The horror! Methyl iodide as an approved pesticide??

I recall hearing a couple of years ago that California was considering using methyl iodide as a replacement for methyl bromide, which has been used extensively as a pesticide for crops, such as strawberries, but has also been wreaking havoc on the ozone layer. So, methyl bromide is being phased out, but what to replace it with? Apparently, Arysta LifeScience has been pushing the use of methyl iodide as a soil fumigant, which should work similarly but not affect the ozone layer. In 2007, the EPA actually approved its use, despite the warnings from many chemists who said they were "astonished" that the EPA was considering "broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment."

I personally used methyl iodide in grad school, but I always took great precautions -- gloves, fumehood, syringes to transfer. This is not something you want to get on yourself. It is routinely used to methylate DNA. Can you say, "cancer"? Methyl iodide is 6 times more toxic than methyl bromide. It's still very volatile, so there is a serious inhalation risk. If used on crops, it will contaminate the air and the water, and most likely poison farm workers and people living in the vicinity (especially downwind).

A report from the California Scientific Review Committee in 2009 concluded that there was no good way to use methyl iodide safely and that its use would have a significant adverse impact on public health. Yet, on April 30, 2010, California actually proposed using methyl iodide as a pesticide for use in agriculture. What are these people thinking?? If nothing is done, methyl iodide will become legal for California farmers to use after June 29.

Interesting facts: 47 States have licensed the use of methyl iodide, and 11 states have used it at least once. It has been used mostly on strawberries and sometimes on tomatoes and peppers.

UK study finds no health benefits to organic foods...

Believe it or not, a recent study by researchers in the UK has concluded that organic food isn't any better than regular food. The researchers claim that there is little difference in nutritional value and there is no evidence that organic produce is healthier. Now, the first claim I tend to agree with, but I completely disagree with the second one. While there may still be traces of synthetic pesticides on some organic produce (did you know that?), properly grown organic food will most certainly contain less pesticides than normal produce. It does say that the study didn't look at the effect of pesticides, but it's irresponsible for them to make a conclusion like that based on incomplete research. They should scratch this statement: "...there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food." Let's see, isn't reducing the amount of pesticides people ingest a health benefit?

Exxon to Produce Biofuel from Algae

The New York Times reports that Exxon Mobil will be investing $600 million to produce liquid biofuel from green algae for transportation purposes, in partnership with biotech company Synthetic Genomics -- though it could be 5-10 years before we see any large-scale commercial production of algae-based fuels. According to Exxon, algae has the potential to produce more than 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, which is significantly more than the 650 gallons for palm trees, 450 gallons for sugar cane, and 250 gallons for corn. The biofuel derived from algae is supposedly similar in chemical structure to petroleum products and should be compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, algae can be grown in areas that aren't suitable for farming food crops and could help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Apparently, Exxon and Synthetic Genomics plan to genetically engineer new strains of algae that will be able to absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I was never a big fan of the idea of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels, especially when it means using crops that would otherwise be used to feed people -- there are still millions of starving people living on this planet of ours. Furthermore, to grow the crops at a scale that will make a difference, we would have to cut down even more forests to make way for farm land. Then there's the issue of carbon emissions, and using biofuels will not help the environment in that area either. However, in this case, if Exxon and Synthetic Genomics can pull it off, then this algae-based biofuel could be promising.

[Aside: Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel, but there are still so many hurdles in the way before it can even become practical. In the meantime, it makes sense to look at other fuel alternatives, but let's hope that we don't give up quite yet on hydrogen.]

The New York Times' Green Inc. blog has posted an article about the biofuel debate.

Meth labs: Do you know the history of your home?

I've been watching the first season of the AMC television series called "Breaking Bad" in which the main character, a high school chemistry teacher, decides to use his chemistry skills to produce high quality methamphetamine with a former student, after he is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Why? Because he wants to make sure his pregnant wife and teenage son, who has cerebral palsy, are financially secure once he is gone. I want to point out that while using your chemistry degree to make illegal drugs is bad, this is one of the few (if not the only) instances where a chemist is the main character on a TV series, and he's not your stereotypical nerdy, geeky, white male in a labcoat either. OK, maybe he starts out that way...

Anyway, I recently saw this article in the New York Times, and it's horrifying. I've heard about how once a residence has been the site of a meth lab, it's pretty much uninhabitable. What I can't believe is that such information can be withheld, and people have no idea that they're moving into and living in a toxic waste contaminated home. One homeowner later found out that there were high concentrations of meth on her kitchen countertops -- where she was sterilizing bottles and preparing baby food(!)

According to the article, people who live in these contaminated environments have succumbed to mysterious illnesses -- migraines, kidney disease, respiratory problems -- and pets have died. The fumes and chemicals from methamphetamine production can permeate drywall, carpets, insulation, and air ducts. The cost of cleaning a site can range from $5,000 - $100,000. Some states require cleanup and disclosure at the time of sale of the house's history. This obviously works really well, since one homeowner said that the former owner of their house -- who is now in prison -- had checked "no" on the disclosure form when asked if the house had ever been a meth lab...

Here is a document from the EPA titled "RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification of Methamphetamine Production Process By-products" that describes generally how methamphetamine is made, and it has a surprisingly lengthy list of chemicals commonly found at former meth labs. Here are some nastier ones: sodium/potassium/hydrogen cyanides, dimethyl sulfate, phosphine, sulfur trioxide, thionyl chloride, lead acetate, and the list goes on...

Unfortunately, there are no national standards governing meth contamination, and where there are state laws, the property owner is almost always held financially responsible for the cleanup. The CDC has a list of documents (alphabetically by state) that give a general overview of legislation, ordinances, policies, and regulations regarding methamphetamine, meth lab cleanup, and public health risks.

Do you know the history of your house?

Genetically altered mice can convert fat into carbon dioxide?

Guess what? Researchers at UCLA have shown that mice can be genetically altered to convert fat into carbon dioxide... AND they can eat a diet of "fast food" and still stay skinny. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it?

The researchers were inspired by plants and bacteria, which digest fat differently than humans and mammals. Plant seeds typically contain a significant amount of fat, and when they germinate, a set of enzymes called the "glyoxylate shunt" help them convert the fat into sugar. The researchers then introduced the genes for these enzymes into cultured human cells and found that the cells converted the fat completely into carbon dioxide. Then they introduced the genes into the livers of mice and found that the mice stayed skinny even when they ate a high-fat diet, and they also showed lower cholesterol levels and lower fat levels in the liver. What happened to all the fat? Well, it wasn't converted into sugar. It was converted into carbon dioxide!

Could you imagine if all the people in the world were treated with this "glyoxylate shunt therapy" and went on their merry way eating tons of fatty foods with no *apparent* consequence -- how much more greenhouse gases would we be adding to the atmosphere? :)

Not sure why, but I keep thinking of the humans in WALL-E ...

Recycling -- Bad for the Environment?

Who knew that recycling could be bad for the environment? Discover Magazine points out that while recycling is better than tossing in the trash, problems arise when people don't pay attention to the type of plastic they're throwing in the recycling bin, mixing plastics that shouldn't be mixed together. Why? Because the presence of other types of plastic or foreign materials like food can ruin an entire batch of recycled plastic. Of course, the plastic is first sorted at a sorting plant prior to recycling, but the automated sorting process isn't perfect, and any contamination will compromise the strength and durability of the recycled plastic that is produced. Poor quality recycled plastic will just lead manufacturers to use more new plastic instead -- and this is where recycling can be bad for the environment.

The Daily Green has a nice slideshow describing what the different recycling symbols and numbers mean.

Our city only collects number 1 (PET or PETE - polyethylene terephthalate) and 2 (HDPE - high density polyethylene) plastics for recycling. I'm very conscientious about sorting out plastic at home, but sometimes it can be tricky. I've seen some fresh fruit packaging that looked like it could be PETE, but surprisingly it turned out to be polystyrene (PS, number 6 plastic)...

What did kids play with before electronic toys existed??

Have you noticed that practically every toy has some sort of electronic component to it these days? Before I had Jessie, I had decided that I didn't want my kid to play with toys that made annoying noises, but that's pretty much impossible, unless you restrict them to playing with traditional toys like building blocks, stuffed animals, dolls, etc. But now, I'm guilty of accepting and buying (oh no!) toys for Jessie that make noise... Sigh. She has plenty of non-electronic toys as well, and she plays with them just as much, so I can't say whether "hi tech" toys are better. I just hope she grows to like LEGOs as much as I did when I was a kid. I think LEGOs are one of the simplest toys out there that will encourage kids to be creative.

Anyway, getting back to electronic toys... I never thought about this until I saw the crossed-out wheelie bin symbol on many of Jessie's toys. You think about recycling your cell phone or computer or other electronic devices, but do you think about recycling your kid's electronic toys? That crossed-out wheelie bin symbol means you can't just throw that toy in the trash, you need to recycle it with other electronic waste. Here's a great website with information about recycling and even composting.

I'm wondering how aware parents are about this and whether they're disposing of their kids' electronic toys properly...

Tap Water -- A Matter of Taste

I've always wondered about the quality of our tap water. People say our city's is pretty good even though it tastes awful. When we first moved here, we drank bottled water exclusively, but then decided it was more environmentally friendly to drink filtered tap water. Besides, there's no good regulation over the quality of bottled water...

Earlier this spring, I noticed that our tap water had suddenly acquired a kind of musty taste and odor to it. It stayed that way for a couple of weeks, and even though we filtered our water with a Brita carbon filter, the taste remained even after filtering with a brand new filter cartridge. After doing some research, I found out that our city gets its water from a nearby lake, and apparently, algal blooms can cause this type of taste/odor in the water. Though the algae can be removed from drinking water, the chemical compounds they produce cannot be removed completely. Two of these compounds are geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol which both have strong odors. Unfortunately, our senses of taste and smell are extremely sensitive to these compounds, and we can detect them at concentrations as low as 5 ppt. Too bad for me, I have a pretty sensitive nose (and taste buds) -- in the lab, I used to be like the canary in a coal mine. :)

Thankfully, the nasty taste and smell are gone now. It might be neat to go check out the lake sometime.

Synthetic Trees for Carbon Sequestration

I came across a cool article about carbon sequestration. Geophysics professor Klaus Lackner from Columbia University has developed a synthetic tree that can capture carbon 1,000 faster than an actual tree -- that's 1 ton of carbon dioxide per day. That's equivalent to the emissions produced by 20 cars. Unfortunately, these trees cost $30,000 to make, and according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in order to offset the emissions from the 135,932,930 cars on the road in the U.S., we would need 6.8 million of these trees! Undaunted, Lackner says he will have a prototype ready in 3 years.

How does it work? Well, it doesn't need sunlight or water, it simply collects carbon dioxide on a sorbent material, and then cleans and compresses the gas into liquid form, which can then be used to produce fuels and fertilizers.

So far, this is the best carbon sequestration solution I've come across... Let's hope it happens.

I Buy Organic...But Only for Jessie

If money were no object, I would probably buy (mostly) organic. Unfortunately, organic food choices around here are somewhat limited and expensive. I really wish they would open a Whole Foods or something. Anyway, the only person in the family who gets to eat organic is our lucky little girl. Even then, I'm selective about what I buy that's organic. My main reason to buy organic is to reduce exposure to pesticides and growth hormones. Not everything is highly contaminated. It's worth paying attention to the "Dirty Dozen" list of foods to buy organic though. Fruits and vegetables that typically contain higher levels of pesticide residues include: apples, cherries, imported grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, celery, potatoes, spinach. It's probably also a good idea to buy organic milk, chicken, and beef. Produce that doesn't contain significant pesticide levels include: bananas, kiwi, mangoes, papaya, pineapples, asparagus, avocado, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, onions, peas. Here's a full list of produce that have been ranked according to their pesticide content. As a general rule, it's a good idea to eat a varied diet and to buy what's in season.

I've also wondered how sustainable organic farming is... By sustainable, I mean, is it possible to feed the entire planet's population -- there are still starving populations around the world -- if all our food were grown organically. Here's an interesting Mother Jones article about sustainable agriculture.

One last thing. Some people have told me that organic food tastes better than conventionally grown food. I have tasted some of the organic stuff I've bought for Jessie, and yes, I definitely taste a difference, but I'm not sure I'd say that the taste is better. :)