California's Children

First 5 California on Earth Day: 10 tips for kids to get green

April 22, 2013: Today's a good day to remind our kids to be good stewards of the planet, says Camille Maben, executive director of First 5 California, who suggests:

1) Get Your Hands Dirty: Even in a small space, potted plants can brighten up a room and help clean the air in your home. Although it may take longer than one day to see results, planting fruits, vegetables, flowers or herbs thrill children, and teaches them patience and how we all can contribute to the natural beauty of the world.

2) Pick up Trash: Help beautify your local parks and playgrounds...Afterwards, celebrate your hard work with a picnic...

3) Swap Your Car for the Bike: ...go on a bike ride or pack up a stroller with essentials and walk. 

4) Go Take a Hike: Even in the most urban areas, natural beauty can be found ... point out birds, insects and plants... nurturing a love and appreciation of the natural world.

5) Teach Recycling: Teach little ones the value of recycling—newspapers, magazines, cans and junk mail are just a start. ...

6) No Gushing While Brushing: Teach children to turn off the water while brushing their teeth during the two-minute brushing time dentists recommend.

7) Lighten Up on Energy: Let a toddler/preschooler practice turning off the lights whenever you leave a room. Help them open curtains and blinds to let in natural light..

8) Fresh is Best: Show a child how to pick out ripe seasonal fruits and vegetables...Letting a small child smell and feel the produce is also a great sensory activity ...

9) Use a Reusable Bag:  On market trips, let children carry their backpack or bring reusable bags...perhaps ones they've decorated themselves for this purpose.

10) Trash into Treasure: Save empty food containers for craft projects... Egg cartons can be used as paint palettes, milk cartons as planters or bird feeders and boxes have infinite possibilities.

Air pollution's link to autism: more research supports "yes"

April 3, 2013: Public health researchers from UCLA have released a study finding that  pregnant women exposed to air pollution have a 12%-15% greater chance of giving birth of an autistic child than pregnant women who live in areas with cleaner air. The research published in Environmental Health Perspectives was led by Tracy Ann Becerra, a doctoral candidate at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health.

Becerra emphasized that the findings don't prove that pollution is the cause of autism; however, the findings were aligned with USC's study that found higher rates of autism among people living near freeways (see story below).

According to David Danelski, reporting for the Press-Enterprise, researchers studied records of more than 7,000 women in Los Angeles County, the pollution levels were estimates based on air quality data, since there were no pollution monitors in the women’s homes.

Becerra and her team completed statistical analysis of California Department of Developmental Service records of more than 7,000 Los Angeles County women who gave birth to an autistic child between 1995 and 2006. Estimated pollution exposures of the women were compared to those of a control group of women who did not have autistic children.

The researchers estimated each woman’s pollution exposure by using sophisticated computer modeling techniques that took into account her location, time of pregnancy, proximity to freeways, traffic data and air pollution data from regional monitoring stations, Becerra said.

The UCLA researchers determined that autism risks increased as the concentrations of ozone and fine particles increased. Both types of air pollution persist at unhealthful levels in the Inland area and other parts of Southern California. Previous research has shown that diesel soot, prevalent near busy freeways, is among the most toxic components of fine-particle pollution.

Written by Taylor McCulloch.

Is BPA "really" harmful to humans? Toxicologists debate at AAAS conf

UPDATE, February 16, 2013: Elizabeth Grossman, reporting for Environment Health News, posted today the debate among scientists over the question "Do low doses of BPA really harm people?" Her report was based on yesterday's presentation of leading toxicologists who presented their arguments at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston.

This debate, while arcane, is important because the scientific information is being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration in deciding whether to regulate BPA in consumer products, such as canned foods. Reacting to consumer concerns, some manufacturers already have stopped using BPA in plastic baby bottles, receipts and other items....Speaking on the cautionary side, among others, was Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst biology professor R. Thomas Zoeller, above, (endocrine research focusing on BPA effects on the thyroid), who noted  that the toxicological modeling is not designed to examine effects of chronic, low-dose exposure to an endocrine-disrupting chemical like BPA. Historically, these models have looked at specific cancers or fully manifested diseases. In contrast, BPA appears to produce health effects that set the stage for diseases often diagnosed many years after exposure.

“Chronic disease in human populations is not something traditional toxicology is designed to handle. It doesn’t look for risk factors,” Zoeller said.

October 5, 2012: Tia Ghose, writing for California Watch, reports:

A new UC San Diego study suggests that the byproducts of a chemical used in plastic found in the lining of cans may disrupt human hormone function more than the chemical itself.

The study, published today in PLOS ONE, may help explain why the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, has been tied to many health problems even though the chemical doesn’t have a strong effect on cells in a Petri dish.

“We have a candidate chemical that is doing the nasty stuff, or the endocrine disruption," said study co-author and UCSD structural biologist Michael E. Baker, at left. "We know that BP analyzing the chemical that’s really doing the endocrine disruption." ...in 2003, a Japanese research team found that the body breaks down BPA into another chemical: 4-methyl-2,4-bis(p-hydroxyphenyl)pent-1-ene, called MBP for short. MBP was 500 times more powerful at mimicking estrogen than BPA.

Infant health trumps cigarette-smoker-safety in flame-retardant chem decision

UPDATE, February 11, 2013: Gov. Jerry Brown proposed new rules on Friday, February 8, to reduce the use of flame retardant chemicals that experts claim create health risks. California Healthline picked up Patrick McGreevy's story in the Los Angeles Times:

...months after Brown and health groups cited studies by the California Environmental Protection Agency and others indicating that California toddlers and nursing mothers had higher levels of flame-retardant chemicals in their bodies than did those not exposed to treated products -- and only two months after a Scentific American article reported that the use of flame retardants in U.S. furniture "are on the rise" -- 94% of all new couches, for example....

The proposed changes for upholstered products sold in California come as health advocacy groups and the chemical companies that make the retardants are locked in a heated dispute over efficacy and safety.

California's rules are adhered to by large manufacturers of furniture sold in other states as well, and the chemical industry has spent millions fighting changes that would hurt its business. Chemical companies say that existing standards are needed to protect consumers from injury or death in fires.

Currently, furniture makers must provide upholstery that does not ignite when the foam inside the cushion is exposed to an open flame for 12 seconds. Many manufacturers use chemical flame retardants on the foam so they can pass the test, according to Russ Heimerich, a state spokesman.

At left, Ami Zota, lead author on several studies about the potential health effects of flame retardants and related chemicals on reproductive health (University of California, San Francisco).

The new rules would allow couches and other upholstered furniture to meet state standards if the foam does not ignite from a smoldering cigarette, a test that can be passed without chemical retardants, according to Heimerich.

Cigarettes are "the way most fires start" in the home, said Heimerich, a spokesman for the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, which proposed the rule change at Brown's request.

The new rules also would exempt from the flammability standard a long list of baby products including booster seats, car seats, changing pads, high-chair pads and infant mattresses. That would allow manufacturers to forgo chemical flame retardants in those products and use less-expensive alternatives, Heimerich said.

Redondo Beach power plant vs. the school board?

December 19, 2012:  On December 11, the Redondo Beach Board of Education decided to consider a resolution to oppose the rebuilding of the AES Redondo Beach power plant (left). (AES is a global power generation and distribution firm.)  According to Nicole Mooradian, writing in the Redondo Beach Patch, the power plant has to be retired, rebuilt or exempted from a new ban on the process of "once-through cooling" by 2020. AES has filed plans with the California Energy Commission to build a new, smaller plant; these plans have been met with community resistance. Opponents filled the board meeting to express their concerns. 

...activists pointed to studies showing the impact of fine particulate matter on health, including the development of autism, asthma and heart disease. School board members were divided as to whether they should take a position on the efforts to rebuild the power plant.  

...AES Southland president Eric Pendergraft, at left, told the board that building a new plant would provide more funding for the school district from the new property tax assessments; a new power plant would indirectly create jobs because it produces electricity; and that the new plant would run more efficiently than the current one.

School board vice president Laura Emdee said... "I have to let people do their job, and it seems to me if that agency doesn't believe that this power plant is viable or necessary, then that's the agency's [decision]," she said. "If I was to choose whether or not there was a power plant in our city, the answer would be, 'No'...' … I'm willing to go look at a resolution, but I'm more willing to just put a bit of faith in the energy commission."

 Written by: Taylor McCulloch