chapel-schools-days-before-opening/AEKK5BL2ZRBVTJFRLLGGDM6Y4U/" target="_blank">WPXI News</a> in Pittsburgh.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/causes-transmission.html" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a>, people get sick when they inhale mist that has the bacteria or they ingest water with the bacteria in it. It can cause severe pneumonia or lung infection, which is worrying when the nation is already grappling with COVID-19, an infectious disease that leads to severe pneumonia.</p>
<p>Similarly, schools outside of Dayton, Ohio found the bacteria in their water last week. In all of those cases, the outbreak was noticed in locations that were far from classrooms or drinking fountains, such as one faucet in a seldom used bathroom, according to <a href="https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/breaking-news-legionella-found-in-oakwood-school/4WXX7O7WZBFRNIQCZJASGPLLQY/" target="_blank">Dayton Daily News</a>.</p><p>"We would have capability to wash hands, we would provide drinking water, we have toilets that are working, and we have the ability to serve lunch," said superintendent Rob O'Leary, defending the district's decision to proceed with in-person instruction and to keep the schools open, as <a href="https://dayton247now.com/news/local/disease-expert-says-legionella-tests-in-schools-should-be-warning-for-all-industries" target="_blank">Dayton 24/7</a> reported.</p><p>O'Leary added that the school district ran disinfectant through all the school's water lines and cleaned the aerators on all of its faucets.</p>
<p>The Milton-Union school district, also in Ohio, received a federal grant to test its water over the summer. It found the bacteria in a drinking fountain and in two faucets on only the cold-water side, according to <a href="https://www.whio.com/news/local/legionella-bacteria-found-milton-union-schools-water-samples/JKGNIEL7GBERJP5OV6UZDBLSG4/" target="_blank">WHIO News</a> in Ohio.</p><p>"Ice machines we tested it all," said Tim Swartztrauber, West Milton Water Supervisor and Chief Inspector to WHIO. "Luckily we did because we did find legionella. We tested every drinking fountain and we got it in a drinking fountain. Without that this probably would have been missed."</p><p>Swartztrauber added that they ran chlorine through the system to disinfect it and then flushed out the chlorine to make the water safe again.</p>
<p>Andrew Whelton, an associate professor of civil, environmental and ecological engineering at Purdue University in Indiana, was involved in the study at the Milton-Union schools and said it would not have been possible without the federal grant. That leaves a question of how many schools across the country are not testing their water because they don't have the funds to do it, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"If somebody contracts legionella and legionnaires disease the exposure can be fatal," Whelton said to WHIO. "So it is serious."</p><p>It's highly unusual for schools to go for such an extended time without use. Even during the summer months, there's often summer school, sports practice, and custodial work being done.</p>
<p>"Schools generally do not have a water management plan," Whelton said to the New York Times. "There's a myth that most do. They don't in my experience."</p><p>Whelton told The New York Times that the bacteria would likely show up with greater prevalence if schools actually conducted tests.</p><p>"If parents haven't heard from their schools about whether or not testing is being conducted, then they should start asking questions," he said.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'This Will Be the Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country ... ›
- Flint: 5 Years Later, and Our Water Is More Threatened Than Ever ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Waste is found dumped at a marsh near the mouth of Neshaminy Creek to the Delaware river in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on Feb. 6, 2019. Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Melanie Benesh, Legislative Attorney
From the beginning, the Trump administration has aggressively slashed environmental regulations. A New York Times analysis identified 100 environmental protections that have been reversed or are in the process of getting rolled back. The administration's record on chemical safety has been especially hazardous for the health of Americans, especially children.
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017" target="_blank">One year into President Trump's term,</a> EWG detailed how the Trump administration has stacked the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lawyers and lobbyists, undermined worker safety and cooked the books on chemical safety assessments. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic" target="_blank">Midway through his second year,</a> we reported how the EPA reversed a ban on a brain-damaging pesticide, delayed chemical bans and killed a rule to protect kids from toxic PCBs in schools. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/08/10-ways-trump-has-undermined-chemical-safety" target="_blank">Last year,</a> we reported that the EPA had rescinded safety rules at chemical plants, rubber-stamped untested new chemicals and silenced researchers.</p><p>As Trump's first term nears its end, things are even worse. Here are 10 more ways the Trump administration has continued to make life more toxic for Americans.</p>
1. Failed to Aggressively Regulate Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’
<p>The toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS contaminate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/" target="_blank">more than 2,200 sites</a> across the nation. Because they never break down in the environment, PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="_blank">forever chemicals</a>." They build up in our bodies and are linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms and reduced effectiveness of vaccines. Even though the EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank">since at least 1998</a>, they remain virtually unregulated.</p><p>In February 2019, the EPA released a toothless PFAS "action plan" that lacked deadlines for action and failed to address the use of PFAS in everyday products, contamination from PFAS air emissions or disposal of PFAS waste, among other concerns. A year and a half later, key goals from the plan, including regulating PFAS under the Superfund law and setting drinking water standards, remain unfulfilled.</p><p>When Congress stepped in and sought to designate PFOA and PFOS – the two most notorious and well-studied PFAS – as "hazardous substances" and to set deadlines for agency action, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">threatened a veto</a>. Trump's EPA also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-13738/long-chain-perfluoroalkyl-carboxylate-and-perfluoroalkyl-sulfonate-chemical-substances-significant" target="_blank">weakened a rule</a> designed to regulate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/06/final-decision-epa-fails-protect-public-toxic-forever-chemicals-consumer" target="_blank">PFAS in consumer products</a>.</p>2. Allowed a Rocket Fuel Chemical to Stay in Drinking Water
<p>Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that also frequently contaminates drinking water sources. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function, which can also harm <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/kids-still-risk-rocket-fuel-chemical-food-and-water" target="_blank">childhood brain development</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/html/2011-2603.htm" target="_blank">Almost a decade ago,</a> the EPA determined that these harms warranted regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency then dragged its feet for years. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160218" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council sued</a> to force the EPA to finally set a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. In a <a href="https://www.freshlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/12/Doc-38-Consent-Decree.pdf" target="_blank">court-approved consent decree</a>, the EPA agreed to propose a standard by October 2018 and finalize it by 2019. However, the EPA sought extensions and failed to meet these deadlines.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/26/2019-12773/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-perchlorate" target="_blank">EPA finally proposed a drinking water standard</a> in June 2019 but also suggested that it might not regulate perchlorate after all. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-13462/drinking-water-final-action-on-perchlorate" target="_blank">A year later, </a>the EPA withdrew its decision to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.</p>3. Allowed Scores of New Chemicals, Including New Toxic PFAS, Onto the Market Without Adequate Oversight
<p>In 2016, Congress substantially changed the way new chemicals are approved under the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/new-tsca-bill-falls-short-protecting-americans-toxic-chemicals#.WwLUddMvwWo" target="_blank">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, or TSCA.</p><p>Under the old law, chemicals were frequently approved by default, often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/off-the-books-ii-more-secret-chemicals/new-chemicals" target="_blank">without any health and safety information</a>. As a result, unsafe chemicals were allowed to be used for years or decades before the health and environmental hazards came to light. Inadequate oversight of new chemicals can also lead to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/harmful-chemicals-removed-from-products-often-replaced-with-something-as-bad-or-worse/" target="_blank">regrettable substitution</a> – when chemicals are finally found to be unsafe, they are often replaced by unstudied chemicals that may be just as or even more toxic.</p><p>The 2016 update was supposed to fix the new chemicals program by requiring the EPA to make an affirmative safety finding on new chemicals and restrict use if industry failed to provide sufficient safety data. Nonetheless, the Trump EPA has approved scores of new chemicals in a process that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/12/09/when-will-epa-fully-explain-and-legally-justify-its-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="_blank">lacks transparency</a> and <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">contravenes the 2016 law</a>. The EPA has also <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/05/trumps-epa-flouting-law-when-approving-new-chemicals-here-are-3-examples" target="_blank">ignored known health concerns</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="_blank">limited its consideration of worker risks</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/the-trump-epa-is-illegally-denying-requests-for-public-files-on-new-chemicals/" target="_blank">denied requests for public files</a> in the new chemicals program.</p><p>The EPA has also exploited loopholes in the new law to quickly approve new chemicals, including toxic PFAS. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/07/28/greasing-the-skids-the-trump-epa-is-green-lighting-dozens-of-new-pfas-under-tsca/" target="_blank">A recent investigation</a> found that the EPA has been quietly approving new PFAS chemicals, through a provision known as the low volume exemption in the new chemicals program. As a result, the EPA is greenlighting new PFAS chemicals on an expedited basis, without public scrutiny. One PFAS, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/01/27/what-connects-cross-country-skiing-and-chemical-safety/" target="_blank">used in ski wax</a>, was approved despite a finding that the chemical could "waterproof the lungs," resulting in severe health impacts.</p><p>Since the law was updated in 2016, the EPA has reviewed more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/statistics-new-chemicals-review" target="_blank">3,000 new chemicals</a> submissions. More than 1,000 of these chemicals have been approved through the low volume exemption, and since 2016, manufacturers have begun producing at least 900 new chemicals, many without adequate safety data. Environmental groups have <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">sued the EPA</a> over its failures to protect the public and the environment from risks from new chemicals. </p>4. Failed to Protect Workers From a Deadly Paint-Stripping Chemical
<p>Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that is responsible for <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/us-deaths-from-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">more than 60 deaths</a> since 1980. In the final days of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0001" target="_blank">EPA proposed a ban</a> on "methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal."</p><p>After significant pressure from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-reconsiders-ban-on-potentially-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">families who lost loved ones</a> due to methylene chloride exposure, the Trump EPA eventually issued a final rule in 2019. However, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-bans-consumer-sales-methylene-chloride-paint-removers-protecting-public" target="_blank">EPA narrowed the rule</a> so that it would apply only to consumer<em> uses</em> of methylene chloride, not commercial uses. That means workers are not protected, even though a <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/workers-rights/epa-restricts-sales-of-deadly-paint-strippers-after-years-of-delays/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity investigation</a> found that most deaths from methylene chloride take place at work.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/final-risk-evaluation-methylene-chloride" target="_blank">separate EPA evaluation</a> of methylene chloride found that manufacturing, disposal and several other uses of methylene chloride pose no "unreasonable risk." Environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-sued-for-leaving-workers-exposed-to-deadly-chemical-in-paint-strippers" target="_blank">the rule</a> and the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trumps-epa-sued-over-understating-risks-of-deadly-chemical" target="_blank">recent evaluation</a>.</p>5. Cooked the Books on the “Civil Action” Chemical
<p>Trichloroethylene is a chemical solvent made infamous by the book and movie "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PHjIly2N0" target="_blank">A Civil Action</a>." The EPA considers it to be a known carcinogen, and it is one of the primary contaminants that sickened scores of veterans who served at <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune" target="_blank">Camp Lejeune</a>, in North Carolina.</p><p>As with methylene chloride, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning three uses of TCE: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0163-0001" target="_blank">spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing</a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0001" target="_blank">vapor degreasing</a>. In December 2017, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-indefinitely-delays-bans-deadly-chemicals" target="_blank">shelved these proposed bans</a>, claiming that it would study those uses in a separate ongoing risk evaluation of TCE.</p><p>However, the EPA dramatically rewrote the accepted science on TCE in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-trichloroethylene" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> released in February. As <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/industry-s-behest-epa-caves-banning-civil-action-carcinogen-lays-ground" target="_blank">EWG warned</a> in 2018, the solvents industry aggressively lobbied the EPA to ignore a key <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241384/" target="_blank">2003 study</a> finding that TCE causes heart deformities in developing fetuses. TCE's connection with fetal heart defects was an important basis for the Obama EPA's decision to ban three uses of TCE. An <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303240#bib0190" target="_blank">independent review</a> of the EPA's science found that "prenatal exposure to TCE can cause human cardiac defects" and that the study "remains a valid choice" for assessing risk.</p><p>The lobbyists succeeded. The EPA's draft risk evaluation questioned the study's design and minimized its significance. An <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/epa-scientists-found-a-toxic-chemical-damages-fetal-hearts-the-trump-white-house-rewrote-their-assessment/" target="_blank">investigation by Reveal News</a> compared the draft risk evaluation with a leaked earlier draft. It found that the earlier draft had relied extensively on the 2003 study and used it as a benchmark for the risk calculations. Reveal also reported that then-EPA chemicals safety chief Nancy Beck – "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/scariest-trump-appointee-you-ve-never-heard" target="_blank">the scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of</a>" – ordered that the risk evaluation be rewritten to downplay the risks of TCE. With the EPA giving significantly less weight to risks from fetal heart deformities, it's unlikely the agency will finalize the proposed bans.</p>6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including Formaldehyde
<p>The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/03/epa-iris-toxic-chemicals/" target="_blank">frequent target of chemical industry attacks</a> because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.</p><p>In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3534381/Combined.pdf" target="_blank">defund</a> the IRIS program. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697212.pdf" target="_blank">a Government Accountability Office report</a> disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.</p><p>One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf" target="_blank">known human carcinogen</a>. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="_blank">ready for release</a>. However, answering <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/01/29/document_pm_02.pdf" target="_blank">questions for the record</a> following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."</p><p>Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-list-next-20-chemicals-undergo-risk-evaluation-under-tsca" target="_blank">conduct its own assessment</a> of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.</p>7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections
<p>Industrial chemical pollutants are often discharged into drinking water supplies. But the Trump administration has made it a priority to roll back the<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank"> Clean Water Rule,</a> which more clearly defined which kinds of bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act. EWG's analysis found that the Clean Water Rule, if implemented as proposed by the Obama administration, would have protected drinking water sources for more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="_blank">117 million Americans</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">EPA's own science advisors</a> have opposed the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, but the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-completes-repeal-clean-water-rule-imperiling-drinking-water-sources-117m-people" target="_blank">repealed</a> it in 2019, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-administration-finalizes-repeal-pollution-rule-threatening-drinking-water-sources-117" target="_blank">proposed its own rule</a> in January and <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank">finalized it</a> in April. The new rule covers far fewer bodies of water and would leave 234,000 miles of small streams unprotected. EWG estimates that at least 72 million Americans draw at least half their drinking water from small streams.</p><p>Because of the repeal, those bodies of water will no longer be subject to pollution limits. Protection for small and seasonal streams and wetlands is important because they often flow into larger bodies of water, including sources of drinking water. Polluted drinking water sources <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/" target="_blank">strain municipal water utilities</a> tasked with filtering out contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and risk exposing the public to more <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state-of-american-drinking-water.php" target="_blank">contaminants that aren't regulated</a> under the act.</p>8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos
<p>Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20375022" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a>. An estimated <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Jukka%20Takala&orcid=0000-0001-5722-7052" target="_blank">40,000 Americans</a> die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6165892895625819539&q=corrosion+proof+fittings+v+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=20006" target="_blank">the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.</a></p><p>After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-new-safety-law-epa-picks-first-10-chemicals-review" target="_blank">first 10 chemicals</a> reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.</p><p>Instead, when the EPA released its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-asbestos" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-trump-epa-acted-unlawfully-refusing-consider-legacy-use-asbestos-lead" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.</p><p>Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/25/2019-08154/restrictions-on-discontinued-uses-of-asbestos-significant-new-use-rule" target="_blank">published a rule</a> requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">leaked documents</a> show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.</p>9. Proposed a Loophole for Toxic Air Pollution
<p>In July 2019, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-14252/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act" target="_blank">Trump EPA proposed to reverse</a> a longstanding policy requiring large power plants, refineries and other industrial polluters to always meet certain strict controls, even after reducing emissions. The new rule creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act regulations that would allow large industrial facilities to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf" target="_blank">reclassify themselves</a>, from "major sources" of air pollution to "area sources."</p><p>That change would allow them to opt out of strict pollution control standards, called "maximum achievable control technology," and substantially increase their emissions of dangerous air pollutants. EPA's own data shows that more than <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-26/pdf/2019-14252.pdf" target="_blank">3,900 large facilities</a> that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications" target="_blank">emit pollutants like mercury and benzene</a> could take advantage of this loophole. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2020/02/19/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole/?conversion_pg=www.momscleanairforce.org%2Fthe-racism-of-the-epa-agenda%2F" target="_blank">The Environmental Defense Fund</a> estimates the loophole could increase toxic air emissions by as much as 480 percent, or almost 50 million pounds per year. </p><p>This rollback is especially alarming in the midst of the global coronavirus pandemic. Studies have found that people who live in areas with <a href="https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/07/17/why-air-pollution-is-linked-to-severe-cases-of-covid-19/" target="_blank">high levels of air pollution</a> are at greater risk for severe cases of COVID-19.</p>10. Continuing Its Quest to Censor Science
<p>In 2018, the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science" target="_blank">proposed a disastrous rule</a> significantly limiting the kinds of science the agency can rely on to justify environmental regulations. The rule would have prohibited the agency from using studies that don't make their underlying data publicly available or whose results can't be replicated. That change would prevent the EPA from including in its future risk assessments most <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/scientific-medical-academic-groups-urge-epa-drop-transparency-rule" target="_blank">human health studies</a>, because personal medical data must remain confidential. The rule would undermine studies that are foundational to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html" target="_blank">clean air regulations</a>.</p><p>The proposal sparked enormous opposition from scientists, academics and environmental health advocates. More than 600,000 public comments were submitted to the agency, the vast majority in opposition. In September 2019, the EPA dropped the proposal from its regulatory agenda. </p><p>But the Trump EPA is at it again. In March, the agency issued a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">supplemental proposal</a> that is actually <a href="https://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/ewg-comments-epa-strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="_blank">worse than</a> the original proposal. The 2018 proposal applied to all "dose response" studies, but the new proposal applies to all studies. The new proposal also applies retroactively, which means the EPA could use it to gut existing regulations.</p><p>As these actions – and dozens of others – show, the Trump EPA has aggressively worked to erode and eliminate vital environmental and public health protections. The public needs an EPA that will prioritize people and planet over polluters and profit.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA OK's Rocket Fuel Chemical for Water Supplies - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA OKs 'Emergency' Use of Bee-Killing Pesticide on 13.9 ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From Coal Plants - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A warning sign near the Dakota Access Pipeline endpoint in Patoka, Illinois on Nov. 11, 2016. Cyrene Krey / Flickr
The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline won a reprieve Wednesday when an appeals court canceled a lower court order mandating the pipeline be shut down and emptied of oil while a full environmental impact statement is completed.
<p>The shutdown order, which would have gone into effect Wednesday, marked the first time a major oil pipeline was court ordered to cease operations for environmental reasons. But while its reversal is disappointing for pipeline opponents, Wednesday's decision was not wholly favorable for the pipeline, either. The court refused to halt the initial order for a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-review-2645577384.html" target="_self">new environmental review</a> of the pipeline's crossing under the Missouri River, where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe fears it will pollute its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a> and sacred lands if it leaks.</p><p>"We've been in this legal battle for four years, and we aren't giving up this fight," Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith said in an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/dc-circuit-mixed-decision-dakota-access-shutdown-order?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">Earthjustice press release</a>. "As the environmental review process gets underway in the months ahead, we look forward to showing why the Dakota Access Pipeline is too dangerous to operate."</p>
<div id="e3dbb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f1c6bf3b1b2ec9c26be8e6fd6776c2be"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1291118408277397505" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">But the fight isn't over! DAPL's permit to cross underneath Lake Oahe is vacated, so it's effectively operating ill… https://t.co/EOPn59siC7</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1291118408277397505">1596661591.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In its ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put the question of whether the pipeline could continue to operate without a permit back to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/dakota-access-pipeline-staves-off-shutdown-order-once-again" target="_blank">Bloomberg News reported</a>. It said it expected the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the issue.</p><p>"It's interesting what the court did here," Earthjustice lawyer Jan Hasselman, who represents the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told Bloomberg. "While the focus has been on this judicially imposed shutdown order, the bigger picture is the environmental impact statement and whether a permit will be reissued under the next administration."</p><p>Hasselman argued that the pipeline is now operating illegally, and, if the Army Corps of Engineers decides to let it keep running while a review is completed, the issue will return to court.</p><p>"[W]e are confident that it will be shut down eventually," he said in the press release.</p>
<p>The pipeline's owner Energy Transfer had immediately appealed the shutdown order, and the company's lawyer said it would continue with the legal process.</p><p>"We believe our legal positions are strong, and we are confident that the pipeline will continue to operate," General Counsel Tom Mason told Bloomberg.</p><p>The oil and gas industry more generally had a mixed response to Wednesday's ruling.</p><p>"The Court rightly stayed the decision to shut down and empty the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been operating for over three years and provides millions of tax dollars to states, affordable energy to the entire region, and thousands of jobs along its route," American Petroleum Institute senior vice president and chief legal officer Paul Afonso said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/510748-court-cancels-shutdown-of-dakota-access-pipeline" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "However, the failure to uphold the easement granted years ago by the federal government exemplifies the problems with our outdated permitting system, which allows protracted challenges to advance within the courts and ultimately take away jobs, tax dollars, and investments that pipelines bring to communities that sorely need them."</p>
<p>The Dakota Access Pipeline currently carries 570,000 barrels of oil a day 1,172-miles from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to a shipping point in Illinois. The fight against the pipeline garnered international attention through major <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous" target="_self">Indigenous</a>-led <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/what-standing-rock-gave-world-2549906333.html" target="_self">protests</a> in 2016 and 2017. The Obama administration <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/army-corps-permit-dakota-access-pipeline-2128363393.html" target="_self">denied</a> the river crossing permit in late 2016, but President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-dakota-access-pipeline-2211697835.html" target="_self">pushed the project through</a> via executive order early after taking office. It has now been operating a little more than three years.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Judge Orders Dakota Access Pipeline to Shut Down Pending Full ... ›
- 3 States Pass Anti-Pipeline Protest Bills in Two Weeks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Connection to Dakota Access Pipeline - EcoWatch ›
- Standing Rock Veterans Lead Fight to Shut Down Enbridge Line 5 ... ›
- Stopping a Dakota Access Pipeline Leak in Under 10 Minutes? A ... ›
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Joe Leech
The human body comprises around 60% water.
It's commonly recommended that you drink eight 8-ounce (237-mL) glasses of water per day (the 8×8 rule).
<p>Although there's little science behind this specific rule, staying hydrated is important.</p><p>Here are 7 evidence-based health benefits of drinking plenty of water.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-health-benefits-of-water" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
1. Helps Maximize Physical Performance
<p>If you don't stay hydrated, your physical performance can suffer.</p><p>This is particularly important during intense exercise or high heat.</p><p>Dehydration can have <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-tell-if-youre-dehydrated" target="_blank">a noticeable effect</a> if you lose as little as 2% of your body's water content. However, it isn't uncommon for athletes to lose as much as 6–10% of their water weight via sweat.</p><p>This can lead to altered body temperature control, reduced motivation, and increased fatigue. It can also make exercise feel much more difficult, both physically and mentally.</p><p>Optimal hydration has been shown to prevent this from happening, and it may even reduce the <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/oxidative-stress" target="_blank">oxidative stress</a> that occurs during high intensity exercise. This isn't surprising when you consider that muscle is about 80% water.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19344695" target="_blank"><span></span></a></p><p>If you exercise intensely and tend to sweat, staying hydrated can help you perform at your absolute best.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Losing as little as 2% of your body's water content can significantly impair your physical performance.</p>2. Significantly Affects Energy Levels and Brain Function
<p>Your brain is strongly influenced by your hydration status.</p><p>Studies show that even mild dehydration, such as the loss of 1–3% of body weight, can impair many aspects of brain function.</p><p>In a study in young women, researchers found that fluid loss of 1.4% after exercise impaired both mood and concentration. It also increased the frequency of headaches.</p><p>Many members of this same research team conducted a similar study in young men. They found that fluid loss of 1.6% was detrimental to working memory and increased feelings of anxiety and fatigue.<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/mild-dehydration-impairs-cognitive-performance-and-mood-of-men/3388AB36B8DF73E844C9AD19271A75BF/core-reader" target="_blank"></a></p><p>A fluid loss of 1–3% equals about 1.5–4.5 pounds (0.5–2 kg) of body weight loss for a person weighing 150 pounds (68 kg). This can easily occur through normal daily activities, let alone during exercise or high heat.</p><p>Many other studies, with subjects ranging from <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/signs-of-dehydration-in-toddlers" target="_blank">children</a> to <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/symptoms-of-dehydration-in-elderly" target="_blank">older adults</a>, have shown that mild dehydration can impair mood, memory, and brain performance.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Mild dehydration (fluid loss of 1–3%) can impair energy levels, impair mood, and lead to major reductions in memory and brain performance.</p>3. May Help Prevent and Treat Headaches
<p>Dehydration can trigger <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/dehydration-headache" target="_blank">headaches</a> and migraine in some individuals.<span></span></p><p>Research has shown that a headache is one of the most common symptoms of dehydration. For example, a study in 393 people found that 40% of the participants experienced a headache as a result of dehydration.</p><p>What's more, some studies have shown that drinking water can help relieve headaches in those who experience frequent headaches.</p><p>A study in 102 men found that drinking an additional 50.7 ounces (1.5 liters) of water per day resulted in significant improvements on the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life scale, a scoring system for <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/migraine-symptoms" target="_blank">migraine symptoms</a>.<a href="https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/29/4/370/492787" target="_blank"></a></p><p>Plus, 47% of the men who drank more water reported headache improvement, while only 25% of the men in the control group reported this effect.<a href="https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/29/4/370/492787" target="_blank"></a></p><p>However, not all studies agree, and researchers have concluded that because of the lack of high quality studies, more research is needed to confirm how increasing hydration may help improve headache symptoms and decrease headache frequency.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26200171" target="_blank"></a></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Drinking water may help reduce headaches and headache symptoms. However, more high quality research is needed to confirm this potential benefit.</p>4. May Help Relieve Constipation
<p><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/constipation" target="_blank">Constipation</a> is a common problem that's characterized by infrequent bowel movements and difficulty passing stool.</p><p>Increasing fluid intake is often recommended as a part of the treatment protocol, and there's some evidence to back this up.</p><p>Low water consumption appears to be a risk factor for constipation in both younger and older individuals.</p><p>Increasing hydration may help decrease constipation.</p><p><a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/mineral-water-benefits" target="_blank">Mineral water</a> may be a particularly beneficial beverage for those with constipation.</p><p>Studies have shown that mineral water that's rich in magnesium and sodium improves bowel movement frequency and consistency in people with constipation.<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5334415" target="_blank"></a></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Drinking plenty of water may help prevent and relieve constipation, especially in people who generally don't drink enough water.</p>5. May Help Treat Kidney Stones
<p>Urinary stones are painful clumps of mineral crystal that form in the urinary system.</p><p>The most common form is <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/kidney-stones" target="_blank">kidney stones</a>, which form in the kidneys.</p><p>There's limited evidence that water intake can help prevent recurrence in people who have previously gotten kidney stones.<a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004292.pub3/full" target="_blank"></a></p><p>Higher fluid intake increases the volume of urine passing through the kidneys. This dilutes the concentration of minerals, so they're less likely to crystallize and form clumps.</p><p>Water may also help prevent the initial formation of stones, but studies are required to confirm this.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Increased water intake appears to decrease the risk of kidney stone formation.</p>6. Helps Prevent Hangovers
<p>A hangover refers to the unpleasant symptoms experienced after drinking <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/alcohol-good-or-bad" target="_blank">alcohol</a>.</p><p>Alcohol is a diuretic, so it makes you lose more water than you take in. This can lead to dehydration.</p><p>Although dehydration isn't the main cause of hangovers, it can cause symptoms like thirst, fatigue, headache, and dry mouth.</p><p>Good ways <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-ways-to-prevent-a-hangover" target="_blank">to reduce hangovers</a> are to drink a glass of water between drinks and have at least one big glass of water before going to bed.</p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p><strong></strong>Hangovers are partly caused by dehydration, and drinking water can help reduce some of the main symptoms of hangovers.</p>7. Can Aid Weight Loss
<p>Drinking plenty of water can help you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-to-lose-weight-as-fast-as-possible/" target="_blank">lose weight</a>.</p><p>This is because water can increase satiety and boost your metabolic rate.</p><p>Some evidence suggests that increasing water intake can promote weight loss by slightly increasing your metabolism, which can increase the number of calories you burn on a daily basis.</p><p>A 2013 study in 50 young women with overweight demonstrated that drinking an additional 16.9 ounces (500 mL) of water 3 times per day before meals for 8 weeks led to significant reductions in body weight and body fat compared with their pre-study measurements.</p><p>The timing is important too. Drinking water half an hour before meals is the most effective. It can make you feel more full so that you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/35-ways-to-cut-calories" target="_blank">eat fewer calories</a>.</p><p>In one study, dieters who drank 16.9 ounces (0.5 liters) of water before meals lost 44% more weight over a period of 12 weeks than dieters who didn't drink water before meals.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Even mild dehydration can affect you mentally and physically.</p><p>Make sure that you <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-water-should-you-drink-per-day" target="_blank">get enough water each day</a>, whether your personal goal is 64 ounces (1.9 liters) or a different amount. It's one of the best things you can do for your overall health.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 9 Evidence-Based Health Benefits of Avocado Oil ›
- 7 Nutrient Deficiencies That Are Incredibly Common ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less