(January 26, 2010) Santa Cruz, CA - On January 19th, after more than a year of continuous controversy, the FDA has released a statement naming the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) as a safety risk, allocating $30 million for independent research for a first-time, non-industry-funded study  in an effort to learn more about the health risks associated with BPA.  Bisphenol A is especially prevalent in baby bottles, and while consumer pressure and declining sales of BPA plastics have spurred the six largest, plastic baby bottle manufacturers to voluntarily remove BPA from baby bottles sold in the U.S., the chemical is still widely prevalent in consumer food and beverage containers sold around the world.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is one of the world’s highest production-volume chemicals, and has been used for 40 years in plastic items such as baby bottles, food and beverage containers, and dental sealants. Independent studies have shown adverse health effects of BPA occur on the brain and reproductive system, as well as create metabolic diseases in laboratory animals.

In the human body, BPA mimics the estrogen hormone, and studies have tied the BPA compound to reproductive abnormalities and the increased risk of both cancer and diabetes. Infants and children are thought to be particularly vulnerable to the BPA compound because their reproductive organs and ability to metabolize chemicals are not fully formed.  In a statement in 2008, the FDA said BPA was safe in materials that come into contact with food, to which  critics accused the agency of using outdated studies that had been sponsored by the chemical industry, so the new cautionary statement by the FDA is a huge step in the right direction of consumer safety over corporate pressure.

There was considerable media coverage of the BPA baby bottle controversy last year. Scientist and expert Frederick vom Saal explains the situation like this: “The Japanese industry voluntarily removed BPA from can linings 10 years ago and thus, were able to reduce exposure to BPA by 50 percent.  Last year, Congress asked companies in the United States to take similar actions; however, companies have made no move toward compliance.”  In spite of this and tarried by pressure from chemical corporation lobbyists, the FDA still has no official plan to ban BPA from consumer goods.

The new FDA position is consistent with that of the National Toxicology Program made two years ago.  To avoid this health risk all together, choose BPA-free plastics, and avoid putting all plastics into the microwave and dishwasher, where they can release dangerous chemicals when heated, or degrade in the heat and excessive moisture.

Safe plastics that use polyethylene (#1, #2, and #4) and polypropylene (#5) require the use of less toxic additives. They also are non-chlorinated. Avoid choosing products that use polyvinyl chloride (#3), polystyrene (#6), and polycarbonate (#7) which typically contains bisphenol A (BPA) and is found in baby bottles and/or sippy cups.

About the author: Elizabeth Borelli is the Founder of Nubius Organics, an eco-conscious mom, and an environmental activist. She began www.nubiusorganics.com to bring her knowledge of safe, healthy alternatives to a greater audience, and to share valuable  information, resources, and green solutions with the public, the media, and parents to be.

#    #    #

In the ongoing battle to improve the way we manage CO2 emissions, some scientists at MIT proposed a unique system that uses solid oxide fuels to produce power from fuel without burning it. Using existing technology, they would be able to provide electricity with zero carbon emissions, at a cost comparable or less than current natural gas plants.

Post-doctoral associate Thomas Adams and Paul I. Barton, the Lammont du Pont Professor of Chemical Engineering joined forces and found a way to combine existing components with under developed technology and shape it into a novel configuration that illicits electricity with zero carbon emissions. It runs on natural gas, which is more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. This system would emit a stream of pure carbon dioxide that could be stored underground using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Adams also said that their fuel-cell based system produces clean water that could easily be treated to provide potable water as a side benefit.

Some Clear Obstacles to Success

One challenge is that the duo is not sure if the technology can compete with conventional power plants. The second challenge is their price point is only truly competitive if the government sets a price on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The current pending legislation on carbon pricing is the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July of this year, through its “cap and trade” provisions. (A corresponding bill has not yet reached the floor of the U.S. Senate.) If this program becomes law, the actual price per ton of carbon emission would vary, determined through the free market.

According to the MITnews, “Natural gas accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. electricity production, and is likely to rise if carbon prices are put into effect.” Carbon legislation makes  the zero emissions technology a more competitive option, as its able to produce electricity from natural gas at a similar price to coal without the side effects.

With some form of carbon pricing (which takes into account the true price exacted on the environment by greenhouse gas emissions), Adams says, their technology can be “competitive at a price point of $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide.”

And a few more…

Some additional obstacles I see right off are consumption.  If natural gas consumption continues at current rates, there are only 60 years worth of fuel left. That does not seem like an extraordinary amount to work with, and if this technology takes off, won’t we be consuming even more of it at a faster rate?

I am also unsure sure how safe it is to be storing all this carbon underground. What does that do the land and surrounding ecosystems? What are the true ramifications of technology like this?

What are the Predictions?

According to Adams, this new system’s predicted efficiency is so high it beats the life cycle cost of a combined-cycle natural gas plant, even without carbon pricing. The study recently done by Adams and Barton also shows that a very low level of carbon tax ($5 to $10 per ton) would make their technology cheaper than coal plants, which are currently the lowest cost option for electricity generation.

All this is well and good, but there are a lot of “what ifs” that need to come together for this to even be considered viable, or better yet, a good option.

I am still pretty skeptical about this approach to working with natural gas, and I think there are others who may feel the same. This technology may be appropriate if used on a small scale in some specific situations, but as a larger market power producing option for the masses, it doesn’t seem like the best alternative.

by Katrina Pfannkuch

Solar power is often considered an alternative fuel source for a variety of earth-bound power needs ranging from homes to electric vehicles. Now scientists are looking at ways to harness the sun’s energy for a solar powered concept plane called Odysseus. Designed as an autonomous surveillance craft, Odysseus can fly above the earth for over five years straight using only solar power generated from strategically placed solar panels, according to Popular Science magazine.

The Odysseus is actually a combination of three smaller planes comprised of 164 foot-long wing shaped structures. Each is launched separately, and then are combined once in the stratosphere where the air is calmer. Solar panels line the top of the plane to ensure maximum exposure to sunlight, and the Odysseus can also autonomously change shape to maintain continued sun exposure and trap sunlight. For example, an accordion “Z” formation allows the plane to absorb sunlight at low angles at dusk, and a flat aerodynamic shape is a more efficient wing for night travel.

When fully assembled, the craft is 492 feet long and is capable of traveling at 140 miles per hour at an altitude between 60,000 to 90,000 feet. Researchers are exploring alternative fuel options for when the sun is unavailable, including fuel cells, flywheels and/or batteries embedded throughout the frame. Weight is also a factor in the amount of fuel required to fly Odysseus, so the plane is constructed with featherweight carbon composites and is targeted to weigh under 7,000 pounds.

To the naked eye Odysseus would appear as a star like glint in the sky, so researchers feel it is ideal for border patrol or monitoring nuclear-reactor sites. Some of the more civilian applications suggested include environmental surveillance such as storm development, and monitoring climate change and the ozone layer. Researchers plan to have a full concept prototype within the next five years.

* * *

I see Odysseus as more than a creative, scientifically advanced prototype –- it’s an evolution in aviation that comes with positive and negative potential as the price tag. While Odysseus is helping us expand our reach into the atmosphere in a clean, green way and lays the ground work for solar powered commuter planes (as well as its above mentioned environmental surveillance applications), it also brings up arguments about personal privacy. I wonder how these planes could potentially be used to monitor all aspects of civilian life, and how that information will be used. For now the full potential of solar surveillance is the million dollar question. – K. Pfannkuch

. . .

About the author: Katrina Pfannkuch is a writer, Reiki Master and entrepreneur who lives to write and create. She started Buzzword Communications to pursue her passion for excellence in communication and satisfy her entrepreneurial spirit.