Mercury Pollution: What Parents Need to Know

My dad tells a story of his science teacher handing out vials of mercury and allowing students to play with it and watch how it pools.  Those days are gone! (I should know, I’m a science teacher.)  Today, we aren’t even allowed to have mercury thermometers in school, and there are news reports of schools being evacuated due to a broken thermometer.  We now know that mercury is toxic to kids.

Mercury as an atmospheric pollutant comes mostly from power plants, with 72% of it coming from coal-fired power plants.  Once released into the atmosphere, mercury contaminates entire ecosystems: fresh and salt water, soil, the substrate at the bottoms of streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, as well as plants an animals.  Microorganisms in the water convert mercury to the highly toxic methylmercury.  Methylmercury accumulates in the tissues of animals, especially salt water fish like sharks, swordfish and tuna.

Here’s what I think all parents should know about mercury pollution:

• 1 in 10 American women of childbearing age have potentially dangerous levels of mercury in their bodies.
• 410,000 US children are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb each year.
• 95% of the methylmercury we consume is absorbed through our small intestines and enters our bloodstream, which carries it to the rest of our body.  It will eventually be excreted over a period of weeks to months.
• Methylmercury easily crosses the placenta and travels into a fetus’s blood and organs, including his or her brain.
• Methylmercury levels in an unborn child’s blood can accumulate to be higher than the levels in his or her mother’s blood.
• Mercury in both the form of methylmercury (from seafood) and inorganic mercury (from amalgam fillings) has been found in breast milk in studies around the world. However, the level of mercury in a mother’s blood are about 3 times higher than the level of mercury in her milk, so babies are exposed to much more mercury in utero than through breastfeeding.  Experts say that the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the risks of mercury exposure.
• Infants can be exposed to mercury through formula if it is prepared with water contaminated with methylmercury, so experts recommend breastfeeding over formula-feeding in areas with contaminated water.
• Methylmercury exposure leads to impaired neurological development in fetuses, infants and children.  It can also delay developmental milestones and cause severe mental disabilities.

The Clean Air Act does not currently have limits on the amount of mercury that can be emitted by power plants, but the EPA would like to set a new Mercury and Air Toxics rule to reduce the amount of mercury and other emissions by 91%.  (Learn more about the proposed rule here).  Won’t you join me in supporting the EPA’s right to limit mercury emissions? Send a comment to the EPA!

Sources:

• http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46-c1.pdf
• http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=63512
• https://secure2.edf.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1797
• http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm
• http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/chem13.asp

This post will be cross-posted at Moms Clean Air Force.

An Open Letter to my Alma Mater

This is a letter that I sent to Dr. Stanley F. Battle, Interim President of Southern Connecticut State University. 

Dr. Battle,

I graduated from SCSU in 2003 with a degree in Biology and Secondary Education, and then obtained my Masters in Science Education with a concentration in Biology in 2007.  Since then, I have been working towards a second Masters in Environmental Education.  I have taught science at the high school level for the past seven years.  Recently, I have discovered that my education in Biology was incomplete, and I’m writing to voice my concerns and ask you to make adjustments to the curriculum.

When my son was born, I realized that I knew nothing of the biology of breastfeeding, a basic biological function of mammals.  Why was mammary gland structure or milk’s chemical composition not studied in Vertebrate Zoology or Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy? Why did we not look at mammary tissue under the microscope in Histology? Why didn’t we learn about hormones as related to milk production in Animal Physiology? Why were genes and biological pathways for milk production not explored in Genetics? Why did we study breast cancer genes and environmental factors in Human Medical Genetics, but ignore the data that suggests breastfeeding helps to reduce a woman’s risk of breast cancer?

As a breastfeeding mother, I would have enjoyed knowing more about my body’s own biological function.  As an SCSU alumnus, I feel that my education was incomplete and I should have learned more about this most fundamental of functions for our species’ survival.  As a breastfeeding advocate, I’m disappointed that the classes I took, which were the same classes as the Pre-Med students, did not cover breastfeeding.  If future doctors learn nothing of breastfeeding as related to anatomy, physiology, biochemistry or genetics, it’s no wonder that only 14% of American mothers continue to breastfeed their children exclusively to six months of age, as recommended by the World Health Organization and American Academy of Pediatrics.

All students need to learn about the health benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and babies, either in the required Health course or in general Biology.  Students pursuing degrees in Biology, Nursing, or Pre-Med need to learn about breastfeeding from a biological perspective.  Breastfeeding is an evolutionary adaptation that belongs in a Biology curriculum.  Leaving breastfeeding out of the curriculum is a disservice to all SCSU students.

Thank You For Your Time,

Abigail XXXXXXX

Capping our Future?

The American Farm Bureau Federation has a new campain: “Don’t Cap our Future.”  In opposition to a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, the AFBF is encouraging members to sign a cap across the bill and deliver it to their Congressman. 

The AFBF is concerned that a cap-and-trade system will lead to higher fuel, energy and fertlizer costs, and also the conversion of farmland to woodland to sequester carbon.  This translates into loss of farms, increase in food costs, and a decrease in the productivity of farms.  According to the AFBF:

Already, the economic situation in some sectors of agriculture is dire… For many, sheer determination is what keeps them in business.  Those who are persevering are doing so with a brighter future in mind.  They are also driven by the goal of being able to pass the farm or ranch on to the next generation when they retire or perhaps farming with their children as they grow into adulthood.

I personally am not a huge fan of cap-and-trade, since I think it’s a system that allows polluters to continue on polluting while paying for credits or often choosing to pay the fines for going over their limit since that’s less expensive than actually reducing their emissions.  One of the amazing concepts that I took away from my environmental law course was that it’s all about the money: businesses will do what’s right for them financially, not what’s right for the environment, and they’re able to continue polluting because a cap-and-trade system allows it, as long as they pay a fine or buy credits. 

However, I think that action is important, and I think cap-and-trade is better than nothing.  The real problem here, from my point of view, is that family farmers are not the big time polluters.  We know that industrial agribusiness is where the majority of the pollution takes place, but they’ve got the money to pay the lobbyists and lawyers, buy credits, and pay fines, while all farmers deal with the increase in fuel, energy and fertilizer prices.  Who will be hit harder by the increase in costs, agribusiness or small, family farmers? And who will lose their farms?

I’m categorically opposed to legislation that puts an unfair burden on family farms.  It’s a deeply emotional issue for me, since I think about MY family and OUR farm, and it breaks my heart to see families lose their farms.  However, I think that the American Farm Bureau Federation needs to take steps to work with legislators to reduce the unfair burden on small family farms, while still taking strides to reduce pollution and carbon emissions. 

For now, I’m taking a wait and see approach.  I won’t be signing and delivering a cap, but I also won’t be asking my legislators to support this bill.  What I will do is continue to support my local family farms.

Go Back in Time to Combat Climate Change

I’ll admit it: I almost didn’t participate in Blog Action Day.  I didn’t want to participate unless I had something valuable to add, and to be honest, I was feeling uninspired.  It’s easy to feel overwhelmed when it comes to climate change, even hopeless.  Lately, I’ve found it easier to think about the happy things in my life: family, friends, and our baby boy on the way. 

While I haven’t been thinking about climate change a lot lately, I haven’t dismissed my efforts to live sustainably.  Over the years of studying and teaching about climate change, I’ve developed my own philosophy on reducing carbon emissions.  After all the thought that went into changing my actions, it’s fairly easy to summarize the lifestyle changes I’ve made: Simple Living.  It all boils down to conservation, reducing waste, doing things by hand, cooking locally and from scratch, reducing exposure to chemicals, burning wood to reduce our oil consumption, turning the heat down or the air conditioner off, and living with less in general.

The more I live this lower-carbon lifestyle, the more in touch I become with my history.  My lifestyle is surprisingly similar to my great-grandmother’s.  Except, of course, that I write my thoughts and recipes in a blog and she wrote in journals.  A return to the simpler, more self-sufficient past has improved my carbon footprint.  More significantly, I feel that these changes to my life have made me happier.  Standing over a pot of bubbling jelly and listening to the plink of the jars sealing.  Kneading bread and slicing into the fresh loaf.  Sitting by a fire and knitting a scarf.  Snuggling up with my husband instead of turning up the heat.  Digging potatoes, pulling carrots, snipping greens, plucking tomatoes from the garden.  Raising pigs and turkeys for meat.  Elbow grease instead of bleach.  Planting apple trees.  Planning my future to include further steps toward self-sufficiency.  I started on this journey to reduce my carbon emissions, but I continue along the path because it is fulfilling.

Shark Love

I have always loved sharks.  Not in a “I want to get in a cage and take pictures of a white shark” kind of way, but more in a “I want to read books about shark researchers and watch Shark Week” kind of way.  They’re amazing creatures, and the fact that they have survived in their prehistoric form is just fascinating to me.  As an undergraduate biology major with a focus on anatomy, I can remember spending a week, even a Saturday, in the lab carefully dissecting out the cartilaginous skull to reveal the brain of a dogfish shark.  Of all the vertebrates I’ve dissected, the shark has been my favorite.

That sharks are in decline throughout the world is something that has always been troubling to me, and so when I saw that there is a “Shark Conservation Act in the works, I was sure to contact my senators to let them know how I felt about shark conservation, and especially the practice of shark finning.  I also noted that as top predators, sharks contain high levels of contaminants such as mercury, and so people really shouldn’t be eating them in the first place.  I was more than pleased with the prompt email response I got from Senator Joe Lieberman:

Dear (Farmer’s Daughter):

 Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Shark Conservation Act (H.R. 81).  As a longtime supporter of animal protection measures, I share your enthusiasm for this legislation.

 As you may know, sharks are especially sensitive to the impacts of pollution, overfishing, and climate change; and they are also being hindered by their slow growth rate, late sexual maturity, and low reproductive rate.  In addition to these concerns, sharks are also susceptible to an acutely distressing threat known as finning.  This term refers to the removal and retention of shark fins, while the remainder of the shark carcass is discarded at sea.  In keeping the shark fins alone, commercial fishermen save limited freezer space aboard their vessels while holding this valuable commodity on deck.  Finning is an abhorrent practice which epitomizes the worst aspects of human-animal interaction, seeing as only two to five percent of the animal is utilized while the remainder is thrown back into the sea.  Although the extent of finning is uncertain and estimates vary, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) believes the number of sharks killed each year in this manner figures in the tens of millions.

 Experts agree that, if unabated, finning will have disastrous consequences for entire maritime ecosystems.  Since sharks live at the top of the food chain, their dwindling populations could be a harbinger for macro environmental decline.  Furthermore, poor coastal communities in Africa, Latin America, and India depend on shark meat as a food source.  In the past few years, these settlements have reported precipitous declines in their shark catches.  It is my hope that, during this 111^th Congress, legislation can be passed in order to reform current fishing standards, thereby protecting shark species and alleviating food shortages.

 As you may know, Representative Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) introduced H.R. 81 in the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2009.  This bill seeks to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to close several existing loopholes in an effort to combat finning.  I am pleased to inform you that H.R. 81 passed the House by voice vote on March 2.  Since its passage, the bill has been referred to the Senate, and is currently under review by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.  Although I am not a member of that committee, pleased be assured that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind should this bill come before the full Senate for debate.

 While the United States has always been at the forefront of this problem, unfortunately, other countries have been slower in addressing finning.  Please be assured that I want to protect seriously threatened shark stocks from the excessive mortality arising from this practice.

 Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me.  I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation.  Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

 Sincerely,

 Joseph I. Lieberman

Though I’m sure this was a form letter, the science is sound and I was happy to see that someone put in such thought to respond to concerned citizens.  I hope that you’ll join me in support of protecting these amazing predators.

For more information about shark research, one of my all-time favorite books is the Devil’s Teethby Susan Casey.  (Incidentally, the title refers to the name of islands, NOT sharks!)  Peter Benchley (author of Jaws) has a wonderful book, Shark Trouble, about his experiences with sharks, the science, and shark conservation.  Also, this week is Shark Week on Discovery, so you can get your shark fill there, too.  To contact your senator, visit the Ocean Conservancy.

Politics, Law and The Environment

My take-home final and my final presentation were due tonight for my “Political and Legal Perspectives in Environmental Education” class.  I signed up for the course because I felt like I needed a better background in environmental law.  I have learned quite a bit, from the evolution and intent of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to political issues involving trading carbon credits and environmental court battles.  Learning about the legal system and federal environmental laws was what I was looking for, but I got so much more than I expected.

We were required to attend a local meeting about an environmental issue and write a paper about it.  We were also required to do a final project about local environmental issues and their effects on the local elections.  The topic I chose for my presentation was preservation of open space.  In doing the research, I spoke to my local officials and did research on the history of open space in my own town.  I really got to know the politicians’ views on the environment, and I felt that I was truly an educated voter in this election.  In case you’re interested in the preservation of open space in my town, I’ve uploaded my final-project.  Don’t worry, I won’t be offended if you don’t take a look!

I now realize the importance of being involved in politics.  I’ve never been interested in politics much before, but I now see that if I care about the environment, I can’t not be involved.  I need to voice my opinions to my representives and educate myself about their viewpoints.  I know that becoming more active in my own town’s politics will enable me to help make the changes I want to see, and preserve what needs to be preserved.  I think that most of the people in the class with me feel the same way now.

I made sure to tell my professor how much I have enjoyed her course, because as a teacher, I know how nice that is to hear.