|
“The fumes of cleaners containing
a high concentration of chlorine when breathed
in can irritate the lungs and be particularly
dangerous for people who suffer from heart
conditions or chronic respiratory problems
such as asthma or emphysema,” says
Patty Avey, editor of SmartLivingNews. “When
the fumes are emitted in small, poorly ventilated
rooms such as the bathroom, the risks are
increased,” she adds.
Another immediate risk of having chlorine
bleach around the house is accidental ingestion
by little ones--poison control centers across
the country receive about 20,000 such calls
each year. Also, combining chlorine bleach
with ammonia and other acids can cause deadly
fumes.
Meanwhile, though, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) maintains that there
is no danger in using chlorine bleach around
the house, claiming that the amount of chlorine
is too low to warrant serious concern. But
the agency does regulate the use of chlorine
for industrial purposes, and confirms links
between exposed workers and lung irritation.
Whether used at home or in the factory,
chlorine is a big problem for the environment
once it is discarded or rinsed away. It
bonds with other chemicals in the wastewater
stream to form carcinogenic “organochlorines”
(such as dioxin) that contaminate drinking
water supplies, among other risks.
Luckily, healthy and environmentally safe
alternatives to chlorine bleach abound.
Many of these can be made at home with household
products you probably already have. Half
a cup of hydrogen peroxide can work well
as a bleach alternative when diluted with
warm water prior to going in the wash load.
For those not so ambitious, commercial variations
on such formulas, which give consumers the
benefit of oxygen-based stabilizers that
ensure even distribution within wash loads,
are available from companies such as Seventh
Generation, Earth Friendly Products and
BioPac. Most of these products are available
at natural food stores as well as online
and at larger, well-stocked supermarkets.
But before spending a fortune on bleach
alternatives, consumers should see if hard
water might be causing their clothes to
look gray and dingy from soap scum and mineral
deposit build-up. Clues that you might have
hard water include clean dishes with water
spots on them, white and crusty sediment
on fixtures, or a recurring bathtub ring.
If you do have hard water, simply add enough
baking soda to the laundry to make the wash
water feel slippery to the touch and see
if that doesn't whiten whites and brighten
colors.
CONTACTS:
SmartLivingNews, www.smartlivingnews.com
EPA Chlorine Fact Sheet, www.epa.gov/chemfact/f_chlori.txt
Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com
Earth Friendly Products, www.ecos.com
Bio Pac, www.bio-pac.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear EarthTalk:
Is it true that Exxon never paid the fines
that were to help the local Alaskan fishing
communities that were harmed by the 1989
Valdez oil spill?
—
Marcy Damon, via e-mail
The $5 billion in civil charges levied against
Exxon by a federal court in 1994 to cover
ecological restoration for the Valdez oil
spill--at the time, the largest punitive
damage award in history--is still in legal
limbo in appeals court 16 years later. But
the company has spent around $3.5 billion
on clean-up efforts, on compensation to
affected local residents, and on settlements
with Alaska and the federal government to
underwrite environmental studies and conservation
programs in and around Prince William Sound.
Critics of Exxon charge that the company
has used the appeals system to delay payment
of the disputed additional $5 billion. “Exxon
threw up so many obstacles after the initial
$5 billion judgment that the case generated
more than 7,700 docket entries,” reported
journalist Andrew Gumbel in the UK-based
Independent in March 2004 at the time of
the 15th anniversary of the spill.
Some charge that Exxon may actually be profiting
some $800 million per year from the delay,
“because of the difference between
the interest rate being charged by the courts
and the much higher rate it enjoyed through
its own internal financing systems,”
said Gumbel.
“This spill continues to haunt [us]
to this day in the form of socioeconomic
trauma from lingering damages to our environment
and fisheries, physical trauma from injured
health, and emotional trauma from Exxon’s
ridiculous court delays,” says Riki
Ott, a former Prince William Sound commercial
fisherwoman who founded the Alaska Forum
for Environmental Responsibility soon after
the spill. “Even $5 billion won't
bring justice, but it will go a long way
toward bringing closure to this sorry event.”
For its part, the company (now ExxonMobil)
insists it has paid the price for the accident
and should be allowed to forego the remaining
assessed damages entirely. In 2001, the
Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals did
just that, concluding that the charges were
“excessive”--but this reversal
was soon overturned itself on another appeal
by environmental organizations. According
to a 2004 press release, the company claims
that the “punitive damages suggested…are
not a debt that is owed” but instead
represent “a windfall in excess of
the amount the jury found necessary to compensate
the plaintiffs for their losses.”
Regardless of whether or not ExxonMobil
ever pays the additional damages, it will
continue to face the added costs of implementing
safety measures--such as equipping all of
its oil tankers with double hulls to prevent
future accidents. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has worked with
the company, and the industry as a whole,
on coordinating and implementing expensive
spill response plans to contain leaked oil
and minimize ecological effects in all American
waters.
|
