Enviroblog

Corn. Corn. And yes, more corn.

2009-11-05T20:22:45Z

In case you missed the movie King Corn (if you did you should see it, and not just because EWG's Founding President Ken Cook is in it), take 2 minutes and 17 seconds to get the gist of our country's corn craziness.

As you'll soon see, the stuff is everywhere. you. turn. Then look in the mirror.

And if you want to know WHY, this might help.

NPR Uncovers Natural Gas's Dirty Secrets

2009-11-05T11:01:01Z

Drilling for natural gas is a dirty business, as Enviroblog readers know.

Dusty Horwitt, Environmental Working Group's Senior Counsel, has worked tirelessly to document the environmental depredations of a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing.

Earlier this week, National Public Radio correspondent John Burnett covered yet other possible health dangers of natural gas production. The Barnett Shale gas deposit in Northern Texas is now the site of some 1,300 gas compression stations, Burnett reported.

Eleven compressors surround the town of Dish, population around 200. Burnett says that Texas environmental regulators have detected elevated levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen, near the compressors and that constant low-frequency rumbling plagues residents and their livestock.

The story quoted people who described unexplained health problems such as migraines and ruptured ear drums and mysterious neurological illnesses in horses.

As the U.S. presses for energy independence, the natural gas debate is sure to escalate.

In the meantime, public opposition is causing some drillers to rethink their plans to drill in sensitive and populous areas.

Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 3: Who's protecting you?

2009-11-04T14:18:49Z

The science may not yet be decided on the effects of cell phone radiation on human health, but recent research is unsettling enough that Environmental Working Group (and government safety agencies around the world) recommends reducing your exposure where you can.

This blog series breaks down EWG's recent report on cell phone radiation - so far we've talked about the science of cell phone radiation and simple steps to limit your exposure.

By now you may be wondering where the government is in all this - shouldn't they be making sure that products on the market are safe for everyone? Read on to learn about current US cell phone standards, how they stack up (not well) and what you can do to make them stronger.

How the government regulates cell phone radiation
Mobile phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which established rules on how much radiation cell phones can legally emit back in 1996 (did you have a cell phone 13 years ago?). These limits are based on specific absorption rate (SAR) values, which measure the rate at which energy is absorbed by your body's tissue.

Phone manufacturers use plastic models of the head to test how much radiation their phones emit and then submit the data to either the FCC or an FCC-approved certifier for authorization.

The permissible amount of radiation depends on the part of the body:

Head: up to 1.6 W/kg

Whole body: up to 0.08 W/kg

Hands, wrists, feet, and ankles: up to 4 W/kg

Federal rules aren't strong enough - and have never been updated
Public agencies set many kinds of safety standards for public health; we have rules for the maximum levels of contaminants in tap water, pesticide residues on food, etc. Officials begin by assuming a certain level of pollutants/residue/radiation is safe and then reduce that level to create a margin of safety. By setting a maximum allowed amount lower than what the research indicates is safe, regulations account for uncertainty about how contaminants might affect humans and for the extra vulnerability of certain groups, such as children.

The FCC based its cell phone regulations on suggestions made in 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry body. These dated standards rely on data from animal studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s that assume a SAR value of 4 W/kg as the highest permissible exposure level before adverse health effects may begin to take place.

17 years later, we see a few problems with these assumptions:

There's no margin of safety

Generally a margin of safety is between 50 and 100 times lower than the point at which health problems might occur. But for cell phone radiation exposures to the head, the standard for cell phones allows a SAR value up to 1.6 W/kg - a margin of safety of only 2.5 times. And for exposures to hands, wrists, feet and ankles, cell phones can legally have a SAR value of 4 W/kg - no margin of safety.

Because of their thinner skulls, SAR values can be twice as high for children as for adults - and though younger and younger kids are using cell phones, current standards do not account for children's extra risk.

The assumed "safe" SAR level may be too high
The growing body of research on cell phone radiation indicates that even 4 W/kg may be too high to be considered a safe amount of exposure - more and more studies show biological effects at SAR levels far below.

They don't consider long-term exposure

The studies on which the 4 W/kg threshold is based only focused on short-term exposure to radiation. Recent research shows long-term cell phone use associated with a higher risk of health effects, so the current standard may not adequately take into account the potential effects of a lifetime of cell phone talking, especially for those who begin at a young age.

The US lags behind
Government agencies of the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Finland and the European Parliament have all recommended limiting cell phone exposure, particularly for children. The French government is even considering legislation to restrict advertising of cell phones to children under 14 and to require all cell phones be sold with accompanying headsets.

The strongest recent statement by a US agency comes from an FDA Office of Women's Health publication saying "more studies on cell phone radiation are needed" and "people who use cell phones need to be told of any bad effects." So much for proactively protecting public health.

What should our government be doing?
It's time for the FCC to bring its regulations into the 21st century by taking all of the most recent research into account to create a standard that is protective for all Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.

A recent Capitol Hill hearing on cell phone radiation, at which EWG testified, shows some renewed interest on the part of Congress in funding more cell phone research. But your government officials need to hear from you: use EWG's easy form to send an email telling the FCC and FDA to modernize cell phone safety standards.

In the meantime, take steps to reduce your exposure to radiation by following EWG's 8 simple steps to reduce cell phone radiation exposure. And come back for the next installment in our cell phone series: finding a low-radiation phone.

Toxic chemicals and you: In search of 'safe'

2009-11-02T15:00:00Z

140,321,493 searches have been requested on EWG's Skin Deep cosmetics safety database since 2004 - and counting.

That's a lot of searches, by a lot of people seeking safer personal care products. Seeking products that don't contain toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to serious adverse heath effects.

And Skin Deep isn't the only such tool. In September, our friends at The Ecology Center in Michigan released another great search tool, Healthy Stuff, based on tests on 5,000 consumer products. And it's popular, too.

Then there's EWG's recent cell phone radiation database, our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, Z Recommends, The Soft Landing, Safe Mama, and many, many others.

So what gives? Why are so many people seeking safer products? Oh right. It's because they don't know what's safe anymore.

They don't trust their government to protect them because until very recently it has done so very little. And they don't trust industry to be honest with them.

Why not?

Because government is not sufficiently regulating chemicals or product safety and the companies are greenwashing.

As may of us are now saying, parents shouldn't have to be toxicologists to protect their kids' health - one of our most important jobs. Dr. Harvey Karp, a well-known Los Angeles-based pediatrician, said it well at a Los Angeles rally to ban BPA in August:

...your job is to do other really important things like cook dinner, clean the house, raise your children, give them a good education. And while you're sleeping at night, you hope the government is doing its job to regulate the dangers that your family is exposed to.

The good news is we're doing more than hope at EWG. We're having the tough - but critical - conversations, working with Congress, adding important, policy-changing research to the debate, and involving constituents - like you.

And me.

Because I, too, am a parent who would rather be doing the real job of parenting instead of researching kid-safe water bottles and baby bottles and cookware and sleepwear and soap and diaper cream and toothpaste and you get the picture that it's time to stop searching and start demanding change.

Tips for safer (face) painting this Halloween... and beyond

2009-10-28T14:43:42Z

It's the Thursday before Halloween and my kids haven't quite decided what to be. Top runners at this point (it changes daily) are pretty standard: witch and princess.

And no, I'm not sewing their costumes from scratch (far from it, actually: I'm midnight emailing friends whose kids have cool costumes to borrow).

So when I read this week's report about lead in face paints, I was (for once!) glad to be behind. Now I can praise the beauty of plain faces under pointy hats and crowns BEFORE promising to paint them.

What's wrong with face painting?
Nothing - IF the paints are safe for our skin, especially the more sensitive skin of little trick-or-treaters. But if there's a chance of lead in the paint, and other heavy metals, too (think: nickel, chromium, and cobalt), it's a better bet to skip the paint. The potential of short and longer-term allergic reactions to heavy metals isn't worth the risk, nor is the possibility of adding to a child's lead burden.

Paint safely if you paint
For those of us who have already promised or just want to paint already, here are some tips from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics for safe face painting this week (and beyond):

Choose costumes that don't require face paint or masks (which may also contain toxic chemicals and impair vision and breathing).

Make your own face paint with food-grade ingredients. The Campaign put together a few recipe ideas.

If you do use face paint, keep it away from kids' mouths and hands so they don't ingest it.

Why so cautious?
Because it's been determined that there is no safe level of lead exposure.

None.

And since lead and other heavy metals aren't exactly listed on the label and products aren't required to be tested for safety, it takes expensive tests like the ones used in this report to know whether your face paint is safe or not. Sure makes shopping for a Halloween costume harder than it needs to be.

BUT. The most serious lead exposures are from house paint
While avoiding lead exposures of any kind is prudent and makes sense to most parents, focusing your attention on the most likely routes of exposure is important.

Most children are exposed when they eat lead paint chips (it was allowed for house painting before 1978) or inhale lead dust during home rehabilitation. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has excellent tips on preventing your children from coming into contact with lead.

Read the full report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, "Pretty Scary: Could Halloween Face Paint Cause Lifelong Health Problems?"

[Many thanks to Flickr CC & L2F1 for the great Spider Man face]

Healthy Home Tip 5: Another reason to wash those hands

2009-10-26T19:01:18Z

With one case of kid flu and another serious case of coughing and sneezing in the house this week, our family is hand washing like never before. Parents included.

Makes sense, of course, since hand washing is one of the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of germs.

Hand washing serves more than one purpose.
It's also an effective -- but often overlooked -- way to prevent the transfer of toxic chemicals from your hands to your mouth, especially for children. Scientists have found that children actually ingest more chemicals off their hands than from mouthing toxic products directly, such as arsenic from playing on older wooden swing sets or fire retardants found on some electronics.

Of course, we're not writing with all good news.

Ironically, some soaps contain chemicals you should avoid, so you should choose safer soaps because who wants to wash off chemicals with more chemicals? Here are a few tips to find a safer soap that works for you:

1. Skip the anti-bacterial soap - it offers no benefits.
Anti-bacterial soaps do kill bacteria and microbes -- but so do plain soap and water. A U.S. FDA advisory committee found that use of antibacterial soaps provides no benefits over plain soap and water.

The main reason to avoid anti-bacterial soaps is its active ingredient: triclosan (and the related triclocarbon). Triclosan is an anti-bacterial chemical found in many consumer products, and it's nearly ubiquitous in liquid hand soap. It is linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and even low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function.

As a result, we include it on our list of the top 7 chemicals for children to avoid. Further, the American Medical Association recommends that triclosan not be used in the home, as it may encourage bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

It also affects the natural environment. Wastewater treatment does not remove all of the chemical, which means it ends up in our lakes, rivers and water sources. That's especially unfortunate since triclosan is very toxic to aquatic life.

To learn more about triclosan and how to avoid it, read our short report and download our 1-page guide.

2. Choose safer soaps.
Knowing what ingredients to avoid is important, but identifying safer alternatives is an equally important next step. We recommend "plain" soap and water for the most effective and least problematic hand washing.

Always check the ingredient list! When you're at the store, read those labels. Fragrance, triclosan and triclocarbon will be listed, making it easy to leave them on the shelf and find safer soaps.

Liquid and bar soaps
There are liquid and bar soaps and hand sanitizers that don't contain triclosan or fragrance, another ingredient we recommend avoiding.

Liquid soaps: You can find liquid hand soaps that don't contain triclosan, triclocarbon or fragrance in our Skin Deep database.

Bar soaps: Choose from these that have no triclosan, triclocarbon or fragrance.

3. A word about hand sanitizers
If you like the convenience of waterless hand sanitizers, alcohol-based sanitizers are a better bet because they don't contain triclosan or triclocarbon. We suggest you choose one that doesn't contain fragrance, either. You can find hand sanitizers without these three ingredients in our Skin Deep database.

Remember: Hand sanitizers don't prevent hand-to-mouth chemical transfers as well as soap and water, because their purpose is to kill bacteria, not to remove the dust and dirt that can harbor chemicals. Also, when washing with water, product ingredients are partially washed off, whereas all ingredients in hand sanitizers are left to fully absorb into your skin.

Read more Healthy Home Tips
Learn more about our Healthy Home Tip series and sign up to get the monthly tips in your inbox.

Something is amiss with our children

2009-10-22T05:44:31Z

Written by Alice Shabecoff, co-author with her husband Philip of Poisoned Profits: The Toxic Assault on our Children

As we watched each of our five grandchildren and their friends enter this world and begin their life's journey, it became more and more clear that something is amiss with this generation. How are your children and your friends' children doing?

Most likely, one in three of the children you know in this generation suffers from a chronic illness. Perhaps it's cancer, or birth defects, perhaps asthma, or a problem that affects the child's mind and behavior, such as Downs Syndrome, learning disorders, ADHD or autism. Though one in three may sound exaggerated, unbelievable, the figures are there amidst various government files.

This generation is different.
Childhood cancer, once a medical rarity, has grown 67 percent since 1950. Asthma has increased 140 percent in the last twenty years and autism rates without a doubt have increased at least 200 percent. Miscarriages and premature births are also on the rise, while the ratio of male babies dwindles and teenage girls face endometriosis.

The generations born from 1970 on are the first to be raised in a truly toxified world. Even before conception and on into adulthood, the assault is everywhere: heavy metals and carcinogenic particles in air pollution; industrial solvents, household detergents, prozac and radioactive wastes in drinking water; pesticides in flea collars; artificial growth hormones in beef, arsenic in chicken; synthetic hormones in bottles, teething rings and medical devices; formaldehyde in cribs and nail polish, and even rocket fuel in lettuce. Pacifiers are now manufactured with nanoparticles from silver, to be sold as 'antibacterial.'

What's wrong with rinsing a pacifier in soapy water?

Despite naysayers (who pays them to say nay?--that's a whole story in itself), it's clear there is both an association and a causative connection between the vast explosion of poisons in our everyday lives and our childrens' "issues."

Over 80,000 industrial chemicals (tested only by the manufacturer) are in commerce in this country, produced or imported at 15 trillion pounds a year. Pesticide use has leaped from the troubling 400 million pounds Rachel Carson wrote about in the 1960s to the mind-boggling 4.4 billion pounds in use today. Nuclear power plants, aging and under-maintained, increasingly leak wastes, often without notifying their community.

What could be more elemental than our desire to protect our children? Children and fetuses, because of their undeveloped defense systems, are ten to sixty-five times more susceptible to specific toxics than adults. These toxics diminish the capacities of our children...the future of our families, our communities, our nation.

Illness does not necessarily show up in childhood. Environmental exposures, from conception to early life, can set a person´s cellular code for life and can cause disease at any time, through old age. This accounts for the rise in Parkinson´s and Alzheimer´s diseases, prostate and breast cancer.

A message of hope and optimism
Yet this is not the dispiriting 'Bad News' it might seem. It is, actually, a message of hope and optimism. We are fearful only when we are ignorant and powerless. Now that we know what is happening, we can determine not to let it happen further.

These poisons are manmade; manufacturers can take them out of our children´s lives and make profits from safe products. 'Green chemistry' can replace toxic molecules with harmless ones. We can connect global climate change actions to environmental health strategies. If we replace coal-fired power, in the process we reduce not only carbon but also emissions of the tons of lead, mercury, hydrochloric acid, chromium, arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause autism, Alzheimer's and other public health menaces.

In a riff on Pogo, let's say, "We have met the heroes and it is us." We cannot bury our heads and hope it will all go away. We cannot leave the job to someone else. Some may feel the problem is so massive, it's best to pretend it doesn't exist. But it isn't more massive than we allow it to be. It's totally within our reach.

We can make each other smarter and stronger. It is in our power to learn about what harms our children and to share our knowledge. It is in our power as a community of citizens and parents to demand action against the current harmful policies and practices and against the indiscriminate use of processes and practices that destroy and degrade all life on our planet.

Read EWG's review of the book and learn more about the Shabecoffs and Poisoned Profits here.

Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 2: 8 Ways to Reduce Your Exposure

2009-10-21T15:10:28Z

Research has not yet established whether cell phone radiation is harmful. But. Some studies are troubling enough that we recommend reducing your exposure by buying a low-radiation phone or making some simple changes in the way you use your phone.

If you're one of those people who like to understand the "why" of it all, you'll appreciate the first post in this series where we explain the science of cell-phone radiation exposure.

No need to panic and ditch your phone (we at EWG certainly aren't giving up ours). Here's how to protect your health and stay in touch.

USE A HEADSET OR SPEAKER

Headsets emit much less radiation than phones. Experts are split on whether wired or wireless headsets are safer. (Check out the EWG website for a guide to headsets). Some wireless headsets emit continuous low-level radiation, so take yours off when you're not on a call. Using your phone in speaker mode also reduces radiation to the head.

LISTEN

Your phone emits the most radiation when you talk or text but much less when you're receiving messages. Listening more and talking less reduces your exposures.

TEXT

Phones use less power (which means less radiation) to send text instead of voice. Also, texting keeps the phone -- the radiation source -- away from your head.

PHONE AT ARM'S LENGTH

Hold the phone away from your torso when you're talking with headset or speaker, not against your ear, in a pocket, or on your belt, where soft body tissues absorb radiation.

BUY A LOW-RADIATION PHONE

Not all phones are created equal: Look up your phone on EWG's buyer's guide. (Your phone's model number may be printed under your battery.) If you're in the market for a new phone, find one that emits the lowest radiation possible and still meets your needs.

WEAK SIGNAL? STAY OFF THE PHONE

Fewer signal bars mean the phone has to step up its emissions to contact the tower. Call when your phone has a strong signal.

SKIP "RADIATION SHIELDS"

Radiation shields such as antenna caps or keypad covers reduce the connection quality and force the phone to transmit at a higher power with higher radiation.

LIMIT CHILDREN'S PHONE USE

Young children's brains absorb twice as much cell phone radiation as those of adults. EWG joins health agencies in at least 6 countries in recommending limiting children's phone use, such as for emergencies only.

To look up the radiation level of your phone, find a headset or read our research, visit EWG's cell phone report.

Next in our series: Government (in)action on cell phones and what you can do about it.

New Yorkers Focus On Gas Drilling Threat

2009-10-20T05:17:00Z

By Elaine Shannon

Natural gas may seem clean, but it has a dark back story.

As Environmental Working Group has reported, gas producers out West have drilled thousands of wells with hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," which involves breaking open gas-bearing formations by injecting them with water laced with toxic chemicals like benzene.

To make matters worse, gas drillers have been exempted from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and permitted to conceal, as trade secrets, the identities of the chemicals they're forcing underground.

Now gas producers are moving in to exploit the gas-rich Marcellus Shale, which stretches from New York state to West Virginia, and New York leaders are paying heed to warnings from EWG and others that fracking threatens New York's water supply.

Last week, the New York Times editorial page called for barring gas drilling in the New York City watershed. The Times asserted:

The dangers are particularly acute in the Marcellus Shale, which, unlike the relatively shallow formations found elsewhere, lies miles underground.Getting the gas out will require far more water and heavy doses of chemicals.
While the rules would require drillers to take special precautions in the watershed, there are too many points -- from the delivery of the fluid to the drilling site to the removal of spent fluid after it surfaces -- where poisoned water could escape into the water supplies.

On Friday, EWG senior analyst Dusty Horwitt is scheduled to testify about the dangers of fracking at a hearing of the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection, which has been probing gas drilling activities in the watershed.

Meanwhile, National Public Radio ombudsman Alicia Shepard has faulted the organization's September series on natural gas for failing to devote more than two of its 24 minutes to gas production's environmental destruction.

"The ultimate question is: Did this series give a reasonably complete and balanced view of issues concerning domestic drilling for natural gas?" Shepard wrote. "The answer is no."

According to Shepard, Brian Duffy, then the NPR projects editor, blamed NPR's financial woes -- symptomatic of the global news industry meltdown -- for the series' shortcomings. She wrote:

"Should we have covered the issue more thoroughly? Certainly," said Duffy, who left NPR's news department in late August. "This was a situation where we couldn't get all the bases covered because we had furloughs [caused by NPR's budget cuts] and vacation issues and changes in personnel.
The story absolutely did need an environmental component. I won't disagree with that. It's a shame we just couldn't provide it."

State of the Rockies Project Studies Big Ag

2009-10-12T19:41:24Z

If you're a Westerner - and what American isn't, really? -- Colorado College's State of the Rockies Project is a must-read, must-bookmark web destination.

The project's mission -- to conduct "state-of-the-art research to help Rockies residents clearly see their communities, environment and economy, so they can better shape their own future" -- is strikingly like Environmental Working Group's detailed, hyper-local data and analysis.

This year: Food & Ag
This year's topic, food and agriculture, is a natural fit with EWG's work. CC students, guided by economics professor Walter E. Hecox, an economics professor, are using EWG's farm subsidy database to help document how the economics and demography of farming are changing the physical and cultural landscape -- and how its traditions and economic and demographic pressures are shaping agriculture and ranching.

Last week, I traveled to the CC campus to preview EWG's new AgMag for a State of the Rockies symposium on the politics of agriculture. (Full disclosure: my son Shannon Morgan, a CC sophomore contemplating a major in an environmental field, was in the audience. It was great to see him and enjoy a few moments at an historic campus where Katherine Lee Bates, a visiting teacher, was inspired to compose America the Beautiful. But he's not one of the privileged few upperclassmen tapped each year for the project team.)

Students find complicated agricultural picture
The student researchers have already dug up some facts that make for a complicated picture. On one hand, farmland acreage is shrinking and the number of farming and ranching operations is growing. That could suggest more family and small-business farms profiting from rapidly expanding demand for locally-grown food. On the other hand, "mega-agricultural enterprises" are major factors in the regional agricultural economy.

Upcoming speakers: Stanford professor Rosamond Naylor, an expert on trade-offs between grass-fed and industrial livestock, journalist and author Richard Manning, author of Rewilding the West: Restoration in a Prairie Landscape,"and Dr. Bonnie Lynn-Sherow, associate professor of history at Kansas State University and author of Red Earth: Race and Agriculture in Oklahoma Territory.

If you can't make the lectures, no worries - you can download past report cards and sign up for the agriculture edition, due in March.

Meanwhile, there's a wealth of information in previous years' report cards.

The most recent, published last spring, focuses on incarceration, historic preservation and protection of wildlife in a region whose population is increasing 2.6 times faster than that of the U.S. The CC Rockies project is aimed at helping the West's people manage that tumultuous change.

You can still see the wilderness as it was, and still is, and should remain, in the State of the Rockies photo gallery.

A closer look at cosmetics safety

2009-10-09T20:51:18Z

Last month, you saw the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' first video about cosmetics safety, What's going on with toxic chemicals in cosmetics?

This month, it delves a little deeper into the issue, taking a closer look at the lack of cosmetics safety regulations in the US, and what people (in Boston) think about it all.

Hint: Most use a lot of products, aren't reading labels (not that they're complete or easy to understand, anyway), and do think the government and industry should DO something.

Wondering how you can choose safer products?
Read our Healthy Home Tip on Choosing Better Body Care Products (it's part of a series - sign up to get them in your inbox here). The video specifically mentions fragrance, an under-regulated ingredient that we suggest you avoid.

And of course, you can check out Skin Deep, EWG's Cosmetics Database, to see how your products rank and find safer ones.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a coalition of nonprofits, co-founded by EWG, that works to get toxic chemicals out of personal care products.

Cell Phone Radiation Series - Part 1: The Science

2009-10-08T14:33:40Z

To a lot of people, it might sound about as worrisome as walking under a ladder or not forwarding an email chain letter, but really, what is the deal with cell phone radiation? Is it something you should actually be concerned about?

We were curious -- though we did figure that the radiation was probably more dangerous than deleting a chain letter. So we launched a 10-month investigation into the latest science of cell phone radiation. The result was our recently released report, Cell Phone Radiation Science Review, and a brand-new cell phone database.

Given the huge response to this report's release, turns out we weren't the only ones confused and concerned about cell phone radiation.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be breaking down the report piece by piece - there's a lot of great information in there, and not many of us have the time to sit down and read through it all.

Today we kick off our blog series by looking at the science itself.

What is cell phone radiation anyway?
"Radiation" is simply the movement of energy through space from one place to another in the form of waves or particles. There are two types: ionizing and non-ionizing.

Ionizing radiation (such as the kind that comes from nuclear reactions and radioactive substances) has enough energy to knock an electron out of an atom's orbit. When it comes into contact with biological systems, like your body, it has the potential to cause mutations and cancer.

Cell phones send out electromagnetic waves, a type of non-ionizing radiation (a lot like the signals going to your TV or radio). Non-ionizing radiation has less energy than ionizing radiation and so can only make electrons more excited -- not knock them out of an atom.

Still, it has been accepted for years that even non-ionizing radiation can penetrate the body and harm sensitive tissue (scientists are still trying to figure out the exact mechanism by which this occurs). And it's important to note that with both types of radiation, the waves move in all directions -- so when you talk on your phone, just as much energy goes inward toward your ear as outward toward the cell station.

Can cell phones cause cancer or other illnesses?
The research is unclear but troubling. The bottom line is that we don't have a definite answer about the relationship between cell phone radiation and your health: cell phones haven't been around long enough for scientists to study their effects over a lifetime of use.

Early, short-term studies did not find an association between cell phone use and increased risk of brain cancer or other health problems. However, more recent, longer-term studies (which looked at cell phone use over ten or more years) have found that frequent cell phone talkers have a higher risk of developing certain types of brain and salivary gland tumors on the side of the head where they tend to hold the phone.

Recent studies have also associated cell phone use with increased risk of migraines and vertigo, Alzheimer's disease and decreased sperm count.

The effects on children may be more problematic
An estimated 71 percent of American tweens and teens carry cell phones, and more than half use them daily (according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project), but few studies have focused on the effects of radiation on still-developing brains and bodies.

What research there is has shown that twice as much cell phone radiation penetrates the thinner, softer skull of a child than that of an adult. Also, a recent study showed that young children who use cell phones and whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy are 80 percent more likely to suffer emotional and hyperactivity problems.

More research is needed
Until the scientific studies catch up with the way that people actually use their phones (often, for many years and starting at a young age), EWG recommends reducing your exposure to cell phone radiation. Stay tuned for the next post in our blog series where we cover how to find a low-exposure phone and other tips to reduce your exposure. (Or if you can't wait, take a look at the report itself.)

Talking Toxics Policy: A Historic stakeholder conversation

2009-10-06T04:57:04Z

As Enviroblog readers know, EWG has been pushing for years to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation's chemical "safety" law. What's reportable, today, is this:

The chemical industry, the EPA and the Obama Administration all now agree that the law needs to be reformed.

And no, I'm not making this up.

To make the most of this unprecedented opportunity to move the reform process forward, EWG is co-hosting an historic stakeholder conference in Washington on October 6th to discuss exactly what how that should be done.

As Jane Houlihan, EWG's Senior Vice-President for Research, said in response to EPA's recent support for chemicals policy reform:

The system we have now assumes that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. The reforms introduced today would flip that.

About the conference: Exploring fundamental changes to U.S. chemicals policy

At the day-long event, organizations representing chemical manufacturers, environmental and public health advocates, environmental justice leaders and consumer product companies will come together to explore fundamental changes to U.S. chemical policy.

The conference will begin a long-overdue conversation with key stakeholders about how best to update the chemical review and management system.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will kick start the day by describing the Obama administration's newly-released principles for modernizing the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), setting the tone for a spirited exchange of ideas and perspectives.

Join the conference online, Tuesday, Oct. 6
Whether you watch, read, or comment, we think it's important to share this historic conversation with the stakeholders who can't be there in person -- you. Watch it live or after the fact, and check our live blogs to hear what the experts are saying.

After all, it's not everyday that environmental health advocates, the industry, and the EPA sit down at the same table to better protect public health.

Vote for EWG Prez Ken Cook on Huff Post

2009-10-02T17:40:42Z

By Lee Ann Brown, Press Associate

We get called a lot of names at EWG -- it comes with the territory. Some more flattering than others, but there's one that sums it up -- "Game Changers."

So it's no surprise that our very own Ken Cook is up for Huffington Post's title of Ultimate Game Changer in Green for being one of the best at using new media. You know, the widgets, the gadgets, the websites, the microposting, and the consumer databases that EWG is known for.

Huffington Post published its reasons for making Ken one of the top ten; now we all need to do is vote him to the top of the green heap by rating him a "10". That's where YOU come in.

What's so special about EWG?
The concept of information-driven advocacy is straightforward but strangely hard to find here in D.C. Plain facts and basic principles fuel our work. The data does the talking; we just give it a good, solid microphone. As Ken himself said,

I often tell people that at EWG we are swayed by facts, not emotion. And the facts really piss us off.

Read more - AND GIVE KEN A TEN - on Huffington Post.

We're proud to change the game, but as always, we need you to change it with us. So go ahead, vote now by rating Ken a 10.

Winners will be announced on November 10th. Check back to see we can vote Ken to the top.

Chesapeake Bay residents are part of the solution

2009-09-29T15:00:00Z

By Lisa Frack and Michelle Perez

Earlier this month, EWG released a report about the Chesapeake Bay water quality crisis. The report focuses on agriculture's heavy - if unintended - damage to the Bay, specifically the inability of the six Bay states (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and New York) to cope with this agricultural pollution, over which the federal government has no jurisdiction.

While we know that farm runoff is the main cause of damage to the Bay (and we recommend how to reduce it in our report), runoff from cities and suburbs are a major part of the problem too - causing 11 percent of the nitrogen problem and a whopping 31 percent of the phosphorus problem.

So there's a healing role for the Bay watershed's residents to play, too.

What can Bay state residents do?
We agree with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recommendations, and highlight some key ones here:

Garden with your watershed in mind:

Fertilize your lawn in the fall and skip the spring fertilizer. Heavy rains in the spring wash fertilizers off lawns into storm drains, then into local waterways and eventually the Bay.

Use leftover grass clippings on lawn as a natural fertilizer. Compost excess grass clippings and leaves. Never allow them to wash into roadways where they will reach storm drains.

Have your soil tested to determine how much fertilizer your lawn actually needs (if any at all) and the best time to apply it. Also, identifying your grass will help you understand how to properly care for it.

Follow manufacturer guidelines and only apply the amount of fertilizer that you need. Twice the product will not make your lawn twice as green!

Never apply fertilizer to dormant lawns or on frozen ground.

Do not use fertilizer as a de-icer.

Get involved in the planning and zoning process in your community. That's where the decisions are made that shape the course of development and the future quality of our environment.

Add green building features @ home:

Position gutters and down spouts so they don't drain directly onto paved surfaces but do drain into vegetated or gravel- filled seepage areas. Splash blocks also help reduce erosion.

Limit the amount of impenetrable surfaces in your landscape. Use permeable paving surfaces such as wood decks, bricks, and concrete lattice to let water soak into the ground.

Install a rain barrel to capture water for your plants and garden.

Take responsibility for your waste:

Pet owners should pick up after their pets and dispose of the wastes in the garbage or toilet. Animal wastes contain bacteria and viruses that kill shellfish and close swimming areas.

Place litter, including cigarette butts, in trash receptacles. Never throw litter in streets or down storm drains.

Wash your car on the grass so soapy water soaks into the ground. Use a hose nozzle to prevent water from running when not in use.

Don't hose down driveways or sidewalks. Dry sweeping paved areas, along with careful trash disposal, are simple, effective pollution reducers.