CSE has closely scrutinised the detailed project report of the interceptor plan prepared by the consultants appointed by the Delhi Jal Board and found this hardware plan to be a complete waste of money. The river will remain dead despite the massive investments planned during 2009-2012.
Related content
It was in response to the criticism over the failure of the efforts to clean the Yamuna including the Union ministry of environment and forest (MoEF) sponsored Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) that the DJB came up with the idea of interceptor sewers. So far Delhi government has spent over Rs 1,500 crore just to connect 50 per cent of Delhi’s population to its sewerage network. Delhi has the largest sewerage infrastructure—6,000 kilometres (km) sewers and 2330 million litres per day (mld) sewage treatment capacity. CSE in its report Sewage Canal: How to clean the Yamuna pointed out that a paradigm shift is needed in our approach to clean the river. An approach moving away from the standard hardware — sewer and STP — approach. It called for a plan understanding the linkages between water, sewage and pollution and most importantly the need for authentic data.
The Rs 2,500 crore interceptor project is projected by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) as a panacea to the pollution problems of the river Yamuna. An analysis of the detailed project report on this project shows that the project, as it is designed, will not result in a clean river. It will be more money down the drain. Clearly, we must discover solutions that will make a difference to the river and the people dependent on it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Nine Dangerous Chemicals Added To Global Banned List
Nine dangerous chemicals used in farming and industry will be added to a list of banned substances whose presence in the environment causes serious health risks, more than 160 government agreed on Saturday.The nine pesticides and industrial chemicals join 12 substances targeted for elimination under the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).Trade in some of the chemicals can amount to billions of dollars a year, but countries at the United Nations conference agreed they are so dangerous that alternatives must be found."Just five years after this convention came into force, we will have nine new chemicals added to the list of those that the world community agrees we need to control and ultimately get rid of," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which hosted the conference.Donald Cooper, executive secretary of the Stockholm Convention, set out why the banned substances were exceptionally dangerous: They cross boundaries and are found everywhere, from the Tropics to polar regions; they persist for long periods in the atmosphere, soil and water, and take years to degrade; they accumulate in bodies; they accumulate in food chains.The chemicals can damage reproduction, mental capacity and growth and cause cancer, he said."In most cases the question is not simply how do we control them, but how we eliminate them," he told a news briefing on Friday.QUESTION OF TIMINGThe conference had been scheduled to wrap up on Friday, but officials wrangled into Saturday over the details.Cooper said governments at various stages of economic development differed about how fast they should be phased out, especially when there are no alternatives.One of the newly proscribed chemicals is a pesticide called Lindane. It has been replaced in agriculture, but in some countries it is still used to tackle head lice and so will be phased out over five years instead of the standard one year.Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) appears in a wide range of products from electronics components to fire-fighting foam, and trade in it amounts to billions of dollars a year. With no alternatives to some of its applications, it will be restricted rather than eliminated immediately.Steiner said the challenge was to resolve two conflicting objectives -- harnessing the power of science and the chemicals industry and dealing with its negative impact.Sometimes the conflict is not obvious.The inventor of the pesticide DDT won a Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1948 because of its efficacy in killing mosquitoes that transmit malaria. DDT has since been found to be toxic and is banned as a pesticide for crops as one of the original "dirty dozen" under the Stockholm Convention -- but it is still widely used to fight malaria.On Wednesday, UNEP and the World Health Organisation announced a plan to rid the world of DDT by 2010 by developing environmentally friendly ways to fight malaria.In some cases banning the chemicals will have little economic impact as they are no longer used, and the question is of managing and disposing of them.But even where they are still widely traded, the bans will create business opportunities in the search for alternatives."This is not an economic disruption, it is rather an investment in public health with perfectly compatible economic opportunities, but we have to give the right incentives," he said.The meeting also agreed to coordinate its work more closely with two other environment conventions -- the Basel Convention on transporting hazardous waste and the Rotterdam Convention on trade in hazardous chemicals. A conference of all three will be held in February 2010.
Global warming is the biggest environmental threat of our lifetime.
Leading scientists around the world agree that man-made greenhouse gases from fossil fuels are causing global warming. Effects are already being seen worldwide. And long-term consequences are devastating, pointing to a darker future each day we fail to act.
But if each of us takes action — in our homes, in our communities, and in our nation — there is still time to reduce global warming pollution and help safeguard our environment for birds, wildlife, and our children.
Get the facts: Learn the basics on global warming, from impacts and results, to causes and solutions.
Impacts on Birds & Wildlife: Like canaries in the coal mine, birds are an important indicator of our planet's health. See how Global Warming is affecting bird species and other wildlife. Check out Audububon's Birds & Climate Change online as well for even more details.
Be Part of the Solution: Every individual action counts. Learn how you can make energy conservation part of your daily life — and how it will help.
Speak out: Become an advocate for sound energy policy- in INDIA, in your state and in your community.
Global Warming Quiz: Think you already know the facts from fiction? Take our quiz and find out!
Replacing ten 100W light bulbs with CFLs reduces the same amount of carbon dioxide that an SUV emits over a year over the course of the bulbs’ lifetime! Be sure to read the Global Warming factoid on each page to learn even more.
But if each of us takes action — in our homes, in our communities, and in our nation — there is still time to reduce global warming pollution and help safeguard our environment for birds, wildlife, and our children.
Get the facts: Learn the basics on global warming, from impacts and results, to causes and solutions.
Impacts on Birds & Wildlife: Like canaries in the coal mine, birds are an important indicator of our planet's health. See how Global Warming is affecting bird species and other wildlife. Check out Audububon's Birds & Climate Change online as well for even more details.
Be Part of the Solution: Every individual action counts. Learn how you can make energy conservation part of your daily life — and how it will help.
Speak out: Become an advocate for sound energy policy- in INDIA, in your state and in your community.
Global Warming Quiz: Think you already know the facts from fiction? Take our quiz and find out!
Replacing ten 100W light bulbs with CFLs reduces the same amount of carbon dioxide that an SUV emits over a year over the course of the bulbs’ lifetime! Be sure to read the Global Warming factoid on each page to learn even more.
What are the Health Effects of Airport Noise and Airport Pollution?
Researchers have known for years that exposure to excessively-loud noise can cause changes in blood pressure as well as changes in sleep and digestive patterns -- all signs of stress on the human body. The very word “noise” itself derives from the Latin word “noxia,” which means injury or hurt.
Airport Noise and Pollution Increases Risk for IllnessOn a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups--one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood--two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population -- or about 80 million people -- are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport Noise Affects ChildrenAirport noise can also have negative effects on children’s health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children’s health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles’ LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich’s International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Citizen Groups Concerned About Effects of Airport Noise and PollutionLiving near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago’s Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world’s busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O’Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
Airport Noise and Pollution Increases Risk for IllnessOn a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups--one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood--two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population -- or about 80 million people -- are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport Noise Affects ChildrenAirport noise can also have negative effects on children’s health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children’s health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles’ LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich’s International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Citizen Groups Concerned About Effects of Airport Noise and PollutionLiving near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago’s Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world’s busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O’Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted Places on Earth
More than 10 million people in eight different countries are at serious risk for cancer, respiratory diseases, and premature death because they live in the 10 most polluted places on Earth, according to a report by the Blacksmith Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to identify and solve specific environmental problems worldwide.
Top 10 Worst Polluted Places Remote but ToxicChernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident to date, is the best known place on the list. The other places are unknown to most people, and located far from major cities and populations centers, yet 10 million people either suffer or risk serious health effects because of environmental problems ranging from lead contamination to radiation.
“Living in a town with serious pollution is like living under a death sentence,” the report says. “If the damage does not come from immediate poisoning, then cancers, lung infections, mental retardation, are likely outcomes.”
“There are some towns where life expectancy approaches medieval rates, where birth defects are the norm not the exception,” the report continues. “In other places children's asthma rates are measured above 90 percent, or mental retardation is endemic. In these places, life expectancy may be half that of the richest nations. The great suffering of these communities compounds the tragedy of so few years on earth."
Top 10 Worst Polluted Sites Serve as Examples of Widespread ProblemsRussia leads the list of eight nations, with three of the 10 worst polluted sites. Other sites were chosen because they are examples of problems found in many places around the world. For example, Haina, Dominican Republic has severe lead contamination—a problem that is common in many poor countries. Linfen, China is just one of several Chinese cities choking on industrial air pollution. And Ranipet, India is a nasty example of serious groundwater pollution by heavy metals.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places in the world are:
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Haina, Dominican Republic
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
Norilsk, Russia
Ranipet, India
Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, RussiaChoosing the Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places were chosen by the Blacksmith Institute’s Technical Advisory Board from a list of 35 polluted places that had been narrowed from 300 polluted places identified by the Institute or nominated by people worldwide. The Technical Advisory Board includes experts from Johns Hopkins, Hunter College, Harvard University, IIT India, the University of Idaho, Mount Sinai Hospital, and leaders of major international environmental remediation companies.
Solving Global Pollution ProblemsAccording to the report, “there are potential remedies for these sites. Problems like this have been solved over the years in the developed world, and we have the capacity and the technology to spread our experience to our afflicted neighbors.”
“The most important thing is to achieve some practical progress in dealing with these polluted places,” says Dave Hanrahan, chief of global operations for the Blacksmith Institute. “There is a lot of good work being done in understanding the problems and in identifying possible approaches. Our goal is to instill a sense of urgency about tackling these priority sites.”
Top 10 Worst Polluted Places Remote but ToxicChernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident to date, is the best known place on the list. The other places are unknown to most people, and located far from major cities and populations centers, yet 10 million people either suffer or risk serious health effects because of environmental problems ranging from lead contamination to radiation.
“Living in a town with serious pollution is like living under a death sentence,” the report says. “If the damage does not come from immediate poisoning, then cancers, lung infections, mental retardation, are likely outcomes.”
“There are some towns where life expectancy approaches medieval rates, where birth defects are the norm not the exception,” the report continues. “In other places children's asthma rates are measured above 90 percent, or mental retardation is endemic. In these places, life expectancy may be half that of the richest nations. The great suffering of these communities compounds the tragedy of so few years on earth."
Top 10 Worst Polluted Sites Serve as Examples of Widespread ProblemsRussia leads the list of eight nations, with three of the 10 worst polluted sites. Other sites were chosen because they are examples of problems found in many places around the world. For example, Haina, Dominican Republic has severe lead contamination—a problem that is common in many poor countries. Linfen, China is just one of several Chinese cities choking on industrial air pollution. And Ranipet, India is a nasty example of serious groundwater pollution by heavy metals.
The Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places in the world are:
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Haina, Dominican Republic
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
Norilsk, Russia
Ranipet, India
Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, RussiaChoosing the Top 10 Worst Polluted PlacesThe Top 10 worst polluted places were chosen by the Blacksmith Institute’s Technical Advisory Board from a list of 35 polluted places that had been narrowed from 300 polluted places identified by the Institute or nominated by people worldwide. The Technical Advisory Board includes experts from Johns Hopkins, Hunter College, Harvard University, IIT India, the University of Idaho, Mount Sinai Hospital, and leaders of major international environmental remediation companies.
Solving Global Pollution ProblemsAccording to the report, “there are potential remedies for these sites. Problems like this have been solved over the years in the developed world, and we have the capacity and the technology to spread our experience to our afflicted neighbors.”
“The most important thing is to achieve some practical progress in dealing with these polluted places,” says Dave Hanrahan, chief of global operations for the Blacksmith Institute. “There is a lot of good work being done in understanding the problems and in identifying possible approaches. Our goal is to instill a sense of urgency about tackling these priority sites.”
Toxic at Any Speed: Indoor Air Pollution Inside Your Car
“Indoor air pollution” in homes and offices has been studied extensively in recent years--with sometimes alarming conclusions that have led the building industry to rethink many aspects of design and choice of materials. But the health hazards lurking inside car interiors, where most Americans spend 90 minutes on average each day, have largely escaped scrutiny.
Heat and Ultraviolet Light Trigger Pollution Inside CarsHowever, on January 11, 2006, the Michigan-based Ecology Center released a report entitled: “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives.” In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs, often used as fire retardants) and phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics) are the primary culprits. Part of the seat cushions, armrests, floor coverings and plastic parts in most car interiors, these chemicals are easily inhaled or ingested through contact with dust by drivers and passengers. The risks are greatest in summer, when car interiors can get as hot as 192ยบ F.
How Can Drivers Reduce the Risks of Pollution Inside CarsMotorists can lessen their risks by rolling down car windows, parking in the shade and using interior sun reflectors. But the Ecology Center is urging carmakers to stop using such chemicals in the first place. “We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars,” says Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center’s Clean Car Campaign Director and co-author of the report. “Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
Volvo Shows Least Pollution Inside CarsIn preparing its report, the Ecology Center collected windshield film and dust from 2000 to 2005 models made by 11 leading manufacturers. Volvo was found to have the lowest phthalate levels and the second lowest PBDE levels, making it the industry leader in interior air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals. Other makers claim they have eliminated some but not all PBDEs and phthalates. Ford, for example, reports that it has eliminated PBDEs from “interior components that customers may come into contact with.” Honda reports it has eliminated most phthalate-containing PVC. Other carmakers tested were BMW, Chrysler, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Should the Government Ban Chemicals that Cause Indoor Pollution?With indoor air pollution already listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the top five environmental risks to public health, the Ecology Center is especially concerned that concentrations of PBDEs are five times higher inside cars than in homes and offices. The organization is calling on the U.S. government to ban the worst forms of PBDEs and phthalates from use in any indoor environments, and has enlisted the help of several concerned members of Congress to help write legislation to that effect.
Heat and Ultraviolet Light Trigger Pollution Inside CarsHowever, on January 11, 2006, the Michigan-based Ecology Center released a report entitled: “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives.” In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs, often used as fire retardants) and phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics) are the primary culprits. Part of the seat cushions, armrests, floor coverings and plastic parts in most car interiors, these chemicals are easily inhaled or ingested through contact with dust by drivers and passengers. The risks are greatest in summer, when car interiors can get as hot as 192ยบ F.
How Can Drivers Reduce the Risks of Pollution Inside CarsMotorists can lessen their risks by rolling down car windows, parking in the shade and using interior sun reflectors. But the Ecology Center is urging carmakers to stop using such chemicals in the first place. “We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars,” says Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center’s Clean Car Campaign Director and co-author of the report. “Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
Volvo Shows Least Pollution Inside CarsIn preparing its report, the Ecology Center collected windshield film and dust from 2000 to 2005 models made by 11 leading manufacturers. Volvo was found to have the lowest phthalate levels and the second lowest PBDE levels, making it the industry leader in interior air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals. Other makers claim they have eliminated some but not all PBDEs and phthalates. Ford, for example, reports that it has eliminated PBDEs from “interior components that customers may come into contact with.” Honda reports it has eliminated most phthalate-containing PVC. Other carmakers tested were BMW, Chrysler, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Should the Government Ban Chemicals that Cause Indoor Pollution?With indoor air pollution already listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the top five environmental risks to public health, the Ecology Center is especially concerned that concentrations of PBDEs are five times higher inside cars than in homes and offices. The organization is calling on the U.S. government to ban the worst forms of PBDEs and phthalates from use in any indoor environments, and has enlisted the help of several concerned members of Congress to help write legislation to that effect.
Light Pollution Raises Risks of Breast Cancer
The glow of city lights blotting out stars in the night sky has frustrated many a stargazer, but recent studies have shown that “light pollution”—defined as excess or obtrusive light at night—can actually have serious health effects. Researchers have found that exposure to bright nocturnal light can decrease the human body’s production of melatonin, a hormone secreted at night that regulates our sleep/wake cycles. And decreased melatonin production has in turn been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in women.
“Light at night is now clearly a risk factor for breast cancer,” says David Blask, a researcher at the Cooperstown, New York-based Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute. “Breast tumors are awake during the day, and melatonin puts them to sleep at night.”
Light Pollution Leads to More Breast Cancer in Industrialized CountriesEpidemiologist Richard Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory first discovered the link between breast cancer and light pollution in the late 1980s. Stevens found that breast cancer rates were significantly higher in industrialized countries, where nighttime lighting is prevalent, than in developing regions.
Night Shift Workers Run Higher Risk of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionLending credence to Stevens’ research are the findings of another researcher, William Hrushesky of the South Carolina-based Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who discovered that female night shift workers have a 50 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than other working women. He also found that blind women have high melatonin concentrations and unusually low rates of breast cancer.
How to Reduce Risks of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionTo reduce breast cancer risks from light pollution, Prevention magazine recommends nine hours of sleep nightly in a dark room devoid of both interior (computer screens) and exterior (street lamps) light sources. A study of 12,000 Finnish women found that those who slept nine hours nightly had less than one-third the risk of developing a breast tumor than those who slept only seven or eight hours. Even bright light from a trip to the bathroom can have an affect, so dim nightlights are recommended for night lighting.
How Light Pollution Affects Birds and AnimalsLight pollution causes other problems besides increased cancer risks. According to the Sierra Club, birds and animals can be confused by artificial lighting, leading them away from familiar foraging areas and disrupting their breeding cycles. And the photosynthetic cycles of deciduous trees (those that shed their leaves in the fall) have been shown to be disrupted due to the preponderance of artificial nighttime lights.
Light Pollution and Wasted EnergyAnother environmental impact of excessive use of artificial light is, of course, energy waste. The International Dark-Sky Association computes that unnecessary nighttime lighting wastes upwards of $1.5 billion in electricity costs around the world each year while accounting for the release of more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Individuals can do their part by keeping lights dim or turned off at home at night—and convincing their employers and local government offices to do the same.
“Light at night is now clearly a risk factor for breast cancer,” says David Blask, a researcher at the Cooperstown, New York-based Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute. “Breast tumors are awake during the day, and melatonin puts them to sleep at night.”
Light Pollution Leads to More Breast Cancer in Industrialized CountriesEpidemiologist Richard Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory first discovered the link between breast cancer and light pollution in the late 1980s. Stevens found that breast cancer rates were significantly higher in industrialized countries, where nighttime lighting is prevalent, than in developing regions.
Night Shift Workers Run Higher Risk of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionLending credence to Stevens’ research are the findings of another researcher, William Hrushesky of the South Carolina-based Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who discovered that female night shift workers have a 50 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than other working women. He also found that blind women have high melatonin concentrations and unusually low rates of breast cancer.
How to Reduce Risks of Breast Cancer from Light PollutionTo reduce breast cancer risks from light pollution, Prevention magazine recommends nine hours of sleep nightly in a dark room devoid of both interior (computer screens) and exterior (street lamps) light sources. A study of 12,000 Finnish women found that those who slept nine hours nightly had less than one-third the risk of developing a breast tumor than those who slept only seven or eight hours. Even bright light from a trip to the bathroom can have an affect, so dim nightlights are recommended for night lighting.
How Light Pollution Affects Birds and AnimalsLight pollution causes other problems besides increased cancer risks. According to the Sierra Club, birds and animals can be confused by artificial lighting, leading them away from familiar foraging areas and disrupting their breeding cycles. And the photosynthetic cycles of deciduous trees (those that shed their leaves in the fall) have been shown to be disrupted due to the preponderance of artificial nighttime lights.
Light Pollution and Wasted EnergyAnother environmental impact of excessive use of artificial light is, of course, energy waste. The International Dark-Sky Association computes that unnecessary nighttime lighting wastes upwards of $1.5 billion in electricity costs around the world each year while accounting for the release of more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Individuals can do their part by keeping lights dim or turned off at home at night—and convincing their employers and local government offices to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)