Today, plastics are a constant in our lives. From beverage containers, household items to packaging, plastics are everywhere. Ultimately, many of these items are discarded on a daily basis and they end up as trash in our landfills or oceans. For example, in the year 2007, almost 12.1 percent of the total municipal solid waste in the United States came from 31 million tons of plastics. Since plastics do not easily break down into simpler components, they become virtually everlasting in the environment. Increasing awareness of the situation is just the first step in addressing the problem. Recycling deals with just one area. Technological advances are only part of the solution.

That brings me to another aspect of the preponderance of plastics: their toll on the environment. The adverse effects of plastics are not solely related to the tonnage of plastic debris produced yearly. Moreover, the negative impacts on human health and the environment stem from some of the chemicals added to plastics during the manufacturing process.  Recently, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson outlined the Obama Administration’s principles for reforming the legislation commonly known as TSCA, the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act.  In a recent speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Administrator Lisa P. Jackson spoke of the need to fix the weaknesses in TSCA with a new chemical risk management law. The planets seem to be aligning in the right direction. Important players in government, the private sector, health and environmental organizations all seem to agree that the time for reform is now.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on protecting children from environmental contaminants and learning how the differences in behavior and physiology affect their exposures. I remember as a child playing with mercury, pouring it on the floor and pushing the silver blobs around with my fingers to form a bigger blob. We didn’t know it was bad for us, and neither did our parents.

Since then, the potential health effects from exposure to mercury and other toxic chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and pesticides have become the focus of environmental policies. We have also learned that diet is an important route of exposure to pesticides and other substances in the environment.

But, why are children a concern and how are their exposures different from those of adults?

Children’s organ systems are still developing and they may be more susceptible to environmental exposures. Their behavior and habits can also put children at higher risks. We have learned that contaminants can be deposited in toys and objects that children put in their mouth. Contaminants can also find their way into the milk of lactating mothers. Another example: on average, children younger than one year old inhale approximately six times the amount of air by body weight than an adult.

I love that my job helps me learn about keeping my kids healthy. But, even if you don’t work here, EPA has developed lots of useful information to share. Our Children’s Health Protection web site is a great place to start if you are looking for generalized information. One source I’ve been involved with, the Highlights for the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, provides risk assessors, economists, and others a wealth of data and EPA recommendations on exposure factors needed to estimate childhood exposure to toxic contaminants.

About the author: Jacqueline Moya is a chemical engineer with EPA’s Office of Research and Development. She has been with EPA for 25 years. Her work focuses on increasing our understanding about exposure to susceptible populations.

En los últimos años, ha habido un mayor énfasis en la protección de los niños contra los riesgos a la exposición a contaminantes ambientales y aprender cómo las diferencias de comportamiento y la fisiología afectan a esos riesgos. Recuerdo cuando era niña jugaba con mercurio, lo vertía sobre el suelo y con mis dedos empujaba las pequeñas bolitas plateadas hasta formar bolitas más grandes. Ni nuestros padres ni nosotros sabíamos que era malo para la salud.

Desde entonces, los posibles efectos en la salud debido a la exposición al mercurio y otros productos químicos tóxicos como el plomo, arsénico y pesticidas, han impulsado las políticas ambientales. Hemos aprendido que la dieta es una ruta importante de exposición a pesticidas y otras sustancias en el medio ambiente.

Pero, ¿por qué son los niños una preocupación y cómo se diferencian de los adultos? Los sistemas del organismo de los niños están en desarrollo y pueden ser más susceptibles a la exposición a compuestos ambientales. El comportamiento de los niños y sus hábitos también pueden ponerlos a mayores riesgo de exposición. Hemos aprendido que los contaminantes pueden ser depositados en los juguetes y objetos que los niños llevan a su boca. Los contaminantes también pueden ser encontrados en la leche de madres lactantes. Otro ejemplo: en promedio, los niños menores de uno año inhalan aproximadamente seis veces la cantidad de aire por el peso corporal que un adulto.

Me encanta que mi trabajo me ayuda a aprender acerca de mantener a mis hijos sanos. Pero si no trabaja aqui, EPA ha desarrollado mucha información útil que comparte con el público en general. Nuestra página cibernética para la Protección de la Salud de los Niños es un buen sitio para comenzar si quiere buscar información en general. Una fuente de información en la que he estado envuelta es el informe titulado Highlights for the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, que provee a los analistas de riesgo, economistas, y otros con información sobre factores de exposición necesarios para estimar la exposición de los niños a los contaminantes tóxicos.

Sobre el autor: Jacqueline Moya es una ingeniera química con la Oficina de Investigación y Desarrollo. Ha trabajado en EPA por 25 años. Su trabajo se concentra en aumentar nuestro entendimiento sobre la exposición en las poblaciones susceptibles.

Sounds easy? You be the judge! Here are some of my lessons learned when launching a video contest.

• Ensure you have web-know-how support. Without my two fantastic interns; Mary and Micheal, I would have never be able to navigate YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
• When filming a video on the National Mall remember — wind, sun, and happy tourist conversation can all affect video quality (see video below!!).
• Be prepared to be called at the last minute to appear on camera regardless of your experience. Being a biologist, like myself, does not prepare you in any way to read a script, look at a camera and talk slowly. (Trust me, I tried and I realized I am no Lisa Ling).
• Government outreach — or any outreach — is no longer just about conferences, documents, and presentations. Think of new ideas and you never know how many people you may reach and what you might accomplish.

Mary, Mike and I hope that this contest will help EPA motivate those who are interested in furthering the message about Lead Poisoning Prevention. We look forward to your entries and are eager to see whose names will be on the winners’ checks in October!

About the author: Christina Wadlington joined EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in July 2008 and works on Lead and Mercury outreach and policy. After calling many places home from traveling with the Marine Corps, she settled in the Washington, DC area while attending Georgetown University, where she studied the learning behaviors of Monarch butterflies.

While some of these pottery and dishes might decorate many a kitchen across America, there is a risk that these ceramics may contain a dangerous element—lead. Yes, lead is a heavy metal that has harmful health effects, especially among babies and young children. Lead can cause serious damage to the brain and nervous system in young children. It also causes behavioral and learning problems and deafness. In adults, it can cause reproductive disorders and hypertension among other health problems. Although dust and paint chips from old lead based paint are the primary source of exposure, this toxic metal can come from other sources as well. Lead is occasionally used in the terra cotta clay or colorful glaze that decorates earthenware. If it is not baked properly, it can leach into the food or liquids contained in the pottery. Furthermore, with the daily wear and tear, the pottery can chip or crack enabling the lead to come in contact with the food. Many pottery makers, even overseas, are taking increasing measures to eliminate lead from ceramic glazes, but there are always risks.

So, we’re not telling you to dispose of all family heirlooms made of pottery or all the earthenware and ceramics purchased from abroad. We recommend, however, that you put these ceramics aside if you believe they might have some lead content. Use them for decorative purposes. Just don’t use them for cooking or holding food or beverages.

If you live in a home built before 1978 when the federal government banned lead-based paint in residential housing or you fear other routes of exposure, you can have blood test to allay your fears. Lead poisoning in children is preventable. A simple blood test is the first step.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Mientras algunas de estas cerámicas y vajillas se encuentran en muchas cocinas, existe el riesgo de que algunas de estas piezas de cerámica pueden contener un elemento peligroso—el plomo [http://www.epa.gov/espanol/saludhispana/plomo.htm] Sí, el plomo es un metal pesado que tiene efectos de salud dañinos especialmente en los bebés y niños pequeños. El plomo puede ocasionar daño al cerebro y al sistema nervioso en niños pequeños. También ocasiona problemas de comportamiento y aprendizaje y sordera. En adultos, puede ocasionar problemas en el sistema reproductivo o hipertensión. A pesar de que el polvo y pedazos de la pintura vieja a base de plomo son las principales fuentes de exposición, este metal tóxico puede provenir de otras fuentes también. El plomo ocasionalmente se utiliza en el barro terra cotta o el barniz colorido que decora envases de cristal vidriado. Si no se hornea adecuadamente, puede contaminar los alimentos o líquidos contenidos en estas vasijas o cerámicas. Además, como parte del uso y desgaste diario, estas vasijas se pueden descascarar o agrietar lo cual facilitaría el contacto del plomo con los alimentos. Muchos de los alfareros, aún los que trabajan en el exterior, están empezando a tomar mayores medidas de seguridad para eliminar el plomo de los barnices, pero todavía pueden existir riesgos a la salud.

Por lo tanto, no estamos insistiendo en disponer de todas esas cerámicas y vasijas del tiempo de nuestras abuelas o que compramos en el extranjero. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247400] Sin embargo, recomendamos que no utilice estas cazuelas para cocinar ni guardar alimentos. Sólo utilícelos para propósitos decorativos.

Si usted vive en una residencia construida antes de 1978 cuando el gobierno federal prohibió el uso de la pintura a ase de plomo en residencias privadas o si usted teme otras vías de exposición, usted puede pedirle a su médico que le haga la prueba de sangre para el plomo para calmar su preocupación. El envenenamiento por plomo en niños se puede prevenir. [http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/spanish/sp_plomo.htm] Una prueba de sangre es el primer paso.

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

This year marks my 12th year working with EPA’s Green Chemistry Program and those dozen years have clearly shown me how effective green chemistry can be in preventing pollution.

Green chemistry is “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances.” It applies to what chemists make, what they make it from, and how they make it. It encourages scientists to think as broadly as possible about the potential impacts of the chemistry choices they make and to minimize the hazard associated with those choices. It’s a significant departure from traditional environmental protection, which focused on protecting people and the environment by minimizing exposure to hazardous substances. Instead, green chemistry protects by focusing on minimizing the intrinsic hazard of chemicals.

Fortunately, we can have the high-performing chemical products that our economy depends on—stuff used in health care, safety, building, transportation, electronics, food and agriculture, entertainment, and nearly every other industry—at a competitive price AND with a lower environmental footprint. There is no fundamental scientific reason that the chemistry has to be hazardous. The fact is that much of the chemistry that the industry currently uses is decades old and from a time that environmental protection was an afterthought, if it was a thought at all. What green chemistry espouses, and the winners of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge demonstrate, is that you can have “cleaner, cheaper, smarter chemistry” if you include reduced hazard as one of the design criteria.

My dream is that one day, we won’t need a Green Chemistry Program—it will be as natural a part of the way that chemists practice their science as the Periodic Table of the Elements. You can read more at www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.

About the author: Rich Engler is a chemist in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and is currently the Program Manager for EPA’s Green Chemistry Program. Before he joined EPA, he taught Organic Chemistry at the University of San Diego.

Phase 1 of the Hudson River dredging project provides a chance to evaluate whether the equipment and methods being used are adequate to meet the project’s cleanup goals. This phase is underway and will continue until the beginning of November. So far, dredging has removed more than 16,000 cubic yards of the river bottom. You can follow the project’s productivity at the following website: www.hudsondredgingdata.com/

That website also provides information about the various types of monitoring being done to ensure the project is performed in a way that is protective of human health and the environment.

The design elements to be scrutinized during Phase 1 include the equipment selected for dredging sediment and transporting dredged materials to the sediment processing facility, PCB resuspension control and monitoring equipment, the processes and equipment used for dewatering and stabilizing the dredged material and for treating water generated during sediment processing, the rail infrastructure designed for transport of processed dredged materials to the final disposal location in Texas, and the methods and equipment used to backfill dredged areas and, in certain areas, to reconstruct habitat. EPA will be watching all of these project components closely.

At the end of Phase 1 dredging and prior to the start of Phase 2 dredging, EPA and an independent scientific panel will separately evaluate the project to determine whether the dredging design or dredging operations should be modified for the final phase. If all goes according to plan the entire project will be complete by November of 2015.

About the author: Kristen Skopeck is originally from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She is an 11-year Air Force veteran and was stationed in California, Ohio, Texas, Portugal, and New York. After working for the USDA for three years, Kristen joined EPA in 2007 and moved to Glens Falls, NY to be a member of the Hudson River PCB dredging project team. She likes to spend her time reading, writing, watching movies, walking, and meeting new people.

With the formidable, 40-mile-long Hudson River dredging project underway, some people may have the idea that the river is off limits for recreation, but this isn’t the case. Granted there are a lot of project vessels on the water, especially around Rogers Island in Fort Edward, but by taking basic precautions for safety, people can use the river in all the ways they have in the past. As a matter of fact, the flurry of activity involves a lot of neat construction equipment, and people can visit the yacht basin in Fort Edward to see the dredging up close and personal.

To scoop the 400,000 tons of sediment (more than 94 acres) targeted this year, GE has mobilized an armada of equipment, including 11 dredges, 17 tugboats, 20 barges, and more than 400 rail cars, as well as skiffs, cranes and other machinery. At peak dredging during July and August, as many as 80 to 90 vessels are expected to be in the river each day. That’s a lot of water traffic congestion in a relatively narrow section of the Upper Hudson, but the river remains navigable by commercial and recreational boaters and open to water skiers, kayakers, swimmers, and anglers.

Boaters traveling in areas where dredging is being performed are being asked to avoid work areas, which are marked by buoys. New York State Canal Corporation regularly posts project information for boaters on their website. EPA and the New York State Department of Health representatives have been telling people recreational activities such as swimming and water skiing are acceptable during dredging, but individuals should try to avoid the immediate areas where dredging is being performed to minimize the potential for exposure. Also, people are being reminded to wash off after going in the water, not just because of PCBs, but because unfiltered river water is known to contain bacteria, viruses and other “bugs” that can make people sick. People are surprised to learn that they can still swim in the river with the project going on, but the main risk of exposure to PCBs at dangerous levels is through eating contaminated fish — and, for now, fish are strictly for catch and release in the Upper Hudson.

About the author: Kristen Skopeck is originally from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She is an 11-year Air Force veteran and was stationed in California, Ohio, Texas, Portugal, and New York. After working for the USDA for three years, Kristen joined EPA in 2007 and moved to Glens Falls, NY to be a member of the Hudson River PCB dredging project team. She likes to spend her time reading, writing, watching movies, walking, and meeting new people.

When I saw that Lenore Lamb had been chosen as one of the EPA Pacific Southwest Environmental Award Winners, I was thrilled since I know first hand of Lenore’s accomplishments as the Environmental Director for the Pala Band of Mission Indians. I met Lenore in 2001 and three wells, three kids (two were mine), and eight years later, I have seen Lenore grow from a one woman show to managing a staff of 12. She’s gone from a young, eager environmental learner to an expert and leader in her field. Her efficiency and energy amazes me and I get the impression that she does the work of three people. (She tells me it’s due to large quantities of caffeine.)

Here are just some of her contributions:

• Providing safe drinking water and wastewater disposal for both the Pala Band as well as a tribal community in Mexico by securing funding and overseeing infrastructure projects.
• Developing a “Green Team,” with representatives from the Pala Casino Resort and Spa, that has implemented energy and water efficiency programs and diverted 170 tons of solid waste since implementation of their program last year.
• Active involvement in the Upper San Luis Rey Resource Conservation District. Lenore has been instrumental in the clean up of illegal dumpsites along the creek beds within the reservation boundaries.
• Supporting education and outreach programs through annual earth day events, tribal publications, exercises for the Pala Boys and Girls Science Club, and by developing a “Creating and Managing Tribal Transfer Stations” course.
• Securing tribal funding and overseeing design and construction of a transfer station. The facility is open to the public, includes electronic waste collection, a green waste and composting program, a secured hazardous waste collection location, a state certified buy back center for recyclables, and a used oil collection program.

From my own experience working with tribes, I know that tribal environmental managers face enormous challenges. I’m even more impressed by Lenore since her accomplishments are more forward thinking than many non-tribal governments, even in a state like California, which is often on the cutting edge. Lenore has not only made significant contributions to improving the environment at Pala, she has contributed to improving environmental conditions throughout Indian Country.

To learn more about the Pala Band’s environmental programs, go to http://www.palatribe.com/programs/environment/. Look for additional environmental tribal leaders in future posts.