02 October 2011
Just jump in!
Oct 06, 2011 09:55 AM Filed in: The Biz
America's Most Toxic Cities
Oct 06, 2011 09:49 AM Filed in: Toxicity We Live With
America's Most Toxic Cities
Francesca Levy, 11.06.09, 6:00 PM ET
In Atlanta, Ga., you'll find southern gentility, a world-class music scene--and 21,000 tons of environmental waste. In spite of its charms, the city's combination of air pollution and atmospheric chemicals makes it the most toxic city in the country.
An urban skyline dotted with puffing smokestacks isn't the only measure of a city's cleanliness (or lack thereof). Most major cities suffer from a range of unseen hazards. Contaminants can seep into the ground from bygone chemical spills or shuttered steel mills. Invisible leaks at industrial complexes discharge harmful substances into the air, or the normal course of business requires factories to expel toxins that eventually find their way to the water supply.
While it may be the U.S. metro in the worst environmental shape, Atlanta isn't the only place whose residents contend with contamination. Top spots for toxicity are distributed throughout the country, with Detroit, Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Los Angeles right behind it. Cleaning up these cities is neither easy nor cheap. The Environmental Protection Agency expects that it will cost $10.5 billion in federal money in 2010 to improve the U.S. environment's health in general and to craft clean energy solutions.
Behind the Numbers To determine which cities are most toxic, Forbes looked at the country's 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines and uses in collecting statistics--based on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city. The reports vary in seriousness, and not all require clean-up action from the EPA.
This is a scary chart!
Crowded urban areas are often thought of as the most polluted, but the latter isn't always caused by the former. While the Atlanta metro area takes top honors for toxicity, don't blame the city alone. The Atlanta metro includes the city of Marietta, the site of chemical plants and metal coaters. The city has toxic release levels higher than those of the principal city of Atlanta, in spite of a population 13% the size of Atlanta's.
Environmental advocates say weak regulations are to blame. "We struggle to have strong environmental leadership," says Jenette Gayer, policy advocate for Environment Georgia, an environmental advocacy organization. "For a lot of the chemicals people reported dumping, there are alternatives we should be helping them switch to."
Similarly, while the Philadelphia metro area is our fourth most toxic area, the City of Brotherly Love doesn't hold the bulk of the blame for the pollution. Factories in smaller Wilmington, Del., in the same metro area, reported releasing 57% more pounds of toxins than Philadelphia in 2007. Wilmington houses a Pepsi bottler and General Motors assembly plant, as well as the headquarters of chemical company Dupont.
Some cities, like Houston--our third most toxic city--contend with air that is far filthier than it should be. Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.
"Houston has an air problem," says Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands, Texas-based nonprofit that studies and promotes sustainable development. "It has had one for a number of years, and we've been working on it extensively since about 2000."
Los Angeles, a city whose traffic-clogged freeways contribute to its famously poor air quality, experiences similar weather patterns that add to its existing air-quality problems. It ties for fourth most toxic city.
"Los Angeles is in a geographic basin surrounded by mountains," says Brian Turnbaugh, policy analyst for the Environmental Right to Know project at OMB Watch, a government watchdog organization. "The pollution doesn't go away; it kind of just sits there, creating these horrible smog days."
Big Lights, Clean City High population density--the contrast to Atlanta's sprawl--can be a good thing in terms of toxicity. Limiting traffic has helped urban centers like New York City, which are often associated with grit and grime. A highly efficient subway system keeps New York outside the worst 20 cities in terms of toxicity.
"New York City has extremely high density, but excellent public transportation," says Turnbaugh. Still, the area is more toxic than 18 of the large cities we looked at, proving that cracking down on waste and emissions is a complex, long-term problem. "The public transportation system can only accomplish so much, given that you've got people coming and going from outlying areas."
Some cities, like Portland, Ore., have avoided becoming highly toxic by devoting city resources to environmentally friendly planning.
"Portland is known for its innovative land-use policies," says Turnbaugh. The city has been working to curb urban sprawl and encourage density since the 1970s. But Portland has underlying problems that make it more toxic than half the cities we surveyed. "It was suffering, for years, from out-of-control growth. Those policies were a reaction to that."
Portland and New York demonstrate the myriad and wide-ranging causes of toxicity. No one measure is enough to completely address the problem, nor can one solution apply to all toxic cities. These two cities themselves couldn't be more different in terms of size or lifestyle, yet they're next to each other on our list.
"I don't know of any metro area that has really nipped it in the bud," says Turnbaugh of the effort to assess and clean urban toxicity. But some of the most affected cities are attempting to address the problem with ambitious programs.
"Texas has invested $800 million in trying to replace old dirty diesel engines with cleaner diesel," says David Hitchcock, director of sustainable transportation programs at HARC. But a silver lining has emerged from the negative focus that one of the country's most toxic city has attracted: Houston, of all places, is now a vanguard for advancing sustainability.
"We're now one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science," says Lester. "The more people understand about it, the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction."
Francesca Levy, 11.06.09, 6:00 PM ET
In Atlanta, Ga., you'll find southern gentility, a world-class music scene--and 21,000 tons of environmental waste. In spite of its charms, the city's combination of air pollution and atmospheric chemicals makes it the most toxic city in the country.
An urban skyline dotted with puffing smokestacks isn't the only measure of a city's cleanliness (or lack thereof). Most major cities suffer from a range of unseen hazards. Contaminants can seep into the ground from bygone chemical spills or shuttered steel mills. Invisible leaks at industrial complexes discharge harmful substances into the air, or the normal course of business requires factories to expel toxins that eventually find their way to the water supply.
While it may be the U.S. metro in the worst environmental shape, Atlanta isn't the only place whose residents contend with contamination. Top spots for toxicity are distributed throughout the country, with Detroit, Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Los Angeles right behind it. Cleaning up these cities is neither easy nor cheap. The Environmental Protection Agency expects that it will cost $10.5 billion in federal money in 2010 to improve the U.S. environment's health in general and to craft clean energy solutions.
Behind the Numbers To determine which cities are most toxic, Forbes looked at the country's 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines and uses in collecting statistics--based on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city. The reports vary in seriousness, and not all require clean-up action from the EPA.
This is a scary chart!
Crowded urban areas are often thought of as the most polluted, but the latter isn't always caused by the former. While the Atlanta metro area takes top honors for toxicity, don't blame the city alone. The Atlanta metro includes the city of Marietta, the site of chemical plants and metal coaters. The city has toxic release levels higher than those of the principal city of Atlanta, in spite of a population 13% the size of Atlanta's.
Environmental advocates say weak regulations are to blame. "We struggle to have strong environmental leadership," says Jenette Gayer, policy advocate for Environment Georgia, an environmental advocacy organization. "For a lot of the chemicals people reported dumping, there are alternatives we should be helping them switch to."
Similarly, while the Philadelphia metro area is our fourth most toxic area, the City of Brotherly Love doesn't hold the bulk of the blame for the pollution. Factories in smaller Wilmington, Del., in the same metro area, reported releasing 57% more pounds of toxins than Philadelphia in 2007. Wilmington houses a Pepsi bottler and General Motors assembly plant, as well as the headquarters of chemical company Dupont.
Some cities, like Houston--our third most toxic city--contend with air that is far filthier than it should be. Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.
"Houston has an air problem," says Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands, Texas-based nonprofit that studies and promotes sustainable development. "It has had one for a number of years, and we've been working on it extensively since about 2000."
Los Angeles, a city whose traffic-clogged freeways contribute to its famously poor air quality, experiences similar weather patterns that add to its existing air-quality problems. It ties for fourth most toxic city.
"Los Angeles is in a geographic basin surrounded by mountains," says Brian Turnbaugh, policy analyst for the Environmental Right to Know project at OMB Watch, a government watchdog organization. "The pollution doesn't go away; it kind of just sits there, creating these horrible smog days."
Big Lights, Clean City High population density--the contrast to Atlanta's sprawl--can be a good thing in terms of toxicity. Limiting traffic has helped urban centers like New York City, which are often associated with grit and grime. A highly efficient subway system keeps New York outside the worst 20 cities in terms of toxicity.
"New York City has extremely high density, but excellent public transportation," says Turnbaugh. Still, the area is more toxic than 18 of the large cities we looked at, proving that cracking down on waste and emissions is a complex, long-term problem. "The public transportation system can only accomplish so much, given that you've got people coming and going from outlying areas."
Some cities, like Portland, Ore., have avoided becoming highly toxic by devoting city resources to environmentally friendly planning.
"Portland is known for its innovative land-use policies," says Turnbaugh. The city has been working to curb urban sprawl and encourage density since the 1970s. But Portland has underlying problems that make it more toxic than half the cities we surveyed. "It was suffering, for years, from out-of-control growth. Those policies were a reaction to that."
Portland and New York demonstrate the myriad and wide-ranging causes of toxicity. No one measure is enough to completely address the problem, nor can one solution apply to all toxic cities. These two cities themselves couldn't be more different in terms of size or lifestyle, yet they're next to each other on our list.
"I don't know of any metro area that has really nipped it in the bud," says Turnbaugh of the effort to assess and clean urban toxicity. But some of the most affected cities are attempting to address the problem with ambitious programs.
"Texas has invested $800 million in trying to replace old dirty diesel engines with cleaner diesel," says David Hitchcock, director of sustainable transportation programs at HARC. But a silver lining has emerged from the negative focus that one of the country's most toxic city has attracted: Houston, of all places, is now a vanguard for advancing sustainability.
"We're now one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science," says Lester. "The more people understand about it, the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction."
Rising Obesity and Its Consequences
Oct 06, 2011 09:44 AM Filed in: Obesity is Unecessary
By Dennis “D” Harper, DO, Isagenix Science Advisory Board Chair
I’m surely not alone in feeling alarmed when I read that the obesity epidemic is worse now than ever. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently posted a website with a map of the United States showing the changes in obesity that have taken place over the last 25 years. I strongly suggest that you use this link and see for yourself.
Just to give you an idea of the gravity of the situation, I would like to share with you the following statistics:
- In 1985, the highest state obesity rate was equal to or less than 14 percent. Six years later it increased.
- In 1991, the highest state obesity rate was equal to or less than 19 percent. Six years later it increased.
- In 1997, the highest state obesity rate was equal to or greater than 20 percent. Four years later it increased.
- In 2001, the highest state obesity rate was equal to or greater than 25 percent. Four years later it increased.
- In 2005, the highest state obesity rate was equal to or greater than 30 percent.
- Currently there are 12 states that are in this category and one state is at 34 percent.
- In 1990, 10 states were equal to or less than 10 percent obesity range.
- In 2000, no states were in the equal to or less than 10 percent obesity range.
- In 2010, no states were in the equal to or less than 20 percent obesity range.
- Sixty-eight percent of the American population is considered to be either overweight or obese!
Risky pregnancy drug raised daughters' cancer odds
Oct 06, 2011 09:35 AM Filed in: Toxicity We Live With
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE
AP Chief Medical Writer
A drug that millions of pregnant women took decades ago to prevent miscarriage and complications has put their daughters at higher risk for breast cancer and other health problems that are showing up now, a new federal study finds.
Many of these daughters, now over 40, may not even know of their risk if their mothers never realized or told them they had used the drug, a synthetic estrogen called DES.
The new study suggests that infertility is twice as common and that breast cancer risk is nearly doubled in these daughters.
Debbie Wingard is one of them. The 59-year-old San Diego woman adopted two boys after being unable to conceive and has had breast cancer twice - when she was 39 and 49.
"There's no knowing what's going to happen as we age. There's always the fear there's going to be another cancer or another outcome," she said. "I don't think I'll ever get to the point where I feel it's behind me." Read Rest of the Story
A drug that millions of pregnant women took decades ago to prevent miscarriage and complications has put their daughters at higher risk for breast cancer and other health problems that are showing up now, a new federal study finds.
Many of these daughters, now over 40, may not even know of their risk if their mothers never realized or told them they had used the drug, a synthetic estrogen called DES.
The new study suggests that infertility is twice as common and that breast cancer risk is nearly doubled in these daughters.
Debbie Wingard is one of them. The 59-year-old San Diego woman adopted two boys after being unable to conceive and has had breast cancer twice - when she was 39 and 49.
"There's no knowing what's going to happen as we age. There's always the fear there's going to be another cancer or another outcome," she said. "I don't think I'll ever get to the point where I feel it's behind me." Read Rest of the Story