Researchers have enlisted a new weapon against bed bugs: their own chemical signals. It's first time scientists have used any insect's alarm pheromones as a method of control.
While the new technique probably won't single-handedly solve anyone's bed bug woes, experts say, the research may add to our arsenal of tools for fighting what has become a disturbing nuisance for a growing number of people.
"To control bed bugs, there's not going to be one easy solution," said Joshua Benoit, an entomologist at Ohio State University in Columbus. "We are trying to encourage people to find new and creative ways to kill bed bugs
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Bed-bug infestations have been on the rise in recent years, Benoit said, probably because people travel so much. All it takes is one pregnant female hopping a ride in a suitcase for a new crop of insects to invade homes and apartment buildings.
The tiny critters don't spread diseases, but a single person can easily get a few hundred bites in one night. Those chomps cause intense itching and even scarring in some people.
So far, there is no ideal way to get rid of bed bugs. Pesticide treatments can be expensive, invasive, toxic, and often ineffective. Already, the insects have developed resistance to some of the most common chemicals used to fight them.
In an effort to get the upper hand, Benoit experimented with alarm pheromones — the chemicals that bed bugs release when they're disturbed or in danger. In turn, their comrades get excited and start scurrying around.
Benoit and colleagues mixed synthetic versions of bed-bug alarm pheromones with desiccant dust, a pesticide that works by drying insects out. In order to work, the bugs need to run directly through the dust.
The researchers placed varying concentrations of these mixtures in Petri dishes and in small enclosures that contained hiding places for the insects. Then they added bed bugs.
Their results, published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, showed that mixtures of alarm pheromones and desiccant dust killed up to 50 percent more bed bugs than did desiccant dust alone. The idea is that the pheromones get the bugs to move around more, making them more likely to run through the dust, which is relatively non-toxic and inexpensive.
"This is the first study of its kind to use alarm pheromones in this manner," Benoit said, "for any insect."
It's still way too soon to recommend that people run out and buy alarm pheromones (which are synthesized for other purposes, including as food preservatives). Outside the confines of a plastic dish, getting bed bugs to run around like crazy is not necessarily a good thing, said Michael Potter, an urban entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Bed bugs are notoriously good at getting behind baseboards, inside walls, and into other cracks and crevices.
Some might run into the apartment next door," Potter said. "Some might run into inaccessible areas."
In one recent incident in Columbus, Ohio, Benoit said, bed bugs had infested 23 out of 24 units in an apartment building. Residents had to leave their homes for a week while the building was fumigated. Even then, there was no guarantee that the treatment killed all the bugs.
The incident illustrates how important it is to continue learning more about the inner workings of these pests.
"Any new work on bed bugs," Potter said, "is interesting work."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Climate change? Big mammals may be flexible
Big mammals might be unexpectedly resilient in the face of global warming, suggests a new study that looked to the past for insights into the future.
The study found that llamas, tapirs, deer and other large mammals changed their diets when glaciers retreated from North America more than a million years ago.
Scientists have long assumed that animals would be rigid about what they ate and what niches they occupied during periods of climate change — making them especially vulnerable to those shifts.
This really questions that assumption," said Larissa DeSantis, a paleoecologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville. "We were able to show these animals do change their diets quite dramatically."
DeSantis and colleagues studied mammal teeth from two sites on Florida's Gulf Coast. One site dated back 1.9 million years to a glacial period when North America was relatively cold. The other site dated back 1.3 million years to an interglacial period that was much warmer and drier. Both sites contained lots of fossils from many of the same large mammals, including peccaries, pronghorn, horses and elephant-like creatures called gomphotheres.
The researchers drilled into 115 fossil teeth and analyzed the enamel powder for chemical signatures that reflected what the animals had been eating when they were alive. Grasses, for example, contain different forms of carbon and oxygen than leaves and shrubs do. Those signatures are preserved in an animal's tissues.
"You are what you eat," DeSantis said. "And you are what you drink."
During the glacial period, the researchers reported this week in the journal PLoS One, most of the mammals were browsing on leaves and shrubs. When conditions grew warmer, the majority of animals added grasses to their diets. Llamas and peccaries made especially dramatic adjustments to their diets.
"You'd expect to have very distinct groups of animals in each of these environments, but you have the same cast of characters," said Mark Clementz, a paleobiologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. "Those guys seem to be doing just fine."
When scientists try to predict how species will respond to climate warming, their models often assume that animals will continue to eat only what they're eating now. Those models might have to change, at least for large mammals, Clementz said.
The big message is that many species may be more flexible than what we believe at the moment," Clementz said. By adding new foods to their diets, he said, the animals seemed to weather the climate shift. "That could have a big effect on how they react to climate change in the future."
Exactly how any given animal will react to future changes remains unclear. Warming is happening more quickly now than it did in the past, among other differences. Future studies will also need to consider birds, reptiles, small mammals or other groups.
Still, the message of the new study is at least somewhat hopeful.
"There's a little bit of optimism," Clementz said, "That species are a bit more resilient than we may be giving them credit for."
The study found that llamas, tapirs, deer and other large mammals changed their diets when glaciers retreated from North America more than a million years ago.
Scientists have long assumed that animals would be rigid about what they ate and what niches they occupied during periods of climate change — making them especially vulnerable to those shifts.
This really questions that assumption," said Larissa DeSantis, a paleoecologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville. "We were able to show these animals do change their diets quite dramatically."
DeSantis and colleagues studied mammal teeth from two sites on Florida's Gulf Coast. One site dated back 1.9 million years to a glacial period when North America was relatively cold. The other site dated back 1.3 million years to an interglacial period that was much warmer and drier. Both sites contained lots of fossils from many of the same large mammals, including peccaries, pronghorn, horses and elephant-like creatures called gomphotheres.
The researchers drilled into 115 fossil teeth and analyzed the enamel powder for chemical signatures that reflected what the animals had been eating when they were alive. Grasses, for example, contain different forms of carbon and oxygen than leaves and shrubs do. Those signatures are preserved in an animal's tissues.
"You are what you eat," DeSantis said. "And you are what you drink."
During the glacial period, the researchers reported this week in the journal PLoS One, most of the mammals were browsing on leaves and shrubs. When conditions grew warmer, the majority of animals added grasses to their diets. Llamas and peccaries made especially dramatic adjustments to their diets.
"You'd expect to have very distinct groups of animals in each of these environments, but you have the same cast of characters," said Mark Clementz, a paleobiologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. "Those guys seem to be doing just fine."
When scientists try to predict how species will respond to climate warming, their models often assume that animals will continue to eat only what they're eating now. Those models might have to change, at least for large mammals, Clementz said.
The big message is that many species may be more flexible than what we believe at the moment," Clementz said. By adding new foods to their diets, he said, the animals seemed to weather the climate shift. "That could have a big effect on how they react to climate change in the future."
Exactly how any given animal will react to future changes remains unclear. Warming is happening more quickly now than it did in the past, among other differences. Future studies will also need to consider birds, reptiles, small mammals or other groups.
Still, the message of the new study is at least somewhat hopeful.
"There's a little bit of optimism," Clementz said, "That species are a bit more resilient than we may be giving them credit for."
Contaminants lurk in many ‘natural’ products
Lead in ginkgo pills. Arsenic in herbals. Bugs in a baby's colic and teething syrup. Toxic metals and parasites are part of nature, and all of these have been found in "natural" products and dietary supplements in recent years.
Set aside the issue of whether vitamin and herbal supplements do any good.
Are they safe? Is what's on the label really what's in the bottle? Tests by researchers and private labs suggest the answer sometimes is no.
One quarter of supplements tested by an independent company over the last decade have had some sort of problem. Some contained contaminants. Others had contents that did not match label claims. Some had ingredients that exceeded safe limits. Some contained real drugs masquerading as natural supplements.
"We buy it just as the consumer buys it" from stores, said Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com. The company tests pills for makers that want its seal of approval, and publishes ratings for subscribers, much as Consumer Reports does with household goods.
Other tests, reported in scientific journals, found prenatal vitamins lacking claimed amounts of iodine and supplements short on ginseng and hoodia — an African plant sparking the latest diet craze.
Click for related content
Poll: How do you feel about alternative remedies?
Most cancer patients seek natural remedies
"There's at least 10 times more hoodia sold in this country than made in the world, so people are not getting hoodia," said Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and frequent Oprah Winfrey guest who occasionally has touted the stuff.
Industry groups say that quality problems are the exception rather than the rule.
"I believe that the problem is narrow, that the well-established and reputable brands deserve their reputations," said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association.
Of course, prescription drugs have had problems, too. Dozens of deaths were linked last year to tainted heparin, a blood thinner produced in China, for example. However, pharmaceutical drugs must show evidence to the government of safety and effectiveness before they go on sale. Not so for dietary supplements
Fifteen years ago, Congress passed a law that treats supplements like food and allows them to go straight to market without federal Food and Drug Administration approval. The FDA can act only after consumers get sick or a safety issue comes to light.
"We called it 'the body rule,"' said William Obermeyer, a chemist who left the FDA to found ConsumerLab.com with Cooperman. If a supplement was harmful, "we had to have so many adverse events before we could make a move on it. It was really like closing the barn door after all the animals left."
The law said the FDA could write quality control rules for products sold in the U.S. It took the FDA 13 years to adopt these, and they are just now taking effect. But the rules do not say what tests companies must do to prove what is in their products, and some tests can be fooled by subbing other ingredients. The rules also set no limits on toxins such as lead; nor do they change the fundamental way these products are sold to the public.
"It leaves the level of quality up to the manufacturer," Cooperman said.
In a written statement, FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the new rules contain what is "needed to ensure quality," and that products that contain contaminants or whose labels do not honestly describe their contents, are considered adulterated and subject to further action by the agency. But she conceded that the agency is spread thin.
"In that FDA has limited resources to analyze the composition of food products, including dietary supplements, it focuses these resources first on public health emergencies and products that may have caused injury or illness," she wrote.
Set aside the issue of whether vitamin and herbal supplements do any good.
Are they safe? Is what's on the label really what's in the bottle? Tests by researchers and private labs suggest the answer sometimes is no.
One quarter of supplements tested by an independent company over the last decade have had some sort of problem. Some contained contaminants. Others had contents that did not match label claims. Some had ingredients that exceeded safe limits. Some contained real drugs masquerading as natural supplements.
"We buy it just as the consumer buys it" from stores, said Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com. The company tests pills for makers that want its seal of approval, and publishes ratings for subscribers, much as Consumer Reports does with household goods.
Other tests, reported in scientific journals, found prenatal vitamins lacking claimed amounts of iodine and supplements short on ginseng and hoodia — an African plant sparking the latest diet craze.
Click for related content
Poll: How do you feel about alternative remedies?
Most cancer patients seek natural remedies
"There's at least 10 times more hoodia sold in this country than made in the world, so people are not getting hoodia," said Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and frequent Oprah Winfrey guest who occasionally has touted the stuff.
Industry groups say that quality problems are the exception rather than the rule.
"I believe that the problem is narrow, that the well-established and reputable brands deserve their reputations," said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association.
Of course, prescription drugs have had problems, too. Dozens of deaths were linked last year to tainted heparin, a blood thinner produced in China, for example. However, pharmaceutical drugs must show evidence to the government of safety and effectiveness before they go on sale. Not so for dietary supplements
Fifteen years ago, Congress passed a law that treats supplements like food and allows them to go straight to market without federal Food and Drug Administration approval. The FDA can act only after consumers get sick or a safety issue comes to light.
"We called it 'the body rule,"' said William Obermeyer, a chemist who left the FDA to found ConsumerLab.com with Cooperman. If a supplement was harmful, "we had to have so many adverse events before we could make a move on it. It was really like closing the barn door after all the animals left."
The law said the FDA could write quality control rules for products sold in the U.S. It took the FDA 13 years to adopt these, and they are just now taking effect. But the rules do not say what tests companies must do to prove what is in their products, and some tests can be fooled by subbing other ingredients. The rules also set no limits on toxins such as lead; nor do they change the fundamental way these products are sold to the public.
"It leaves the level of quality up to the manufacturer," Cooperman said.
In a written statement, FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said the new rules contain what is "needed to ensure quality," and that products that contain contaminants or whose labels do not honestly describe their contents, are considered adulterated and subject to further action by the agency. But she conceded that the agency is spread thin.
"In that FDA has limited resources to analyze the composition of food products, including dietary supplements, it focuses these resources first on public health emergencies and products that may have caused injury or illness," she wrote.
S.F. to impose fines for tossing food scraps
Trash collectors in San Francisco will soon be doing more than just gathering garbage: They'll be keeping an eye out for people who toss food scraps out with their rubbish.
San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost — everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.
The law makes San Francisco the leader yet again in environmentally friendly measures, following up on other green initiatives such as banning plastic bags at supermarkets
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.
Chris Peck, the state's Integrated Waste Management Board spokesman, said he wasn't aware of an ordinance as tough as San Francisco's. Many cities, including Pittsburgh and San Diego, require residents to recycle yard waste but not food scraps. Seattle requires households to put scraps in the compost bin or have a composting system, but those who don't comply aren't fined.
"The city has been progressive, and they've been leaders and it appears that they're stepping out of the pack again," he said.
Fines to be enforced in 2010
San Francisco officials said they aren't looking to punish violators harshly.
Waste collectors will not pick through anyone's garbage, said Robert Reed, a spokesman for Sunset Scavenger Co., which handles the city's recyclables. If the wrong kind of materials are noticed while a bin is being emptied, workers will leave what Reed called "a love note," to let customers know they are not with the program.
"We're not going to lock you up in jail if you don't compost," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom who proposed the measure that passed Tuesday. "We're going to make it as easy as possible for San Franciscans to learn how to compost."
A moratorium on imposing fines will end in 2010, after which repeat offenders like individuals and small businesses generating less than a cubic yard of refuse a week face fines of up to $100.
Businesses that don't provide the proper containers face a $500 fine.
Proponents: Others will follow SF's lead
Sean Elsbernd, one of the two supervisors who opposed the proposition that passed 9-2, said the measure was "over-the-top" and that calls to his office Wednesday were critical of the new law.
"This is just going to aggravate and aggrieve homeowners who are doing their best," said Elsbernd.
But proponents say it is important to get people's attention about the importance of keeping those biodegradable materials out of landfills.
Ballard predicted that recycling food scraps eventually will seem as ho-hum as saving aluminum cans and newspapers.
"That used to seem like such a chore," he said. "Now we do it every day."
Newsom was expected to sign the measure if the board passes it in a final vote next week.
San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost — everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.
The law makes San Francisco the leader yet again in environmentally friendly measures, following up on other green initiatives such as banning plastic bags at supermarkets
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.
Chris Peck, the state's Integrated Waste Management Board spokesman, said he wasn't aware of an ordinance as tough as San Francisco's. Many cities, including Pittsburgh and San Diego, require residents to recycle yard waste but not food scraps. Seattle requires households to put scraps in the compost bin or have a composting system, but those who don't comply aren't fined.
"The city has been progressive, and they've been leaders and it appears that they're stepping out of the pack again," he said.
Fines to be enforced in 2010
San Francisco officials said they aren't looking to punish violators harshly.
Waste collectors will not pick through anyone's garbage, said Robert Reed, a spokesman for Sunset Scavenger Co., which handles the city's recyclables. If the wrong kind of materials are noticed while a bin is being emptied, workers will leave what Reed called "a love note," to let customers know they are not with the program.
"We're not going to lock you up in jail if you don't compost," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom who proposed the measure that passed Tuesday. "We're going to make it as easy as possible for San Franciscans to learn how to compost."
A moratorium on imposing fines will end in 2010, after which repeat offenders like individuals and small businesses generating less than a cubic yard of refuse a week face fines of up to $100.
Businesses that don't provide the proper containers face a $500 fine.
Proponents: Others will follow SF's lead
Sean Elsbernd, one of the two supervisors who opposed the proposition that passed 9-2, said the measure was "over-the-top" and that calls to his office Wednesday were critical of the new law.
"This is just going to aggravate and aggrieve homeowners who are doing their best," said Elsbernd.
But proponents say it is important to get people's attention about the importance of keeping those biodegradable materials out of landfills.
Ballard predicted that recycling food scraps eventually will seem as ho-hum as saving aluminum cans and newspapers.
"That used to seem like such a chore," he said. "Now we do it every day."
Newsom was expected to sign the measure if the board passes it in a final vote next week.
Nuclear site stung by radioactive wasp nests
If workers cleaning up the nation's most contaminated nuclear site didn't have enough to worry about, now they've got to deal with radioactive wasp nests.
Mud dauber wasps built the nests, which have been largely abandoned by their flighty owners, in holes at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation in 2003.
That's when workers finished covering cleaned-up waste sites with fresh topsoil, native plants and straw to help the plants grow — inadvertently creating perfect ground cover for the insects to build their nests. Nearby cleanup work also provided a steady supply of mud, which the wasps used as building material
Today, the nests, which could number in the thousands, are "fairly highly contaminated" with radioactive isotopes, such as cesium and cobalt, but don't pose a significant threat to workers digging them up.
"You don't know what you're going to run into, and this is probably one of the more unusual situations," said Todd Nelson, spokesman for Washington Closure Hanford, the contractor hired to clean up the area under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The wasps largely built their nests in a 75-acre area around H reactor, pulling the mud from the bottom of a storage basin that once held irradiated nuclear fuel.
As for the wasps themselves, they're largely long gone — the insects don't reuse their nests when they colonize each spring.
The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
Click for related content
First nuclear reactor now a landmark
Nuclear tourism: Hanford lures visitors
The site produced plutonium for the first atomic blast and for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II, and plutonium production continued through the Cold War.
The work left a mess of radioactive and hazardous waste to be cleaned up next to the region's largest waterway, the Columbia River. The effort is expected to last decades and cost more than $50 billion.
Workers started using excavators three weeks ago to dig up the wasp nest-infected area, including vegetation that had already been replanted. Because they are in enclosed cabs on the excavators, no protective clothing is required.
The material is then placed in a container and taken to the onsite landfill for slightly radioactive wastes, said Dave Martin, the company's radiological engineer.
Workers will eventually replant vegetation in the area, at a cost of about $25,000.
Mud dauber wasps built the nests, which have been largely abandoned by their flighty owners, in holes at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation in 2003.
That's when workers finished covering cleaned-up waste sites with fresh topsoil, native plants and straw to help the plants grow — inadvertently creating perfect ground cover for the insects to build their nests. Nearby cleanup work also provided a steady supply of mud, which the wasps used as building material
Today, the nests, which could number in the thousands, are "fairly highly contaminated" with radioactive isotopes, such as cesium and cobalt, but don't pose a significant threat to workers digging them up.
"You don't know what you're going to run into, and this is probably one of the more unusual situations," said Todd Nelson, spokesman for Washington Closure Hanford, the contractor hired to clean up the area under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The wasps largely built their nests in a 75-acre area around H reactor, pulling the mud from the bottom of a storage basin that once held irradiated nuclear fuel.
As for the wasps themselves, they're largely long gone — the insects don't reuse their nests when they colonize each spring.
The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
Click for related content
First nuclear reactor now a landmark
Nuclear tourism: Hanford lures visitors
The site produced plutonium for the first atomic blast and for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II, and plutonium production continued through the Cold War.
The work left a mess of radioactive and hazardous waste to be cleaned up next to the region's largest waterway, the Columbia River. The effort is expected to last decades and cost more than $50 billion.
Workers started using excavators three weeks ago to dig up the wasp nest-infected area, including vegetation that had already been replanted. Because they are in enclosed cabs on the excavators, no protective clothing is required.
The material is then placed in a container and taken to the onsite landfill for slightly radioactive wastes, said Dave Martin, the company's radiological engineer.
Workers will eventually replant vegetation in the area, at a cost of about $25,000.
Obama keeping secret locations of coal ash sites
The Obama administration has decided to keep secret the locations of nearly four dozen coal ash storage sites that pose a threat to people living nearby.
The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities while investigating storage of coal ash waste after a spill at a Tennessee power plant in December. The classification means the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused them to spill into surrounding communities.
The sites have existed for years with little or no federal regulation.
The Army Corps of Engineers in a letter dated June 4 told the EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency that the public should not be alerted to the whereabouts of the sites because it would compromise national security.
"Uncontrolled or unrestricted release (of the information) may pose a security risk to projects or communities by increasing its attractiveness as a potential target," Steven L. Stockton, the Army Corps' director of civil works, wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Boxer: 'It is essential to let people know'
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in a news conference Friday, questioned why coal ash storage ponds are not treated like other hazardous waste sites. For instance, the EPA readily discloses the location of Superfund hazardous waste sites and also annually reports pollution released by chemical facilities and other factories in neighborhoods.
"If these sites are so hazardous, and neighborhoods nearby could be harmed irreparably, I think it is essential to let people know," said Boxer, adding that she was told the location of the sites with the understanding that she could tell only Senate colleagues whose states have one or more of the storage facilities. The EPA was allowed to inform local emergency officials, but not the public.
The Army Corps of Engineers had no immediate comment.
December spill covered 300 acres
On Dec. 22, more than 5 million cubic yards of ash and sludge poured out of a storage pond after an earth dike failed at a power plant near Kingston, Tenn. The grayish, toxic muck covered 300 acres and destroyed or damaged 40 homes.
The EPA estimates that about 300 dry landfills and wet storage ponds are used across the country to store ash from coal-fired power plants. The man-made structures hold a mixture of the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution from the power plants.
The latest Energy Department data indicates that 721 power plants nationwide produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash in 2005. The ash can contain heavy metals and other toxic contaminants, but there are no federal regulations or standard that govern its storage or disposal
The EPA is currently considering regulating the waste, but it is unclear whether the agency will classify it as hazardous or regulate it like household waste.
A March 2000 study by the agency found that coal ash wastes in landfills and ponds had the potential to present dangers to human health and the environment. In 2000, when it first floated establishing a national standard for the facilities, the agency knew of 11 cases of water pollution linked to ash ponds or landfills. In 2007, that list grew to 24 cases in 13 states with another 43 cases where coal ash was the likely cause of pollution
The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities while investigating storage of coal ash waste after a spill at a Tennessee power plant in December. The classification means the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused them to spill into surrounding communities.
The sites have existed for years with little or no federal regulation.
The Army Corps of Engineers in a letter dated June 4 told the EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency that the public should not be alerted to the whereabouts of the sites because it would compromise national security.
"Uncontrolled or unrestricted release (of the information) may pose a security risk to projects or communities by increasing its attractiveness as a potential target," Steven L. Stockton, the Army Corps' director of civil works, wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Boxer: 'It is essential to let people know'
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in a news conference Friday, questioned why coal ash storage ponds are not treated like other hazardous waste sites. For instance, the EPA readily discloses the location of Superfund hazardous waste sites and also annually reports pollution released by chemical facilities and other factories in neighborhoods.
"If these sites are so hazardous, and neighborhoods nearby could be harmed irreparably, I think it is essential to let people know," said Boxer, adding that she was told the location of the sites with the understanding that she could tell only Senate colleagues whose states have one or more of the storage facilities. The EPA was allowed to inform local emergency officials, but not the public.
The Army Corps of Engineers had no immediate comment.
December spill covered 300 acres
On Dec. 22, more than 5 million cubic yards of ash and sludge poured out of a storage pond after an earth dike failed at a power plant near Kingston, Tenn. The grayish, toxic muck covered 300 acres and destroyed or damaged 40 homes.
The EPA estimates that about 300 dry landfills and wet storage ponds are used across the country to store ash from coal-fired power plants. The man-made structures hold a mixture of the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution from the power plants.
The latest Energy Department data indicates that 721 power plants nationwide produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash in 2005. The ash can contain heavy metals and other toxic contaminants, but there are no federal regulations or standard that govern its storage or disposal
The EPA is currently considering regulating the waste, but it is unclear whether the agency will classify it as hazardous or regulate it like household waste.
A March 2000 study by the agency found that coal ash wastes in landfills and ponds had the potential to present dangers to human health and the environment. In 2000, when it first floated establishing a national standard for the facilities, the agency knew of 11 cases of water pollution linked to ash ponds or landfills. In 2007, that list grew to 24 cases in 13 states with another 43 cases where coal ash was the likely cause of pollution
Alaska's Rat Island rodent-free after 229 years
The rats appear to be gone from Alaska's Rat Island, more than 200 years after they scurried off a rodent-infested Japanese ship.
Helicopters dropped rat poison on the island last year in hopes of returning many bird species to the uninhabited island in the Aleutian Chain.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says two weeks of intensive monitoring shows no sign of invasive rats. It also shows that several bird species, including peregrine falcons and black oystercatchers, were nesting on the island
Scientists did find numerous carcasses of two types of birds: glaucous-winged gulls and bald eagles. The federal agency is conducting tests to try to determine why they died.
A shipwreck in 1780 brought rats to the island located some 1,700 miles from Anchorage.
Helicopters dropped rat poison on the island last year in hopes of returning many bird species to the uninhabited island in the Aleutian Chain.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says two weeks of intensive monitoring shows no sign of invasive rats. It also shows that several bird species, including peregrine falcons and black oystercatchers, were nesting on the island
Scientists did find numerous carcasses of two types of birds: glaucous-winged gulls and bald eagles. The federal agency is conducting tests to try to determine why they died.
A shipwreck in 1780 brought rats to the island located some 1,700 miles from Anchorage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)