Greenversations

While it may not be the time where you think about gardening, it is getting to the point where many outdoor plants will finally make the move inside until spring and warm weather returns again. In my office area I am surrounded by all sorts of house plants and it makes me miss my jungle of a basement back home. There is one room in our basement that is filled with all sorts of house plants. However, upon closer look, if you were visiting my house you could see that 75% of the greenery in abundance is just from one single plant: the aloe plant. My mom has created quite a little forest of aloe. That plant, I’m almost positive, will live forever. We can be gone for weeks on vacation without watering and it will look the same as when we left it. And it grows at an exponential rate. My mom does more repotting of that plant than she does of watering it. But it seems to work. We’re stocked in case of a sunburn outbreak. Luckily, the aloe plant does much more good than harm (other than its hasty growth rate). As the weather finally starts to get cooler and you put your plants back inside, you will probably start looking at your house plants a lot closer. Some plants can be harmful. So, I thought it might be beneficial to provide some helpful tips about what to do with house plants that can be dangerous, and how to keep children safe around them.

• Know that the leaves or sap from some plants can be poisonous to animals and humans
• Poisonous plants have the potential to cause illness or a severe reaction
• Know the names of your poisonous plants around the house
• When there are babysitters or visitors in your house, make sure they are aware of where the poisonous plants are as well
• Keep these plants out of reach, perhaps on a tall bookshelf, from children and pets as well
• Some examples of poisonous plants are:
  - Mums: leaves and stalks are poisonous.
  - Common English Ivy: leaves are poisonous.
  - Dumbcane, Giant Dumbcane, Spotted Dumbcane: all parts
  are poisonous.
• As we approach the upcoming holiday season remember that, although they are wonderful decorations, berries from mistletoe and all parts of poinsettias* are poisonous and should be placed out of reach as well.

This list is just a small sample of dangerous plants but a more comprehensive list can be found here. Plants can create a little paradise inside while the weather outside is everything but utopia. Just make sure that your greenhouse of house plants can be safely enjoyed and admired.

*NOTE: Please read comments below regarding poinsettias, as it has been brought to our attention that there are many misconceptions about poinsettia toxicity.

About the author: Emily Bruckmann is an intern at the Office of Children’s Health Protection. She is a senior attending Indiana University who will graduate with a degree in public health this spring.

As parents, we all want what’s best for our children and like to see them grow healthy. I have taught my daughters to wash their hands, eat nutritious meals, wear protective equipment when practicing sports, and to wear sun block. Now that they are teenagers, I talk to them about the dangers of smoking, drinking and drugs, and of course…boys. However, working for the EPA has given me an increased awareness about another set of dangers—environmental exposures.

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.

Como padres, todos queremos lo que es mejor para nuestros hijos y nos gusta verlos crecer sanos. Le he enseñado a mis hijas a lavarse las manos, comer comidas nutritivas, usar equipo protector cuando practican deportes y a usar protector solar. Ahora que son adolescentes, les hablo sobre los peligros del fumar, beber y usar drogas y claro… de los varones. Sin embargo, trabajando para la EPA me ha dado una mayor conciencia acerca de otros peligros — exposiciones a contaminantes ambientales.

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.

A recent snowboarding trip one long weekend was cut short when my cell phone rang and my boss asked if I’d be willing to go to Phoenix. “There’s been a mercury spill in a high school near Phoenix,” he said. “Another one?” I asked. Just one week before, my colleague was sent to Calexico, California to help respond to a mercury spill in a school and help the on-scene coordinator and school district handle the situation. “Yep,” he said. “We got another one.”

I packed up my belongings and headed to Avondale, a Phoenix suburb. I arrived at Agua Fria High School to find emergency responders staged in the “black box” (the school’s drama room) to screen potentially contaminated belongings.

Mercury spills are an immediate health danger. At Agua Fria, a couple of boys got their hands on mercury and split it up into jars and went to their final class of the day.

Emergency responders identified exposed students and retraced their steps to find all potentially contaminated areas. Two buses and five classrooms were contaminated and cleaned up. The 1,700-student high school was closed for three days.

A “lumex” is used to screen for mercury - it looks like a first generation ghost buster (think Igor’s prototype) with a high-pitched whine that could make anyone crazy.

Imagine: you’re a high school student; you find silver liquid that looks cool and beads up like oil in water when you touch it. You bring it to class, throw some at that girl you like, play with it in the locker room, take it home to show your little sister. Now your school’s been closed, EPA officials, the local fire department and the police department are questioning you and pretty much everyone you know. How much did you have? Where did you go? What have you touched? Where are the clothes you were wearing? Do you feel sick?

Two families had to be relocated while their homes were being cleaned up and some students didn’t get some of their belongings back because they were too contaminated to clean up. Those favorite pair of sneakers? Gone. The iPod you got for your birthday? Gone. That sweatshirt you’ve had forever? Gone.

Interestingly enough, a lot of people thought it wasn’t a big deal. Some said they used to play with mercury as children and were fine. There are always arguments about how things used to be done. Sometimes these arguments start with, “In my day…” The best answer I always come up with is that we didn’t know then what we know now.

Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin, it’s poisonous.  Don’t mess with mercury.

About the Author: Margot Perez-Sullivan works in the EPA’s Public Affairs Office in San Francisco handling media relations in Arizona, Nevada and the Navajo Nation. She has also worked for the agency in the Boston and Washington DC offices.

The name sounds like it is all about pendulums and inclined planes, but it is really about radiation protection. The most entertaining story about the origin of the job description “health physicist” is that it came about during the “Manhattan Project” when scientists needed to protect themselves from the radioactive materials they used. According to the story, the term, “health physicist” was chosen to be an intentionally confusing description to disguise the work on the atomic bomb.

Over the last 60 years, health physics has developed into an important and complex scientific discipline and profession. There are entire university degree programs devoted to it as well as professional-level certification. In keeping with the confusing name, health physicists have many confusing terms and units such as rem, rad, roentgen, effective dose equivalent, and committed dose, just to name a few. If that weren’t confusing enough, health physicists also use the international system of units (kind of like the metric system).

Today many health physicists work in nuclear power plants, hospitals and industries, all places where radiation is used. Some also work at EPA, since EPA is the primary Federal agency charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of radiation. Many of them became involved in health physics because they were interested in the science of radiation. I once had a manager tell me that health physicists were unique at EPA because they were the only ones who “thought their pollutant was cool.”

I think the hardest job health physicists have is explaining radiation to the public and to other scientists at the EPA. We know a lot about radiation, but for low level radiation exposure, there is a lot that we need to assume and estimate, and many areas where the science is not clear. I usually start out my discussions about radiation by reminding people that this is a radioactive world.

Did you know that the reason the Earth’s core is still molten after 4.5 billion years is that the long-lived radioactive decay in the core keeps it hot? Without that molten core, Earth would not have a magnetic field, and without a magnetic field the solar wind would have blown away our atmosphere long ago (like Mars). And of course without an atmosphere, Earth would be a lifeless rock. So in a way, radioactivity is the reason there is life on Earth. Health physicists think that is cool–just ask one.

About the Author: Richard Poeton is a health physicist. He started his career with EPA while studying for his MS in radiological science at Oregon State University. Richard is professionally certified by the American Board of Health Physics, and has more than 30 years of experience in radiation protection. He has worked in the EPA Region 10 Seattle office since 1991 and is currently the radiation program manager there.

I just saw a movie which took me through the first chapters of Julia Child’s life-long venture with French cooking. Having been a French major in college, I must confess, that Julia’s first cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, became basic reading just like Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry), which brings me to today’s blog. While Julia Child is to be credited with opening Americans’ eyes to new French culinary techniques, we must note that her advice was ahead of its time. Not only did Ms. Child adapt ingredients to those which would be easily found in the traditional American kitchen and supermarkets, she is also credited with educating chefs-in-training on the importance of using fresh seasonal ingredients whenever possible. In her cookbooks, she even highlights during which months taste is optimum for specific produce. Essentially, in the early sixties, Julia Child was already a locavore way before the term had been coined. I don’t think reducing her carbon footprint was what she had in mind. For her, it was a matter of taste.

That brings me to the other issue I would like to discuss today–eating fresh fish. While eating fish and seafood is an essential part of a healthy diet, whether you’re a famous chef or not, many people argue that fresh fish actually tastes better. Well, freshly caught fish is more difficult to find nowadays. As I was reading several articles on aquaculture, I was surprised to learn that nearly half of all fish eaten today are actually farmed, not caught in the open seas or fresh waters. Back in 1980, the percentage of farmed-raised fish that made it to our tables was only 9 percent! Aquaculturists are even developing techniques so the farmed-raised fish will actually taste “fresh.” Given the growing population, good aquaculture practices are key to ensuring a sustainable supply of fish for human consumption. According to a recent study, there seems to be some hope for fisheries worldwide.

I would like to get input as to your thoughts on the issue. Personally, it all boils down to the taste of food—or does it really? In conclusion, bon appétit! As Julia Child used to say….

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.

Acabo de ver una película que me llevó a los primeros capítulos de la aventura de Julia Child con la cocina francesa. Como me especialicé en literatura francesa en la universidad, tengo que confesar, que el primer libro de cocina de Julia Child “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” (Dominar el arte de la cocina francesa), se convirtió rápidamente en lectura obligatoria como lo fue El Principito de Antoine de Saint Exupéry. Eso me trae al tema del blog de hoy. Mientras se le atribuye a Julia Child presentar las nuevas técnicas culinarias francesas al público estadounidense, tenemos que destacar que muchos de sus consejos ofrecidos eran realmente innovadores para su época. No tan sólo la Sra. Child adaptó los ingredientes a los encontrados tradicionalmente en Estados Unidos, sino también se le atribuye el educar a los nuevos chefs de cocina sobre la importancia de utilizar ingredientes frescos conforme a la temporada cuando fuera posible. En sus libros de cocina, incluso, ella destaca cuáles son los meses en los cuales los frutos y legumbres brindarán el mejor sabor. Esencialmente, a principios de la década del sesenta, Julia Child ya abogaba a favor de productos locales, era lo que ahora se denomina una “locávora” mucho antes de que se hubiese creado dicha expresión. No creo que ella estaba pensando en reducir su huella de carbono. Para ella, se trataba del sabor de la comida.

Eso me trae a otro tema que quisiera discutir hoy—el comer pescado fresco. Mientras el pescado y los mariscos son una parte esencial de una dieta saludable, independientemente si uno es un chef famoso o no, mucha gente insiste en que el pescado fresco sabe mejor. Bueno, el pescado realmente fresco es bastante difícil de encontrar en la actualidad. Mientras leía varios artículos sobre acuacultura, me sorprendió aprender que cerca de la mitad de todo el pescado comido hoy en día ha sido “cultivado” o sea producto de la acuacultura no ha sido capturado en alta mar ni en agua dulce. En el 1980, el porcentaje de pescado producto de la acuacultura que llegaba a nuestras mesas era tan sólo el 9 por ciento! Los acuaculturistas están desarrollando técnicas para que aquellos peces cultivados sepan mejor como si fueran realmente “frescos”. Dada la creciente población, las buenas prácticas de acuacultura son esenciales para asegurar un suministro sostenible de pescado para consumo humano. Conforme a un estudio reciente, aparentemente hay esperanzas para las pescaderías a nivel mundial.

Me gustaría escuchar sus ideas al respecto. En esencia–¿se trata realmente del sabor de la comida? En conclusión, como diría Julia Child, “bon appétit”, buen provecho!

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.

I have always liked working out outdoors. While I exercise indoors at the gym most of the time, during the weekend I like to go running and walking along a trail by the Bayamón River banks. The beautiful scenery and birds are part of what makes this workout something I look forward to the whole week. However a recent diagnosis of temporary high blood pressure prevented me from working out for a few weeks. Resuming exercise involved only working out indoors and eliminating all high intensity workouts. At first, I was reluctant to refrain from running outdoors. So I have resumed my runs at a slower pace and during the early morning hours.

While I am sunwise during outdoor activities and protect my skin from UV rays by wearing a wide baseball cap, sunscreen and sunglasses, I was not aware that other environmental factors can contribute to heart disease and aggravate high blood pressure. Excessive heat and poor air quality are the most common environmental culprits related to heart problems. Hot weather can worsen ground-level ozone and air quality. In Puerto Rico, during the summer, Sahara dust particles make the situation even worse. According to NOAA’s website, high temperature, humidity and physical exertion can lead to heat disorder or heat stress.

Heat stress occurs when the body can no longer keep blood flowing to supply vital organs nor send blood to the skin to reduce body temperature. Signs of heat exhaustion include:

• weakness
• headache
• breathlessness
• nausea or vomiting
• feeling faint or actually fainting.

It takes 30 minutes at least to cool the body down once a person suffers heat exhaustion. If not treated promptly, heat exhaustion can lead to serious heart problems. Preventing heat stress is simple. Here are a few suggestions I am currently following in order to enjoy exercise in the great outdoors without putting my overall health at risk.

• Take rest breaks–I pause for 5 minutes intervals during my 4-mile jog
• Limit heat exposure time—Perform outdoor activities early in morning or late afternoon hours
• Check the air quality index — Avoid exercising when air quality is poor
• Wear light and loose-fitting clothing
• Drink plenty of water

Simple steps will allow you to stay healthy while you exercise!

About the author: Brenda Reyes Tomassini joined EPA in 2002. She is a public affairs specialist in the San Juan, Puerto Rico office and also handles community relations for the Caribbean Environmental Protection Division.

Siempre me ha gustado hacer ejercicios al aire libre. Mientras hago ejercicios en el gimnasio la mayor parte del tiempo, durante los fines de semana me gusta ir de jogging por un camino a lo largo de las riberas del Río Bayamón. El bello paisaje y las aves son parte de lo que más me atrae de esa experiencia y es algo que aguardo con interés la semana entera. Sin embargo, un diagnosis reciente de hipertensión temporera me ha impedido hacer ejercicios por un par de semanas. Ahora que estoy reanudando mi rutina, me he tenido que conformar con limitar mis ejercicios a entornos cerrados y eliminar aquellos de alta intensidad. Al principio, estaba renuente a eliminar las carreras al aire libre de mi rutina deportiva. Por ende, reanudé mis carreras a un ritmo más lento y temprano en la mañana.

Aunque sabía de las precauciones a tomar durante actividades al aire libre para proteger mi piel de los rayos ultravioletas como usar una gorra de ala ancha, crema protectora y gafas de sol, no estaba consciente de que otros factores medioambientales pueden contribuir a enfermedades cardíacas y agravar la alta presión sanguínea. El exceso de calor y la pobre calidad del aire son los principales factores ambientales que contribuyen a los problemas del corazón. Las temperaturas elevadas pueden empeorar el ozono a nivel terrestre y la calidad del aire. En Puerto Rico, durante el verano, las partículas de polvo del Sahara pueden agravar la situación aún más. De acuerdo al sitio Web del Servicio Nacional Meteorológico de NOAA, la alta temperatura, la humedad y el esfuerzo físico pueden conducir a desórdenes de calor o insolación.

Los golpes de calor ocurren cuando el cuerpo ya no puede mantener el flujo de sangre necesario para suministrar a los órganos vitales ni enviar sangre a la piel para reducir la temperatura del cuerpo. Las señales de insolación o golpes de calor incluyen:

• Debilidad
• Dolores de cabeza
• Falta de aire
• Náuseas o vómitos
• Sentirse mareado o desmayarse

Toma al menos unos 30 minutos refrescar el cuerpo una vez que una persona sufre de un golpe de calor. Si no se trata rápidamente, la insolación o golpe de calor puede conducir a serios problemas del corazón. El prevenir el estrés por el calor es sencillo. He aquí unas sugerencias que estoy siguiendo en la actualidad para disfrutar de ejercicios al aire libre sin poner en peligro mi salud en general.

• Descanse con regularidad—Hago una pausa en intervalos de cinco minutos durante mi carrera de cuatro millas
• Limite el tiempo de exposición al calor—Hago mis ejercicios al aire libre sea temprano en la mañana o tarde por la tarde
• Consulte el índice de calidad de aire –Evito los ejercicios cuando la calidad de aire no es buena
• Usar ropa holgada de colores claros
• Beber mucho agua

¡Estos pasos sencillos le ayudarán a mantenerse saludable mientras hace ejercicios!

Sobre la autor: Brenda Reyes Tomassini se unió a la EPA en el 2002. Labora como especialista de relaciones públicas en la oficina de EPA en San Juan, Puerto Rico donde también maneja asuntos comunitarios para la División de Protección Ambiental del Caribe.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

Recognizing that there is a need for more scientific studies characterizing the mechanistic pathways linking social stressors (deforestation, habitat fragmentation, climate change), biodiversity, and human disease transmission, EPA developed a Biodiversity and Human Health research initiative to develop and sponsor long-term and pilot research projects.

The Biodiversity and Human Health research projects are the first of their kind at EPA, in subject matter and approach. The approach is interdisciplinary, involving ecologists, public health specialists, social scientists, and earth scientists. One unique part of the studies is that decision-makers are included in the research process, so that new findings of scientific knowledge can quickly be put into practice.

Starting tomorrow, I’ll be making a field site visit to one EPA-sponsored research project.

Rick Ostfeld, of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies is leading a project entitled “Mechanisms Linking Host Biodiversity to Lyme Disease Risk: An Experimental Approach” to investigate how differences in animal community composition affect Lyme disease transmission in Duchess County, NY.

People get Lyme disease by being bitten by a tick infected with the spirochete bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi. Ticks acquire the Lyme disease bacterium by feeding on small mammals such as white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and chipmunks that are already infected.

Not all mammals are equally efficient or competent at transmitting the bacteria to ticks when fed upon. In fact, white-footed mice appear to be the most competent animal host reservoir of Lyme disease in the northeastern U.S. So, the more white-footed mice that are in the forest, the greater chance more ticks will be infected, and the greater chance you have of getting bitten by an infected tick.

In a previous blog, I mentioned that forest destruction and fragmentation in the U.S. have been shown to reduce mammalian species diversity, and to increase populations of the white-footed mouse. Rick and his team will be manipulating the composition of small mammals across a variety of forest plot types to see how high and low levels of mammal diversity may affect Lyme disease infection rates among feeding ticks.

In a seminal paper, Rick and his colleagues proposed the “dilution hypothesis” to help explain how high biodiversity can decrease the risk of Lyme disease transmission. It predicts that infection rates for a specific pathogen (e.g. Lyme disease bacterium) will be lower in highly diverse host communities. Why? The “incompetent” reservoir hosts dilute rates of transmission between vectors (ticks) and competent hosts (white-footed mice). With EPA support, Rick’s team will be collecting and analyzing field data to help characterize the scientific mechanisms that can explain how different levels of biodiversity affect Lyme disease risk.

For more information on EPA’s Biodiversity and Human Health activities, see:
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/biodiversity

About the author: Montira Pongsiri, PhD, MPH, is an Environmental Health Scientist in EPA’s Office of the Science Advisor.

NOTE: Tweet! Tweet!
Follow the action from our field trip. We’ll posting updates from EPA’s new research Twitter account: @useparesearch.