Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

Cell Towers and Health Effects: Cellular Disservice?

3 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 07/08/08

This past week a local in my town contacted me to see if I would be interested in discussing the issues surrounding a potential cellular tower that would be constructed within one mile of my house. Some of us from the town had the chance to voice our concerns to the Connecticut Siting Council, which is the governing body that determines zoning for these towers in our state.

Having written about microwave energy and electromagnetic fields a few years ago, I remembered interviewing Carl Blackman, a research scientist in the Environmental Carcinogenesis Division of the EPA, and asking him about cell phones and cellular base stations in relation to electromagnetic fields and the possible health impact. Blackman was one among quite a few scientists and researchers I interviewed who reiterated the same sentiment: “We just don’t know yet. The science is not in.” The fact that the jury is still out on this vast topic, in a field (pardon the pun) that is ever-expanding, is enough, for some, to warrant grassroots action.

The subject is controversial and highly debated, although the issue is one that people are dealing with world-wide. The fear is that without mobile phones and cell towers covering every inch of land, emergency services will be left without connection, leaving us, “with a hole big enough to drive a hearse through…” as I recently read in a concerned citizen’s letter to the NYTimes. One concern is that the proliferation of these towers and devices has gone largely unmonitored, unregulated, and, according to some scientists, could potentially lead to serious health issues.

The World Health Organization has advised that the “precautionary principle” be enacted as a preemptive move before certainty of harm is verified by science. This essentially means that when any new technology is evolving beyond the scope of scientific research, it is advisable to protect oneself through risk management. So, while some still think that those who discuss this topic with seriousness are delusional and should be stuttering through the park, wearing a tinfoil hat, others, including the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and member countries of the European union feel it is worth serious discussion.

In Europe, some governments have set exposure standards below those of the standardizing agencies, in order to try to protect their citizens. In India, towers were recently banned from school and residential areas to protect people following studies that showed potential harm to the brain. The United States Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704(a) removes environmental considerations from the tower siting process, which denies citizens the opportunity to protest based on ecological concerns (zoning) or health issues.

In 2006, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF,) the largest union of first responders in North America, passed a resolution banning cellular towers from firehouses until more research is done, because firefighters were suffering from ill health. Internationally, the concern regarding the exponential proliferation of wireless devices and base stations to support them has provoked scientific studies and prompted legislators to err on the side of caution when it comes to regulations. Many scientists are discussing the potential impact on DNA, neurological function, and human health while others study migratory birds and the reproduction patterns of all animal populations in the vicinity of strong electromagnetic fields.

In my town, in NW Connecticut, we are currently experiencing the battle. The cellular tower has been proposed to be on Route 7, a scenic highway that runs parallel with the Appalachian Trail. The AT park manager has sent a letter in response to the proposed tower stating that they had no problem with it, so long as Cellco/Verizon makes the tower look like a tree and plants 25 white pines along the trail.

The tower site is also within one mile of two schools and is next door to the largest employer of the town. The site abuts a friend’s property. Both he and his wife are cancer survivors and fear the tower could affect their health. At the public hearing, where town members were allowed to voice their opinions to the siting commission (who ultimately decides whether the tower goes up or not,) people expressed various concerns:
More »

allergies, Animals, birds, Cancer, car, children, death, Energy, epa, Europe, farm, health, India, interview, local, magazine, media, mom, News, NYTimes, oil, opinion, Outdoors, Plants, schools, skin, spring, Technology, Teens, trees

Wind Farms: Beauty or the Beast

14 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 06/03/08

I took this photo of the wind turbines in Palm Springs, CA

I’ve heard the two windiest spots on our planet are the Coachella Valley of California and South Africa. The wind in California has prompted the installation of thousands of windmills in the Coachella Valley, which generate electricity for nearby Palm Springs and areas spreading toward the Los Angeles basin.

Standing majestically, like some invasive alien lifeform or uniform militia, the windmills have now become the major landmark of the Palm Springs region. Assembled in the desert like something out of a Pink Floyd movie, with towers as high as 150 feet and turbines as wide as the wings of a 747, the windmills are striking.

The American Wind Energy Association calculates there is enough available land in the Midwest or in just 100 square miles of Nevada’s windiest regions, to house enough wind farms to supply the energy needed to power the United States. The U.S. has been slow to move into wind power, although it is now picking up significantly. In the early years of development, windmills were simply too expensive to produce, install, and maintain. However, over the last ten years, the expense of windmill power has dropped over 80%. Following in the footsteps of progressive countries, such as Denmark, where over 10% of energy is windmill generated, the U.S. has finally been increasing wind energy production.

There are three main arguments against wind farms:
-the environmental impact of the windmills
-energy used to produce and store energy
-the usual NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome.

As far as the environmental impact goes, massive turbines can disrupt local ecosystems and wildlife. For example, flight patterns of migratory birds have been altered and birds have died due to collisions. A solution to this is that wind farmers and scientists are working together to avoid placing windmills along flight and migration paths, while also working to avoid endangered plant and animal territory.

The production of the windmills is not without the depletion of non-renewable resources. The storage of the energy harnessed requires battery use, which means toxic waste. The windmills can be massive, which requires large transportation services as well as the use of raw materials to build them.

As for NIMBY, the windmills can cause a fair amount of noise pollution. Besides noise, some people consider windmill farms eyesores. Some people think these problems can be avoided through decentralization of power generation. By going ‘off the grid’ and building homes in windy areas, people can have their own windmills right in their back yard. (RITBY?) Excess energy can be sold to local utilities, which makes the turbines a good long-term investment.

In this time of climate crisis, utility companies need to be willing to participate in a metering program in order for this to happen and right now, the U.S. still has a far way to go before this works as well as it could. Energy utilities generally only pay 35-40% of the retail rate (due to government energy subsidies.) This could be interpreted as a way to dissuade individuals from pursuing this type of self-sufficiency. Wind certainly seems to be a better option, in comparison to coal, oil or nuclear energy.

Africa, Beauty, birds, coal, electric, electricity, Energy, farm, farms, Home, local, Los Angeles, News, nimby, nuclear, oil, Outdoors, Pollution, produce, resources, sport, spring, Tea, transportation, waste, Wildlife, wind power

For the Birds

1 Comment

by Starre Vartan · 05/01/08

When I was a little girl I would watch the songbirds that alighted on the birdfeeder deep in the woods of my Hudson Valley, NY home. I learned their names, counted them for the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, and even learned to identify individuals (birds look less alike than you’d think).

These pretty hand-painted songbird lockets from Tryst by Kerry are a reminder that our colorful feathered friends share our environment too.

Songbird populations are in decline due to loss of habitat (so support open-space initiatives in your community) and pollution (a culprit–bits of plastic that end up in their stomachs, so buy glass or use paper instead).

The lockets are made from repurposed vintage pieces, so no new destructive gold or silver mining went on to create them. Choose from a Cardinal, a Robin or a Blue Jay, or a silhouette of a flying swallow. The little lockets are so inexpensive you could easily buy two or three to wear together—your own little birdie menagerie.

[Originally written by Starre for Elle.com]

birds, conservation, Ecofriendly Jewelry, Jewelry

The War on Bugs

3 Comments

by Brianne Goodspeed · 03/12/08

For anyone else who digs on books that examine how PR shapes public perception, Will Allen’s new book, The War on Bugs is the latest in a genre that includes The Best War Ever and Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Instead of the now-tired observation that much of our food supply harms our bodies and destroys the land, Allen looks at the historical connection between advertising and agriculture and how toxins were marketed and sold to farmers to create The War on Bugs. (Fans of The Lorax might be surprised to see how else Dr. Suess put his talents to work — shilling for DDT and Standard Oil — before he spoke for the trees.)

Here’s an excerpt from a Q&A with Will Allen that I did for Chelsea Green.

BG: You’re an organic farmer, but you’re also an ex-Marine – and you were arrested and sentenced to a year in jail during the early 70s for civil rights and antiwar activism. That’s not a one-track life. Were there noticeable turning points for you?

WA: A turning point for me came during my time in the Marine Corps when I was dispossessed of the belief that as Marines we were protecting democracy, liberty, and freedom. I learned we were mostly protecting corporations. Some of our military actions while I was a Marine were in Lebanon, Cuba, and Vietnam. In Lebanon, we protected American corporations in the mid-East and mid-East allies, no matter how corrupt. In Cuba, we protected American businesses, a dictator, the ruling class that fled to Miami after the Revolution, and the Mafia drug cartels. In Vietnam we protected business interests, rice interests, illegal drug interests – the opium trade – and religious interests. We installed a Catholic president in a nation where 95% of the population was Buddhist and were shocked when he was assassinated. By 1963, I was protesting the Vietnam War in Chicago rallies and campus teach-ins.

…

BG: Do you see any similarities in the way that wars are spun and sold to the American public and the ways that toxic chemicals are spun and sold to American farmers?

WA: Advertising agencies made a quantum leap during the First World War. They did contract work for the government to sell the war and recruitment work for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The country was isolationist at the time and not interested in getting into another of Europe’s seemingly endless string of wars. Advertisers were able to get enlistments up and the public to buy war bonds. The themes were: a “can do attitude”, (such as, if America enters the war we will win it), a patriotic obligation, and protecting the civil rights of occupied countries.

When the same advertising agencies sold chemicals to farmers and householders, their pitches were similar. We are at war, be patriotic, and “a can do attitude.” That attitude encouraged such boasts as “. . .We can grow more than any other farmers in the world”, which led to the common belief that American farmers are feeding the world.

BG: On the flip side, do you see similarities in your resistance – resistance to war and resistance to toxic chemicals?

WA: I think that when someone becomes as anti-war as I am, then whatever one does – whether it is organic farming or something else – the irrationality and injustice of war is never far from their consciousness. While farm wars and military wars are of a different scale, many of the chemical and mining corporations that make fertilizer and pesticides are also manufacturers of bombs, and other military hardware and software. I think the sooner we can stop the chemical and genetic war on the farms, and the mindset that we are at war with nature, the better we will be as a species. In a sense, it is hard to not think of the war every time I fire up a tractor or pump or generator or heater that runs on gas or diesel from war zones around the world, especially Iraq. For that reason, we are looking at all the alternatives to fossil fuels for moving vehicles and for stationary heaters and generators.

War is not what is going on at Cedar Circle Organic Farm (in East Thetford, Vermont). We have struggles with pests, including woodchucks, voles, birds, worms, fungi, insects and weeds. We develop and copy strategies that are softer, non poisonous, and often very effective, and sometimes those adopted strategies are not effective. It is a process. We don’t have all the answers, but we have a lot more now than when we started in the 1960s.

activism, agriculture, birds, book, books, business, car, corporations, diesel, Europe, farm, farming, farms, Food, gas, insects, military, oil, Organic, SPUN, Tea, Toxins, trees, wood

Quality, Not Quantity: Organic and Natural Toys

5 Comments

by Kimberly Jordan Allen · 01/24/08

When we first started to register for baby gifts we knew that we wanted to avoid being inundated with primary colored hunks of plastic that scream encouraging jargon (“great job!!” said the machine…) whilst playing a neon light show that could stimulate anyone into a state of ADD. Now that my kids are playing more and starting to cruise around, I have been looking into more wholesome toys they can interact with; nibble, drag, pummel, hug and so on. There are a few toy sites that have good, quality toys. With today’s toxin scares, purchasing well-made, non-toxic toys takes a bit of research but is worth the effort. Here are a few toys and sites that we love. Sometimes it costs a bit more to buy something sustainably produced, but to us it is better to have a few good toys than hundreds of pieces of landfill fodder. Not all toys on these websites are organic or ‘natural,’ (depending on what that means for you) so, as with all things, read the fine print. There are a few sites that have mostly organic and natural items, such as Tiny Bird (see below.)
This dragon from Lana Organic is colorful and well-made.
Under the Nile makes quality toys and clothing that seems to last forever, surviving many washings. These stuffed grapes have been in our house since the babes were born and they still play with them. Under the Nile also makes fantastic organic swaddling blankets that really make the best baby burrito!
Tiny Birds Organics carries lots of environmentally conscious toys. Plan Toys, the company that makes this rolling snail, has won many awards for their eco-friendly toys that stimulate imaginations and promote development.
This organic ball, made by Sigikid looks soft and inviting. All of their products are made using traditional Bavarian craftsmanship and are machine washable.
Uncle Goose blocks use naturally derived inks and sustainable wood. These blocks are well made and have so much to look at: pictures, numbers, letters. We love them.

awards, Baby, birds, car, clothing, cotton, Crafts, farm, Home, kids, Organic, pictures, plastic, produce, rape, sustainable, sustainable wood, wood