Environment Forum
Global environmental challenges
Genetically engineered fish, anyone?
Would you eat a genetically modified fish? What about pork from a pig with mouse genes? Beef from cattle with genes spliced to resist “mad cow” disease?
These are questions Americans may soon have to answer for themselves if the U.S. health regulators allow the sale of a genetically engineered salmon. The company that makes it, Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc <ABTX.L>, expects an agency decision by year’s end.
The biotech says its Atlantic salmon grows nearly twice as fast as normal salmon and could help Americans get more locally farmed fish. That could cut down on U.S. imports of roughly $1.4 billion a year in Atlantic salmon from other countries such as Chile while also easing pressure on wild Atlantic salmon in the nation’s Northeast.
But environmentalists and consumer advocates are concerned about what could happen if such altered fish were to escape or be released in rivers or off-shore salmon farms. They also worry about the health effects of eating such modified fish.
The Food and Drug Administration takes up the issue starting Sept. 19 as part of a three-day public hearing on whether to allow the genetically altered salmon on the U.S. market.
For more on the salmon situation, click here. For other genetically engineered food animals that aren’t far behind, click here.
Photo credit: Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero (Workers process farmed salmon at a plant in Chile. The fish shown in the photo are not genetically modified.)
Environmental cancers still a wild card
– Dr. Karl Kelsey, MD, MOH, is Professor of Community Health and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Brown University. He is Director of the Center for Environmental Health and Technology, home to the Brown University Superfund Basic Research Program. Any views expressed here are his own.–
What are we to make of the 250-page report from the President’s Cancer Panel on environmental cancer risk?
Is it a wakeup call for regulators, demanding that they protect us from massive numbers of untested chemicals? Is it an unbalanced, provocative account that ignores the well-known, preventable causes of cancer?
Given the diverse and pointed reactions, the report is almost certainly part overstatement.
Yet, there is also some hard reality that demands a close look and significant improvement in the way we regulate and, therefore, protect ourselves and our children from environmental carcinogens (and toxicants in general).
Although science has taken us very far in understanding how cancers arise, we are fundamentally ignorant of some of the most basic steps that drive the process.
Tire incineration is not renewable energy
– Brian Schwartz and Cindy Parker are both physicians and faculty in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. They are also both Fellows of the Post Carbon Institute. The opinions expressed are solely their own. –
How do you solve a problem like David Miller?
According to the Chicago Tribune, he is the Illinois representative who last month, with little fanfare and notice at the time, attempted to modify legislation to include tire burning in the state’s definition of renewable energy.
The bill failed to pass initially but it isn’t dead yet – supporters may attempt to add it to another bill before the General Assembly adjourns.
The amendment was mainly done to allow a company called Geneva Energy to obtain green energy credits for its incinerator in Ford Heights, a village in Cook County approximately 25 miles south of downtown Chicago.
In 2000, the village was 96 percent African-American and had a per capita income less than $9,000, making it one of the poorest suburbs in the United States.
Must the natural gas industry clean up its act?
Natural gas is regarded as a relatively clean source of energy but there is mounting evidence that it has a dirty side.
My colleague Jon Hurdle has reported on Wyoming water woes that have been linked to the booming gas industry. You can see his stories here and here.
In August U.S. government scientists reported that they had for the first time found chemical contaminants in drinking water wells near natural gas drilling operations, fueling concern that a gas-extraction technique is endangering the health of people who live close to drilling rigs.
The Environmental Protection Agency found chemicals that researchers say may cause illnesses including cancer, kidney failure, anemia and fertility problems in water from 11 of 39 wells tested around the Wyoming town of Pavillion in March and May this year.
On Monday, I reported that high concentrations of harmful compounds have been found in the air in a north Texas town that is in the heart of the region’s gas industry, according to a report released by an environmental consultancy.
The study by Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants found high concentrations of carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds in the atmosphere at seven locations around the rural town of DISH, which is about 50 miles northwest of Dallas.
as a weekend flyfisherman who fishes every time i get a chance in PA. and am hearing almost daily about the pollution dangers from this process of drilling and the amount of water it uses i am getting sick to my stomach
from Commentaries:
Water down the tube in London heatwave
London's transport bosses are telling travellers on the tube system to beat the heat by carrying a bottle of water with them when they venture underground.
But how many of us are refilling our bottles with tap water rather than pouring money down the tube -- not to mention the cost of recycling the plastic bottles -- by buying a new bottle of water each day?
Cue the National Hydration Council whose eye-catching advertising campaign to encourage people to buy more "naturally sourced bottled water" -- on health grounds -- featured prominently on the underground network earlier this year.
The worrying thing for the bottled water lobby is not that people are doing what would appear to be the most sensible thing and refilling their bottles from the tap, but that Britons are replacing bottled water with sugary drinks instead.
We're told that sales of bottled water fell by 7 percent last year, with 71 percent of that decline the result of people buying sweet drinks instead. Good news for the soft drinks industry perhaps, but a worry for health officials.
Meanwhile, beneath the streets of London, the hot and flustered faces of fellow tube passengers shows just how dire it is on board the capital's underground trains when the mercury rises.
With a decent air-conditioning system on most lines a distant prospect, Transport for London (TfL) could show it cares by offering each of its cash-strapped passengers a free TfL water bottle and the opportunity to refill them at its stations.
The National Hydration Council whose eye-catching advertising campaign to encourage people to buy more naturally sourced bottled water on health grounds — featured prominently on the underground network earlier this year.
Can the Internet save the environment?
Could a constant search of the Internet help protect the environment by picking up early hints about pollution or signs of climate change such as desertification, droughts or heatwaves?
A study issued on Thursday hints that it could.
A scuba diver in the South China Sea off Malaysia (above, picture by David Loh of Reuters News) might write a blog if corals looked damaged by ‘bleaching’ – algae that give reefs their colours can start to die off because of higher sea temperatures. It might just turn out that divers far away in Australia, the Caribbean or elsewhere were starting to notice the same thing — perhaps setting off alarm bells about global warming.
“The Internet has the possibility to link up anecdotes to see if there’s a pattern,” said Tim Daw of the University of East Anglia who was among the authors. All that would be needed is an automated trawl of the Internet to pick up the information.
Daw told me, for instance, that he’s from Scotland where villages in the northwest had suffered a population explosion of millipedes. ”People have had their houses overrun,” he said. No one knew why.
That sort of pest invasion might make it to a local online newspaper – the sort of snippet that might just fit a wider picture of environmental change, perhaps because of global warming.
Already, outbreaks of disease are tracked online by the Canadian-developed Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN), for instance, which picks up many early hints of medical emergencies.
Im not sure if I could agree that climate change is infact being influenced by internet usage.
I would agree however that the net is a sparring groung for this issue, but is that such a bad thing? Its my belief that public and global discussion (i.e. internet forum)are a means of promoting awareness of this global issue.
As for conflicting views on research outcomes I totally agree, nobody knows who to believe. I suppose this is where peer scrutiny is difficult, and good science is difficult to achieve.
I also think that another important question in this discussion is who uses the internet? Is it a global population or only a privilaged fraction? Are we (internet users) just pompous armchair activists, or true global environmental warriers?










