Greenversations

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

After reading statements like “further research is needed” or “researching is ongoing” in articles about science and the environment, I am often frustrated. If only it were possible to have all the answers at our fingertips. Strong science to inform environmental decisions is crucial, and in the world we live in, it seems like these decisions can’t be made quickly enough. We are all anxious to hear what science has to tell us and what new solutions it may offer.

The EPA Office of Research and Development’s recently-released Land Research Progress Report struck me as a heartening example that not only are scientists working hard to obtain results but that these results are substantial and have already been used for practical outcomes.

Taking a look at the report helped me understand exactly what work is being done and how extensive, multifaceted, and successful the Land Research Program has been. The program is one of twelve interdisciplinary research programs at EPA, and it focuses on cleaning up and revitalizing land contaminated by hazardous waste. Main areas of research include landfills, contaminated sediments, groundwater contamination, and underground storage tanks among others

The report tracks research results and impacts from 2005-2009. For each area of research, it offers a detailed account of exactly where and why changes have been implemented, and what further efforts are underway. Figures given in the report such as, “Over the last five years, ORD scientists have partnered with over 40 landfill managers to transfer technology on alternative landfill covers. This resulted in installation cost savings totaling 200 million dollars,” drive home the idea that science is being turned into action. It also highlights some important innovations, such as the groundwater research program developing a patented technology and applying it to a clean-up site.

While there is, no doubt, a long way to go in cleaning up our communities and managing hazardous waste issues, it is refreshing to see clear evidence that the research being done is having an impact. The long timelines required by scientific research projects can often be frustrating, but reports like this one make the results visible and serve as welcome reminders that progress is being made.

About the Author: Cathryn Courtin is a student at Georgetown University in the Science, Technology, and International Affairs program. She is spending her summer working as a student contractor at EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

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

My introduction to “green chemistry” came a few weeks ago when I sat in on a Sustainability Workshop conducted for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. The workshop was led by John C. Warner, Ph.D., founder of the Warner-Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry.

Dr. Warner has been honored with numerous awards, has hundreds of patents to his name, and enjoys widespread recognition in his field. He also co-authored Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice with EPA Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas, a book largely responsible for setting the Green Chemistry movement in motion.

During his presentation, Dr. Warner stated, “I have synthesized over 2,500 compounds, and I have never been taught what makes a chemical toxic. I have no idea what makes a chemical an environmental hazard!”

That certainly got my attention. How could it be possible that a chemist at the top of his field had never studied toxicity? Dr. Warner offered a surprising answer to this question. “In order to earn a degree in chemistry,” he stated, “no university requires any demonstration of knowledge regarding toxicity or environmental impact.” The presence of toxins, he explained “always gets found out later in the process because it’s not part of the training.”

Green Chemistry, I learned, is designed to change that. Its principles aim for less hazardous chemical synthesis and striving to design safer chemicals instead of dealing with hazard throughout the process. Of course this is not a simple matter, and Dr. Warner detailed just how complex and challenging it is. “It’s an incremental process”, he said, one which requires much research, hard work, and innovation. Products have already been patented, however, that have been designed following the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry.

“We’ve got to celebrate the improvements where they are” Warner says, and we have to proceed with the mind set to change the status quo. Green chemistry has the potential to protect human health and safety while creating more cost effective and better performing alternatives to the current process and products.

It seems that green chemistry is a huge frontier for further exploration and research as well as a huge opportunity not only for universities but for science in the U.S. as well. Green Chemistry has many other facets in addition to those I have mentioned. Although I was just recently introduced to the topic, Dr. Warner has helped me see how incredibly important it is.

About the Author: Cathryn Courtin is a student at Georgetown University in the Science, Technology, and International Affairs program. She is spending her summer working as a student contractor at EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

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

Sustainability has become a buzzword in recent years when discussing current environmental events. On the heels of the BP Oil Spill, it has become an imperative. Last week I attended a speech by Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D., EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. The speech was the keynote address at the American Chemical Society’s Annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference.

Anastas, the “father of green chemistry” and one of the founders of the conference, focused his remarks on the importance of leadership and the opportunity for innovation in the fields of green chemistry and engineering. Using the oil spill as an example, the speech was punctuated by stirring images, including the technologically impressive offshore drilling platform and the less than inventive booms, one of the tools employed during the clean-up. It made me question the decision to put all our stock into technology that is efficient at acquiring natural resources, but fails to protect or sustain them.

As a student of architecture who has worked on projects involving sustainable design I was pleased to hear Anastas champion elegant technology. His comments made me think about my own attempts to foster sustainability. With any new idea, cutting-edge technology can only get you so far. An ugly idea is unappealing to the general public. However, when technology is wrapped in an attractive and efficient package it can be successful. Clearly, technology is only one part of the equation to reach sustainable goals, and I think a lot of work must be done to bridge the gap between ideology and practice.

I was particularly struck by the remark that Anastas made about how he coined the term “green chemistry,” choosing the label green based on both environmental and economic principles (“Green is the color of money,” he pointed out.)

The terms “environmental” and “economic” seem at odds with each other in a modern context as the country continues to experience the effects of a fiscal downturn and many proposed sustainable methods have proved both costly and inefficient. The development of new technology that is successful on both levels can create the opportunity for economic growth and recovery without degrading the environment and threatening human health. However, I was inspired by the optimistic tone and the reassurance that we have the ability to reconcile these two values, that with persistence and ingenuity we can redefine a sustainable future and employ our creativity to “become the leaders we have been waiting for.”

About the Author: Hillary Kett is a student contractor with the Communications team in the Office of Research and Development.

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

“Great work, done invisibly, cannot have impact. Communication is not merely transmitting our work; it is an essential part our work. Communication is essential in the design, definition, conduct, transfer, and implementation of the work we do if we are to have an impact.”

The above paragraph was part of The Path Forward ,  a memo Assistant Administrator Paul T. Anastas recently sent to me and my colleagues across EPA’s Office of Research and Development—the science arm of the Agency.

The memo outlines Dr. Anastas’ vision for leading EPA research, and lays out a set of principles for guiding our work into the future. As a science writer, I was thrilled to see that communication was an integral part of that vision.

It was good timing, too.

To help spread the word about EPA research, I’m happy to announce the launch of Science Matters,  an electronic newsletter devoted to sharing stories about the innovative environmental and human health science conducted by EPA researchers and their partners.

Science forms the foundation of everything EPA does. It provides the information, tools, and models the Agency needs to meet its mission to protect human health and the environment.

EPA scientists and engineers explore the complex interrelationships between people and our environment. At their core, they are problem solvers—devoting their efforts to deeply understanding problems. What they learn provides critical information for meeting the nation’s most pressing environmental and human health challenges.

The goal of Science Matters is to spread the word about that collective effort. After all, “great work, done invisibly, cannot have impact.”

Sign up!

Click here for a Science Matters e-mail subscription  (Just enter your e-mail address in the white box and hit the “go” button.)

About the Author: Aaron Ferster is the lead science writer-editor for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and the editor of Science Wednesdays on Greenversations.

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

During my October visit to Southern California, I caught up with Dr. Williams Hinds at UCLA.

Hinds, an EPA STAR grantee and researcher at the Southern California Particle Center, received two national awards in 2009 in different fields of research.

Now an Emeritus Professor at UCLA, where he has taught and researched for the past 27 years, Hinds has spent a long career focused primarily on air pollution exposure research.

Arantza Eiguren, an analytical chemist who works closely with Hinds on an EPA funded project noted that he has trained some of the most influential aerosol scientists of our time.

“And, he wrote one of the best books there is on aerosols,” she said in reference to his 1999 text, Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, And Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd Ed.

Hinds received the Donald E. Cummings Memorial Award from the American Industrial Hygiene Association in June, 2009. The award is a tribute to Donald E. Cummings, the Association’s third president and is given for outstanding contributions to the knowledge and practice of the profession of industrial hygiene.

Just a few months later, Hinds received word of winning the David Sinclair Award from the American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR). The award recognizes excellence in aerosol research and technology.

AAAR emphasized the breadth of Hinds’ contributions. “Hinds’ academic career includes extensive peer reviewed publications, research grants, and membership on technical and standard setting committees,” the award announcement read.

I chatted with Hinds just one day after he was notified of the second award. His delight in both accomplishments was evident.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.

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

On a recent visit to the Southern California Particle Center, amidst the cold sterility of lab equipment and the drone of machinery, a feeling of warmth was palpable. I was there to discuss organic chemistry and toxicology and learn about chemical processes, but couldn’t help noticing something else.

As director John Froines and lead investigator Art Cho discussed their latest scientific findings, references to their strong friendship and deep appreciation of working together repeatedly crept into the conversation. When asked separately about personal investments in the Particle Center, each immediately referenced the other.

“John and I can sit and talk. He’s also an organic chemist… so we can talk in a common language,” Cho said of the pair’s hours-long daily conversations about chemistry and science.

The Particle Center is an air pollution research consortium funded by a multi-million dollar EPA grant. Scientists at the Center are encouraged to work collaboratively to address questions about air pollution exposure that have real world significance, especially in Los Angeles, where the Center is based.

But to these scientists, their work is more than a just a job. Over and over, each emphasized the personal satisfaction gained through years of intellectual partnership.

“Art Cho is 81. I’m 70. Do you realize the joy that we have, two of us old chemistry codgers, being able to do the science in a multidisciplinary way?” Froines asked, rhetorically.

Cho echoed the sentiment, expressing his enthusiasm with an inescapable air of academia.

“I’m having fun, as it were,” he mused.

At 81, Cho is still working as a full time lead investigator in his UCLA labs. When the subject of potential retirement was broached, Froines jumped in on Cho’s behalf without hesitation,

“Don’t you even…” he warned with a grin, “…that word is forbidden!”

Whoever said research science was an antisocial career path has clearly not met these chemistry vets. As I proceed on my travels, I’ll continue sharing stories of the cast of characters that study the air we breathe.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.

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

Those of you who have followed Science Wednesday over the past year know that the first week of each month has included a post focused on the monthly theme of the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science’s (COPUS) Year of Science celebration, and a Question of the Month. EPA’s Office of Research and Development is a participating member of the COPUS network. Please check back this afternoon for this month’s Year of Science Question of the Month where we will ask if you have any resolutions for the New Year that combine both your health and the health of the environment. We would love to hear from you.

December’s theme—Celebrate Science and Health—is not only a great way to wrap up the year, but a perfect fit for EPA. EPA’s mission is “to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water and land—upon which life depends.” A lot of human health research is conducted in support of that mission.

What’s next? Over the last 12 months, Science Wednesday has covered everything from nanotechnology to the biodiversity found across entire ecosystems.

What’s in store for 2010? Already, we’re gearing up for regular posts to celebrate some of the incredible science behind the Clean Air Act. This landmark environmental legislation—like the EPA itself—turns 40 in 2010.

One of my own resolutions is keep to Science Wednesday rolling. So, if there are any particular areas of EPA science that you’d like to see covered, please post your suggestion in the comment section below. I’ll do my best see that it’s covered.

Thanks again for everyone who has followed Science Wednesday during 2009, and I look forward to your comments in 2010!

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the lead science writer in EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and the editor of Science Wednesday.

March 2009 marked a memorable month in the 19 years I have worked for EPA’s Office of Water. That is when Environmental Monitoring and Assessment published two articles about EPA’s National Lake Fish Tissue Study. I had the privilege of managing this study for the 8 years required to complete it.

This study was a unique achievement. It was the first statistically-based national assessment of freshwater fish contamination to be conducted in the United States. It also included the largest set of chemicals (268) ever studied in fish. Field crews worked 4 years to collect fish samples from 500 lakes selected randomly from a statistically-defined set of about 147,000 lakes in the lower 48 states. Tony Olsen in EPA’s Office of Research and Development designed the study and directed statistical analysis of the concentration data. The design of this study generated results that allowed EPA to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs across the country with fish tissue concentrations of specific chemicals, such as mercury, above levels of concern for human health.

Aside from my intense feeling of pride in providing leadership for this major scientific study, I look back in amazement at the number of people who volunteered years of effort to make this study possible. EPA relied on the participation of scientists from 58 state, tribal, and federal agencies for 5 years to evaluate sampling sites and collect fish samples. Their long-term commitment to maintaining the highest standards of quality while participating in the study produced scientific results that earned the praise of senior EPA managers, industry representatives, and members of academia. I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation to all of the scientists across the country that support EPA. In the end, it was their hard work and dedication that made this study a success.

Leanne Stahl is an environmental scientist in the Standards and Health Protection Division of the Office of Water, where she conducts research on chemical contamination in fish and surface waters.

The sun set around 7:45, and my first shift began! Sporting a bright orange vest and hard hat, my team helped to deploy the CTD off the starboard side of the BOLD just off Cape Ann in Gloucester, MA.

In this first day (and a half day at that) we were able to sample 7 stations!  Chlorophyll samples are being sent to EPA New England’s laboratory on land in Chelmsford, MA.

Stations labeled “R1…” are located on the Captain’s Log page. New Stations have the latitude and longitude.

At a bit past midnight, my shift ended and we were on course to New Hampshire’s coast. Said, “hello and goodnight” to my roomie who caught the tough shift, she will get back to the room around 4 am.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring!

Jeanethe Falvey works in EPA’s Boston office.

Hi there! Each day thousands of people are working at EPA to help clean up our environment. I’m one of the lucky few that gets to see how this work is done out on the ocean! My name is Jeanethe Falvey, I’m 24 years old and have worked for EPA for just over two years since I graduated from Bates College in 2007. This week, from July 30 – August 6, I will be onboard the OSV BOLD, EPA’s only ocean research ship. Scientists will be studying the health of New England’s coastline from Boston Harbor to Penobscot Bay in Maine, and I’m here to help show you what life is like onboard the ship. Learn more at http://www.epa.gov/ne/boldkids/ and follow me on Twitter @epalive!

Jeanethe Falvey works in EPA’s Boston office.