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

Is Your Drinking Water Safe? That Depends….

Article 31: Everyone has the right to clean and accessible water, adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and family, and no one shall be deprived of such access or quality of water due to individual economic circumstance.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations created and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 30 articles defined THE inalienable rights for all people and all nations.  Today, there is a call to add one more article to the declaration. “Recognizing that over a billion people across the planet lack access to clean and potable water and that millions die each year as a result, it is imperative to add one more article to this historic declaration, the Right to Water.”

If you’ve been reading my writings you know that I tend to focus on food issues.  But for a moment I wanted to focus on water. Water is life. This is the first of at least two posts that will deal with water issues. This blog will look at the issue of clean water in America.  Clean water in America?  Really?  Isn’t all the water that flows through our pipes and into our homes safe?

If you are like me, water is probably something you tend to take for granted. You take showers, you wash your clothes, you reach for the tap in your sink and you’re pretty confident that clean, potable water will be there for you. But for billions of people across the world water; finding it, transporting it, and making sure it’s clean, is the single most important part of their lives.

Even here in the United States, clean drinking water is a very important issue, and one that most people are not aware of. A recent study conducted at the Southern Nevada Water Authority (as reported New Scientist on January 11) surveyed drinking water for more than 28 million Americans.  The survey screened water from 19 US water utilities for 51 different compounds.  The analysis revealed widespread low level presence of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals including beta blockers, herbicides banned in Europe, mood stabilizing drugs, estrogen hormones, painkillers, tranquilizers, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-cholesterol drugs and many more.

No need to go to the doctor; just drink lots of water to get your daily does of FDA prescribed drugs! All jokes aside, the amounts of these contaminants in our water is a million times less than medical doses, but no one knows what the cumulative effect of drinking this contaminated water is.

After reading this survey I decided to contact my local water company to find out the real story of MY water. What I learned was that our water is very safe for what is tested for. But my water company just like every other one in the US does not test for antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals.  It turns out that in the U.S., all water utilities follow only what is required by the Safe Water Drinking Act (remember that President Bush raised the limits on the amount of arsenic allowed in our drinking water, so I’d question the Federally approved levels of anything.)

I am not a doctor or scientist but you have to think that drinking water with any levels of pharmaceuticals has got to be bad for our health.

This is not new information to the EPA. There is an entire section on the EPA’s website covering Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) as pollutants which they refers to as “any product used by individuals for personal health or cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock.”

According to the EPA: “More research is needed to determine the extent of ecological harm and any role it may have in potential human health effects. To date, scientists have found no evidence of adverse human health effects from PPCPs in the environment.” But rather then filtering it out, we will basically be human guinea pigs, drinking the contaminants until we (like the gender-switching fish) have genetic mutations.

So what can you do to make sure that water in your home is safe?

Well you could put in a water filtration system like a reverse osmosis system.  If you are not comfortable with government set levels that this is may be the way to go.  However, be forewarned, wastewater is a by-product of the reverse osmosis process. Better systems will make almost 4 gallons of water brine for every one-gallon purified, while lower grade systems can waste as much as 8 gallons of water per gallon purified.

Radiant Life Company sells a 14 stage Biocompatible Water system that filters everything, including pharmaceutical residues. The system will run you $1,595 plus shipping and then you need a plumber to install.  It includes a reverse osmosis system as one of the stages so I would assume the wastewater by-product would increase with each additional stage.

Or you could just by a carbon filter like Brita to be on the safe side and drink the water from the tap.

It is all up to personal choice and preference weighing the health and environmental effects — wasting water or not contaminating your body. I wish it was not one or the other.

But what we really should do is force the EPA to make sure our water is free and clear of all contaminants.  We need to create petition to amend the Safe Water Drinking Act to require all water utilities to test and filter our drinking for pharmaceuticals.

Anyone want to help me?

Follow me on Twitter @Green_Luvin

Dose of Reality: Engagements

To produce that single ounce, miners have to quarry hundreds of tons of rock, which are then doused in a liquid cyanide solution to separate the gold. Payal Sampat, the campaign director for Earthworks, the mining watchdog, told The Independent: “Gold mining is arguably the world’s dirtiest and most polluting industry.”

My boyfriend proposed not too long ago (so I guess he’s not my boyfriend anymore) and he said the hardest thing wasn’t worrying about if I’d say yes or no…or getting the mood right…or doing it at the right time…or any of those small things. He said the hardest part, by far, was finding a ring that wouldn’t make me go into a rant about mining and health or cry because of child soldiers.

Recently National Geographic put up a slide show about gold – its effects on people and the environment.

A wedding ring which costs around $2000 (CND) which is about 1 ounce of gold creates up to 30 tons of toxic waste. This toxic waste effects us all here in North America as our lakes are not only threatened to be turned into dump sites, but already are in some cases.

CBC News has learned that 16 Canadian lakes are slated to be officially but quietly “reclassified” as toxic dump sites for mines. The lakes include prime wilderness fishing lakes from B.C. to Newfoundland.

Environmentalists say the process amounts to a “hidden subsidy” to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat.

And really…The real cost of gold is a dirty one that could be with us for centuries as shown be previous studies.

Environmental Fate of Mercury

* “Hot spots” at mine sites
* Contaminated sediments
* Transport to downstream areas
* Bioaccumulation and biomagnification in food chain

Risks to Human Health

* Consumption of contaminated fish
* Improper handling of contaminated sediments
* Inhalation of mercury vapors
* Low risk in municipal drinking water
* Some mine waters unsafe for consumption

And although there are attempts to make it cleaner, you can do your part to make sure your bling is ethical. My engagement ring is from Brilliant earth, which was his final choice after checking out blue nile, polar bear diamonds and greenKarat.

7 Sexiest Green Stars of 2007

The results are in!
Well, not really. This list is based on my humble blogger opinion. Use the comment section to claim which celebs float your green boat. With enough feedback, I hope to compile a list based on “popular,” not personal, opinion.

Sheryl Crow
2007 was a great year for Sheryl Crow. In addition to advocating “one square per restroom visit,” the singer raised mainstream green awareness by touring the country in a biodiesel-powered bus. With Laurie David at her side, Crow threw the smack down on Karl Rove. After the former senior White House advisor scoffed at global warming evidence, Sheryl got feisty. “You work for us,” the singer said famously. Now, flip me a burger . . . b*tch!

Brad Pitt
Obviously! No “sexy list” is complete without this corn-fed, Oklahoma-born, man-boy from Missouri. Rugged good looks and a hard body (PEOPLE named him Sexiest Man Alive . . . twice) are fascinating, but thanks to the stalkerazzi, we’re also privy to this benevolent gentleman’s every good deed. Following a laundry list, Pitt finished off 2007 with a massive green building project in Katrina-devastated New Orleans. Pitting (ahem, excuse me) a team of world-renowned green architects for projects, Brad is determined to start an unprecedented green building trend. Adopt a green house (not one of his children) at MakeitRight9.org.

Sienna Miller
It’s hard to keep track of this British beauty’s breakups, make-ups . . . and then again breakups; yet, Sienna’s eco-record is as clear as the see-through bra she sports in Hippie Hippie Shake. An ambassador for UK-based climate-change campaign, Global Cool, Miller recently launched the carbon-neutral clothing line Twenty8Twelve. In October 2007, Sienna received an EMA Futures Award—an honor given to those who use their talent and celebrity to draw attention to the problem of global warming. Yay! Now we can raise our beers to eco-activism and sexy starlets . . . it’s Miller time!

Adrian Grenier
Unlike the character he plays on TV, Entourage star Adrian Grenier cares about the environment—no he doesn’t drive a bright yellow Hummer in “real life!” Grenier prefers driving a Prius, living in a fully “green” house (solar roof, reclaimed floors, recycled blue-jean insulation, blah, blah, blah), and offsetting. In 2007, Grenier drew massive attention to Charity Water, a non-profit initiative that sets up drinking water and sanitation infrastructures in the world’s most impoverished communities.

Word in the ‘Hood says Grenier is “fully committed to educating any lady who dares walk into his green life.” According to environmental gossip site Ecorazzi.com, Grenier said, “if a woman isn’t environmentally conscious, she will be after going out with me.”

Too bad, I’m already environmentally conscious . . .

Al Gore
I had to! This greenie may lack chiseled abs and cheekbones. Nonetheless, in 2007 Gore turned us on with unbridled activism and inspirational gusto. You go Gore!

Hayden Panettiere
Emerging from the cesspool of Disney celebs comes Hayden Panettiere. Though best known for her kiddy-porn appeal and role on NBC’s Heroes, Panettiere is raising praise and eyebrows as a young advocate.

This past October, Panettiere thoroughly pissed off Japanese fishermen during their annual dolphin hunt in Taiji, Wakayama. The young star paddled a surfboard out to a cull of captured dolphins. Though blocked from freeing the enmeshed porpoises, Panettiere’s kafuffle drew great attention to animal conservation and her bubble-butt.

Dolphin saving aside, Panettiere reportedly continues to drive a pimped out Porsche SUV . . . ugh, teenagers!

Leonardo Dicaprio
Hardly jaded by my accolades, international stardom, Oscar-nominations and embarrassingly attractive girlfriends, Leonardo DiCaprio has become one of today’s most prominent environmental voices—many say he is following in Al’s footsteps. In 2007 he produced and narrated the 11th Hour, said to be an unofficial sequel to An Inconvenient Truth. Leo’s film stars my favorite environmentalist of all—and someone who should be on this list: David Suzuki.

For more from Olivia Zaleski check in with her on The Huffington Post.

Gotta Keep on Top of the Bills!

Yeesh! There’s a flurry of activity surrounding environmental issues in Congress and it’s all I can do to keep up! Here’s what’s going on:

TOMORROW, on Halloween, the House is set to vote on HR 2262, which updates the incredibly outdated (and super destructive) Mining Act of 1872. That’s right, this puppy was last updated over 130 years ago!

WHAT: We want our Congresspeople to vote YES on HR 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, which updates the act and makes environmental provisions as well as making sure Native Americans have a say in what’s done on their lands. Also, it forces profit-making companies to pay for the right to mine on public lands.

It would help clean up western waters contaminated by tens of thousands of abandoned mines, ensure that new mines do not become perpetual water polluters, and give federal land managers and local elected officials more say in balancing mining with other important public land values, such as for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and places to hunt, fish, hike, and camp.

WHY: “[The old act] allows foreign and domestic companies to take valuable minerals from public lands without paying any royalties, and it still allows public land to be purchased at the 1872 price of less than $5.00 an acre.

The 1872 Mining Law contains no environmental provisions, allowing hardrock mines to wreak havoc on western water supplies, wildlife and landscapes. Mining has polluted 40 percent of the headwaters of Western watersheds, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. ”

OR….you can just watch the video about it!

HOW: You can call or email your representative. DO IT NOW!!!!

ALSO:

There’s a new global warming bill making it’s way through Congress, which will finally address many of the long-standing contributors to our warming world.

WHAT: The Leiberman-Warner “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007″ does not go far enough in reducing global warming emissions. Got to this page to get links to all the nitty-gritty details of the act.

The Quick and Dirty:

The bill would cap greenhouse gases at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and gradually reduce them to 1990 levels – a 15 percent reduction – by 2020. The measure requires deeper cuts over the long term: a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

“The goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million,” Lieberman said. “That will avoid what (scientists) describe as a high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States … but also around the world.”

WHY: Though this is mostly a positive bill, it doesn’t go far enough, especially because it introduces a ‘cap and trade’ system for polluting industries. Check out this editorial from the LA Times about why it could end up making corporations zillions of dollars instead of solving the problem.

Cap-and-trade is a politically popular idea in the U.S. and Europe, but it is an extremely complex mechanism that presents irresistible opportunities for cheating and profiteering that would deeply compromise its effectiveness. Rather than creating a new carbon-trading market primed for manipulation by clever polluters and traders, Congress should be focusing on simple carbon taxes that would assess polluters for the cost of their environmental damage and offset the resulting economic pain by lowering other taxes.

HOW: As always, call or email your representative and tell them what you think about this. You can also sign MoveOn’s petition.

Green Building 101

This month’s WIRED and E/The Environmental Magazine both have great features on the many and varied ways of constructing an eco-home.

E Magazine’s coverage focuses on the history and current status of green building in the US, including lots of stats, facts and info (like that buildings consume 65% of electricity, 12 of drinking water and 40% of raw materials) emphasizing how new construction can drastically reduce those numbers (and how prices keep coming down for eco-friendly options). There are also excellent sidebars, including an interview with Michael Braungart, the co-author of one of my favorite books, Cradle to Cradle; a look at eco-construction around the world; a review/synopsis of Cradle to Cradle; and discussions with architects and how they have insinuated green design into their own homes and projects.

Not surprisingly, WIRED covers green home technology in a flashier and more superficial way, but is it fun to read/look at! Content will be available online on January 17, but it is well-worth buying the mag (which, as usual, has lots of super-fascinating content outside this section). The Green Home section features a main article on pre-fab green design (with an illustrated How To: Turn Your Grey Water Green) and a secondary piece on “Six Ways to Live Green”, which includes climate analysis for your home prior to building; renewing urban spaces to transform factory to fabulous loft; how to modulate temperatures whether it’s dealing with chilly winds or hot, hot, hot Texas climate; geothermal energy; and how to use as little energy as possible in your all-windows apartment with a view. Gorgeous photos and infographics will make even the Hummer-driving frat-boy-turned-investment-banker want a Green Home.

• Advertising on Eco Chick
• Submission Guidelines for Products
• Online Resources for Ecofashion, Beauty and Green Goodness
• Ecofashion and Beauty Resource Guide: by City
• The Book! The Eco Chick Guide to Life: How to Be Fabulously Green
• About the Header Artist
• Who We Are
• Press
• Contact

©Gardenia Media. All rights reserved.