Metal-Eating Superworms?

Heavy Metal-Eating "Superworms" Unearthed in U.K.

 

 

 

James Owen
for National Geographic News
October 7, 2008
 
Newly evolved "superworms" that feast on toxic waste could help cleanse polluted industrial land, a new study says.

These hardcore heavy metal fans, unearthed at disused mining sites in England and Wales, devour lead, zinc, arsenic, and copper.

The earthworms excrete a slightly different version of the metals, making them easier for plants to suck up. Harvesting the plants would leave cleaner soil behind.

"These worms seem to be able to tolerate incredibly high concentrations of heavy metals, and the metals seem to be driving their evolution," said lead researcher Mark Hodson of the University of Reading in England.

"If you took an earthworm from the back of your garden and put it in these soils, it would die," Hodson said.

DNA analysis of lead-tolerant worms living at Cwmystwyth, Wales, shows they belong to a newly evolved species that has yet to be named, he said.

Two other superworms, including an arsenic-munching population from southwest England, are also likely new to science, Hodson said.

"It's a good bet they are also different species, but we haven't categorically proved that," he said.

The findings were announced in September at the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool.

 

Micro Processors

Hodson's team's investigation used x-rays to zap worms with intense light, allowing them to track metal particles a thousand times smaller than a grain of salt.

The findings suggest the arsenic-tolerant population produces a special protein that "wraps up the metal and keeps it inert and safe so it doesn't interact with the earthworms," Hodson said.

The lead-eating Welsh worms likewise use a protein to render the metal harmless inside their bodies, he added.

The toxicity of the metal particles once they have passed through the worms isn't yet known, since the protective protein wrappings will degrade over time, the study authors noted.

But experiments suggest the superworms make the metals easier for plants to extract from the soil, Hodson said.

"The earthworms don't necessarily render the metals less toxic, but they do seem to make them available for plant uptake," he said. This raises this possibility of using the earthworms as part of efforts to clean up land contaminated by mining and heavy industry.

(Related: "Microorganism Cleans Up Toxic Groundwater" [April 7, 2004].)

 

Plant Mining

The long-term aim is to breed and then release the worms at polluted sites to speed up the process of soil development and help kick-start the ecosystem's rehabilitation, Hodson said.

Plants could be used to extract toxic metals once the superworms have got to work, he added.

This in turn could boost the development of methods for using plants to mine metals.

"The goal at the end of the rainbow is that the plants become so efficient at it that you can use them as a source of metal in industrial processes," Hodson said. "So you just crop off the plants and take them to a processing plant."

Peter Kille of the School of Biosciences at Cardiff University in Wales has also been tracking the metal-eating worms.

He said previous studies show it takes earthworms many years to improve polluted soils. While the new superworms should prove a useful tool, even they can't compete with industrial cleanup processes that take one to two years.

The worms, however, are an excellent way to diagnose metal concentrations in contaminated land, Kille said.

"Basically you can see the earthworms as biological dipsticks of the soil toxicity and the metal levels," he said.

And the superworms are perfect subjects for studying evolution in action, Kille added.

"What's really interesting is that each patch of high metal creates a unique evolutionary event," he said. The worms either develop new ways of dealing with the metals or find solutions similar to other populations.

"Each time it happens it's a localized event, and it allows us to study the processes of evolution that create the adaptation," he said.

 

 

 

© 1996-2008 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.

Global Warming - Is It A Good Thing?

For some, yes!  At least that is the claim of some scientists who authored a publication, provocatively titled, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. 

We have shied away from entering the debate over global warming, and I don't intend to change that now.  However, I have noticed that nearly all the attention is on those who believe that man has created the conditions that have lead to global warming.  There are many scientists who do not support that position, but they are seldom interviewed on the nightly news.

One group of such scientists, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, authored the above referenced document in order to get their scientific opinions heard.  And yes, they do claim that global warming could benefit some people in some areas of the world.  For example, longer growing seasons could mean a larger food supply for some impoverished areas (their theory, not mine).

Let me be clear, I am not supporting ANY position.  The reason is simple; I haven't formed a concrete opinion that I am comfortable with myself, let alone sharing with others.  But, I do believe that both sides of the argument deserve to be heard - and not just the radicals at both ends of the spectrum that seem to dominate television and talk radio. 
If you would like a hard or electronic copy of the paper, feel free to email me at bob@cem-indy.com.  Also, please post your comments and/or opinions here - I'd love to know what you are thinking.

Bob

EPA Scientists Nix New Method to Determine Asbestos Health Risk

EPA Scientists Nix New Method to Determine Asbestos Health Risk

 

For those of you who may not know, the EPA, under pressure from the Bush administration, has been pushing to develop a new health risk assessment protocol based upon the type of asbestos.  A method that is much favored by defendants in asbestos litigation as it would likely classify Chrysotile asbestos at a lower risk than the other asbestos minerals.  This is significant for two reasons: 1) Chrysotile was the most widely used type of asbestos in the United States; and 2) It would fly in the face of decades of science that has demonstrated that Chrysotile asbestos is every bit as dangerous as the other forms.

The following is from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and demostrates that there are still a few good heads at the EPA.  However, I believe the battle is far from over.

EPA's plan to change how it determines the health risk from asbestos gets thumbs down from the agency's science advisers, Posted by Andrew Schneider, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, seattlepi.com, 8/6/08 

"Not at this time" is the decision of the panel of scientists who evaluated EPA's proposal to change the way it determines the health risk from exposure to asbestos. 

The opinion of the 20 experts appointed to the Scientific Advisory Board's asbestos panel was a surprise to some in the agency and to the White House staffers who pushed for it. It was a painful loss to the industries that hoped to use the change in policy, or at the very least, a vote to further consider it, as a foil in thousands of pending asbestos injury cases. 

Most of the corporations who complained to the White House Office of Management and Budget for the dramatic EPA policy shift have used or still market asbestos-containing products or material. 

The EPA's plan was to change how the determination of how the toxicity of the six types of asbestos regulated by government differ in danger. In doing so, the agency would ignore decades worth of what are considered solid studies documenting the actual hazard of the most common type of asbestos -- chrysotile. 

Leading asbestos scientists, physicians, asbestos victim advocates and top public health experts mustered to testify against EPA's plan at the July 21 and 22 hearing into the way the agency estimates potential cancer risk to those who inhale fibers of asbestos. 

The environmental newsletter InsideEPA.com reported that the panel's decision is likely to delay development of a model that EPA and industry officials hope can be used to set more site-specific cleanup levels at contaminated sites, rather than relying on conservative default assumptions. 

The Web site reported that the committee did agree with EPA that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that differences do exist in the potency of different types and sizes of asbestos fibers. But added that committee members called the EPA's proposal "weak" and said there is insufficient data for the agency to create the different categories of asbestos. 

More research and collection of additional animal and human data must be accomplished, reported the Web site.  

EPA is not required to follow the recommendation of its advisory scientists. However, one lawyer in headquarters said today it would be surprising if the agency pushed forward with this in the near future.  

"With all the congressional and media attention to White House efforts to ram through last-minute, pro-industry gutting of public health regulations, it would be stupid for EPA to try to implement this plan at this time," he said.

Nanotechnology - Your Health And The Environment

Is it hype, or a real threat?  Your thoughts?

 

 

 

From "The New Republic":


The (Nano)Silver Bullet

 

Are the benefits of nanotechnology worth the damage to our environment and possibly our own bodies?

 

Carole Bass,  The New Republic  Published: Friday, May 02, 2008

 

Your toothpaste may be a pesticide. So might your electric razor, your computer keyboard, and your child's teddy bear. These products, and scores of others, combine one of the world's oldest disinfectants--silver--with one of its hottest new industries: nanotechnology. The manufacturers of these products boast that they fight bacteria, molds, and fungus. Therefore, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these products may be pesticides. Though this may sound like a Rush Limbaugh story line about paranoid eco-Nazis, the reality is that we're lacing ordinary household goods with known toxins. And until scientific testing and federal laws catch up with this new technology, we may be exposing the environment--and our own bodies--to untold harm.

The new science of nanotechnology allows manufacturers to use materials that measure between 1 and 100 nanometers. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter, or roughly 1/100,000 the width of a human hair.) While nanoparticles can occur naturally and by accident--in diesel soot, for example--it's only in the past decade or so that scientists have widely learned to create and manipulate them. Many nanotechnologies use nano-versions of common materials, like carbon and silver. These tiny particles take on almost magical qualities: Insoluble materials can become soluble, nonconductive substances start conducting electricity. Nanomaterials can be orders of magnitude more powerful than the same substance at normal scale. Myriad green applications are in the works, and medical miracles are promised.

For now, though, nanotech is largely used in industrial and consumer products, from cosmetics to fleece to plastic food containers. Often, the benefits are more convenient than essential: White sunscreen turns clear on the skin; fabrics resist stains and static; leftovers stay fresh longer. There are over 600 nano consumer products on the market today--up from about 200 two years ago, when the Washington-based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) started keeping an inventory--with three to four new products added weekly.

But those products raise multiple health and environmental questions. Do nanoparticles stay put, or do they liberate themselves? What happens if they get into the human body or the environment? Silver, for example, will kill both harmful and beneficial microbes. But little is known about the effects of nanosilver--the most frequently cited nanoparticle in PEN's consumer-products inventory, showing up in more than 20 percent of the entries. The same is true for other nanomaterials, even ones that are ordinarily harmless. Animal studies show that because nanoparticles are so small, they can travel deep into the lungs, passing into the bloodstream and other organs. They may be able to penetrate the skin. And they're much more chemically reactive, often in unpredictable ways. While consumer industries are racing to develop uses, environmental and health research lags far behind.

Troy Benn, a doctoral candidate in environmental engineering at Arizona State University, recently conducted one of the first experiments to test the properties of nanoparticles in consumer products--with results that do not bode well for their safety. Benn and his professor, Paul Westerhoff, simulated washing seven varieties of socks advertised as using antimicrobial silver nanoparticles to help kill foot odor. When they tested the wash water, one pair--hunting socks from ARC Outdoors--lived up to the boast of its website: "It won't wash out." All the other nano-socks leaked silver.

That's a bummer for the buyer who expected long-lasting fresh feet. But it may be even worse for the wildlife that literally lives downstream. For years, wastewater treatment plants have worked with industries to limit the silver they dump down the drain. "Now, all of a sudden, we see these consumer products with silver," says Ben Horenstein, an official at an Oakland sewage treatment plant who is active in the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. "Our ability to treat the wastewater is in jeopardy because of these antimicrobial products. ... The water bodies we discharge to have aquatic life, and silver can adversely impact that."

The EPA, still struggling over how to regulate nanoparticles, ruled that equipment that generates ions to kill microbes is a pesticide, which must be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. But the law applies only if companies advertise the products as having antibacterial or other public health advantages. This ignores the multitude of products that fall outside these lines--potentially including Benn's nanosilver socks, since they claim to prevent odors but not disease. The obvious weaknesses of using a farm-oriented law that originated in 1947 to regulate 21st-century technology illustrate the pressing need for policymakers to adopt nano-specific rules.

Given that nanosilver may be more toxic, molecule for molecule, than ordinary silver, it's unclear whether existing pollution laws provide enough protection. Nationally, the only law specifically governing nanotechnology is in Berkeley, California, which requires industries to report on which nanomaterials they're using. The EPA only has a voluntary reporting program. And while the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has issued recommendations for protecting people working with nanoparticles--who are the most likely to be exposed--it has no enforcement power.

Through a spokesman, the EPA says it "takes any unverified public health claims"--nano or not--"very seriously and can pursue the appropriate action." But Horenstein sees "a gap in terms of regulatory oversight. As more and more of these things are coming on the market," he says, "how much understanding do we want to have in advance, versus playing catch-up?"

The regulation gap stems in part from the data gap. Proposed legislation, supported by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and big industry players like Dupont, would require that at least ten percent of federal nanotech spending go toward environmental, health, and safety research--compared to less than five percent currently. Some environmental groups would go further. Friends of the Earth, for example, calls for a moratorium on personal-care products containing engineered nanomaterials until they're proven safe.

Benn and Westerhoff's findings provide scientific support for a cautious approach. And while nanotechnology could bring enormous benefits--from cheap, clean energy to better cancer treatments--their stinky-socks experiment suggests that some nanotech applications may not be worth the risk.

Carole Bass is a Connecticut-based journalist and a 2008 fellow of the Alicia Patterson Foundation, reporting on toxic exposures on the job.

Tom Cruise Exposed To Asbestos?!?!

From: layersandsettlements.com

 

Scientologists Exposed to Blue Asbestos for 21 Years
May 1, 2008. By Jane Mundy RSS Del.icio.us Seed Newsvine Facebook

 

Curacao, Netherlands Antilles: Perhaps now that high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology, including Tom Cruise, may have been exposed to asbestos, an all-out ban on this human carcinogen in the US may come about sooner. But it can also mean that thousands more people can potentially develop mesothelioma.

 

The MV Freewinds, Scientology's cruise ship, has been sealed and docked in Caracao due to blue asbestos (crocidolite) that was released and spread through the ventilation system, affecting thousands of people.

 

The Church of Scientology's members were attending Scientology courses, training services and functions aboard the ship. According to the Daily Herald, a local newspaper, the blue asbestos was released from the ship's structure during refurbishing and reparatory work.

 

This is not the first time the MV Freewinds has been investigated for blue asbestos. In 2001, a former Scientology member, architect Lawrence Woodcraft, submitted a sworn affidavit stating that he was exposed to blue asbestos while working on the Freewinds in 1987. As well, a statement from the ship's captain claimed that there were previous incidents where blue asbestos was released into the ship's ventilation system. But the Church of Scientology denied Woodcraft's claim and in so doing, the Church knowingly exposed its passengers and members to this most deadliest form of asbestos for the past 21 years!

 

Since 1970, raw blue asbestos, the most hazardous of asbestos, was banned in the UK. The fibers from blue asbestos are the narrowest of this fibrous mineral and therefore the most easily respirable. Blue asbestos was known more than three decades ago to be the major cause of mesothlioma, which is a cancer of the pleural lining of the lung or much less commonly of the peritoneum. Mesothelioma is incurable, and commonly leads to a great deal of pain and other suffering. This horrific disease often has a very long latency period (it can manifest itself 40 years or more after asbestos exposure).

 

The risk of asbestos-related diseases from asbestos that is well-contained in structures such as steel and cement is minimal. However, the risks are extremely high when asbestos is removed, such as the case with refurbishing of the Freewinds.

 

Isn't it time to ban asbestos completely? Just as importantly, more enforcement and strict policing is needed when it comes to asbestos removal, refurbishment, maintenance and demolition work.

 

Anyone who has been aboard MV Freewinds should see their doctor to determine their level of exposure to blue asbestos. And they may want to seek legal advice.