Your prized anti-aging face wash could be made with plastic microbeads. And much to the dismay of many consumers, this tool for instant exfoliation is really just ground up toxic plastic.

Plastic microbeads are tiny plastic particles, smaller than 2 millimeters, used in toothpaste, face wash, body wash, scrubs, lip gloss, and a number of other personal care products. But these tiny colorful dots present a huge problem in the form of microbead pollution, according to The New York Times.

When the plastic microbeads are washed off they go down your bathroom drain and end up flowing into lakes and streams. And the pollution they create is hugely problematic because the beads are too small to be filtered out by water treatment facilities. And as a result, fish end up ingesting them. In fact, that sushi roll you were noshing on last night may actually contain microbeads. The beads are made of a variety of plastics, but the bottom line is that they’re toxic to both you and the environment.

“Kind of like the Trojan horse effect,” Dave Andrews, a senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group said to The New York Times. “You’re increasing the quantity that’s ending up in the lower organisms, and then they could make their way up the food chain.”

That’s why more and more states are banning them. Thus far, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Colorado, Indiana, California, and Maryland have all banned the microbeads in some form. But according to the non-profit, the Story of Stuff, a major player in the fight to ban the beads, some of the laws don’t go far enough.

According to The Story of Stuff:

Unfortunately, many of these bans on microbeads don’t go far enough to protect our health and our shared waters. The industry that is pushing these plastic-filled products has written a bill that leaves loopholes for the microbeads to be replaced with other kinds of plastics and circulated it around the world.  The Story of Stuff Project is leading a coalition of over 100 groups to get these tiny plastic beads out of commerce.

Plastic that are considered biodegradable actually require facilities in order to breakdown the plastics, which becomes a problem because the microbeads end up flowing down the drain and never making it to any sort of facility.

You can make a difference by avoiding all products that contain microbeads. This is especially true of anti-aging and exfoliating personal care products. Additionally, while some states have already enacted legislation, many states are working on new laws, so it’s worth writing your representative and letting them know you support such laws. As more and more people learn the damage microbead pollution can do, banning these pesky plastics in your state becomes that much more realistic.

Related on EcoSalon

Better Dying Through Chemicals: Environmentally Friendly Ways to Go

Nature Rocks Campaign Urges Families to Get Outdoors This Summer

Jack Johnson and Jason Mraz Fight to Save the Great Barrier Reef

Image of a woman brushing her teeth from Shuttershock

The post Plastic Microbeads are the K-Cups of Skin Care appeared first on EcoSalon.

It seems there’s a never-ending stream of ideas to curb water pollution. Would you believe glow-in-the-dark tampons are one of them?

Newer homes are often equipped with technology that allows unused surface water that doesn’t need to be treated to run straight back into water systems while sending wastewater from the dishwasher and toilet, to the water treatment plant. This is meant to reduce the energy loss in treating clean water. But sometimes these systems are installed improperly, and wastewater ends up making its way to local rivers and streams. But what if glow-in-the-dark tampons were a simple solution to detecting unnecessary water pollution? Yes, you read it right.

Professor David Lerner at the University of Sheffield, who led a new study on the subject, explained in a statement: “More than a million homes have their waste water incorrectly connected into the surface water network, which means their sewage is being discharged into a river, rather than going to a treatment plant. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to detect where this is happening, as the discharge is intermittent, can’t always be seen with the naked eye and existing tests are complex and expensive.”

Researchers found that detecting detergents and other contaminants with untreated cotton tampons is an easy avenue for displaying the “optical brighteners” that are often present in detergents. These materials have a bluish glow when displayed under UV light, reported The Washington Post.

Tampons begin to glow when they’re contaminated. By hanging them on the underside of manhole covers, scientists can quickly spot when detergents, soaps, and other contaminants have made their way into the water system. Researchers found that the tampons begin to glow after just 0.01 ml of detergent per liter of water is released into rivers and streams. Plus, strategic placement under certain manhole covers makes it possible to know where the water is coming from in the first place.

“Often the only way to be sure a house is misconnected is through a dye test – putting dye down a sink or toilet and seeing where the coloured water appears in the sewer,” says Professor Lerner. “It’s clearly impractical for water companies to do this for all the households they supply, but by working back from where pollution is identified and narrowing it down to a particular section of the network, the final step of identifying the source then becomes feasible.”

This way the problem can easily be fixed in individual homes and water officials don’t have to test a large number of homes. Detergents can have a major impact on the water supply if left untreated. Game fish can die of an oxygen deficiency, which can cause an accumulation of vegetation because there’s nothing to feed on it. Excess phosphorus in the water can also lead to algal growth, which can choke the water system of oxygen and create dead zones. Even detergents that are considered biodegradable can have a negative impact on water systems, that’s why detecting water pollution early on protects local water supplies from such issues.

Related on EcoSalon

The 35 Best Beaches in America for Avoiding Beach Pollution (Plus the 16 Worst Beaches)

Is Your Facial Scrub Causing Water Pollution?

Global Plastic Pollution Revealed: 269,00o Tons Floating in the World’s Oceans

Image of a man testing the water from Shuttershock

The post Treating Water Pollution with Glow-in-the-Dark Tampons? appeared first on EcoSalon.

One of the environmental downsides of pesticides is that all that runoff has to go somewhere and much of it ends up in rivers and streams, causing water contamination.

Until now, researchers didn’t know the extent of  water contamination worldwide. But new research shows that agricultural application of pesticides contaminates rivers and streams on 40 percent of the land surface, according to the Environment News Service. Specifically, stream pollution and water contamination is prevalent in the U.S., the Mediterranean, Central America, and Southeast Asia, according to researchers at University of Koblenz-Landau,University of Milan, Aarhus University, and Aachen University.

“Our analysis provides a global map of hotspots for insecticide contamination that are a major risk for biodiversity in water bodies. To our knowledge this is the first study that assesses insecticide contamination of water bodies on a global scale,” Professor Dr. Matthias Liess from the Helmholtz Center, who serves on the scientific advisory board for Germany’s National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products said to the Environment News Service.

In all, 4 million tons of agricultural pesticides are applied annually around the world and that number is on the rise as third world nations continue to adopt first world pesticide use.

“The risks of insecticide exposure to water bodies increased significantly the further South one travelled on a North-South gradient in Europe, North America and Asia, mainly driven by a higher insecticide application rate as a result of higher average temperatures,” Dr. Mira Kattwinkel, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology told the Environment News Service.

Contaminated water systems have a huge impact on local water systems by killing a range of species including invertebrates, insects, crustaceans, snails, and worms. Not to mention that contaminated water and soil leads to issues with local water supplies, although, pesticides are less common in ground water than they are in streams.

In the U.S., the Mississippi River basin is among the most intensely farmed areas in the nation. In fact, it’s estimated that as much as two-thirds of all pesticides used in agriculture are used in this area. Storm runoff concentrates these pesticides in rivers and streams. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, “[t]he half-life of pesticides, once they are in surface water, is generally much longer than in soil because water contains much less organic matter and fewer micro-organisms to degrade the pesticides.”

Beyond Pesticides reports that we’re already seeing some of the side effects of this contamination including frogs exhibiting hermaphrodism when exposed to atrazine, even in below the legal allowable limits. Low birth weights and increased instances of breast cancer are tied to herbicide-contaminated water. Plus there’s the stress that degraded stream water puts on municipal water systems. Surface water, which was the subject of the study above, is the most vulnerable to contamination and it supplies 47 percent of water in the U.S.

Related on EcoSalon

Maryland Seeks to Protect Honey Bees from Pesticides

The 35 Best Beaches in America for Avoiding Beach Pollution and the 16 Worst Beaches

Is Your Facial Scrub Causing Water Pollution

Image of man spraying pesticides from Shuttershock

The post Pesticide Runoff Causing Global Water Contamination in Streams, Study Finds appeared first on EcoSalon.

A good facial scrub is essential to healthy skin, but is this seemingly innocent beauty product to blame for massive water pollution?

Life on this planet can’t exist without water, yet water pollution is a major problem for countries around the world. And it’s not only the fault of industrial polluters (although they’ve been allowed to dump horrifying toxins into the water supply for decades). Thanks to hidden ingredients in everyday products, we too are contributing to water pollution without even realizing it.

Many modern exfoliation products contain plastic microbeads that help to slough away dead skin cells. What the makers of these products failed to tell us is that these tiny plastic beads are NOT water soluble. When used, they’re flushed away to water treatment plants that aren’t capable of filtering them out. As a result, the end up in the our oceans, lakes and rivers where they wreak havoc on the ecosystem.

The plastics can be digested by marine life like plankton and mussels and then passed along the food chain to human consumption, according to research by the 5 Gyres Institute. The beads can also attract other pollutants in the water and pass it along to humans.

Here in the U.S., the use of products that contain plastic microbeads is taking a toll on the Great Lakes, which together hold nearly one-fifth of the earth’s surface freshwater. “The highest concentrations were found in 2012 in Lake Erie. Researchers found polyethylene and polypropylene that included traces of aluminum silicate and coal ash, often coming from coal power plants. Some of the samples had 450,000 particles of plastic per square kilometer,” reports EcoWatch.

Of course, making your own facial scrubs and exfoliating masks from edible ingredients is the best way to ensure that your beauty regimen doesn’t encourage water pollution. But if you’re not into DIY, there are other ways to avoid plastic-filled cosmetics. Two Netherlands-based organizations, the North Sea Foundation and the Plastic Soup Foundation, teamed up to create a smartphone app that can help consumers steer clear of products that contain these toxic plastic beads.

The app, called “Warning: Plastics Inside!” can be downloaded at the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store, and Windows Phone Store.

Related on Ecosalon

Exclusive: Voyage Through The Atlantic Gyre

5 Mobile Apps For A Non-Toxic Lifestyle

Give Me Conscience or Give Me Death: Your Plastic Footprint

Image: pyxopotamus

The post Is Your Facial Scrub Causing Widespread Water Pollution? appeared first on EcoSalon.

The fashion industry is facing many challenges, but one of the most pressing issues is water usage.  The textile industry is the third largest consumer and polluter of the world’s water. Water consumption is a huge problem for growing fibers such as the ever-thirsty cotton plant, with nearly 400 gallons of water required to produce just one cotton t-shirt.

Waste water is conceivably an even bigger issue than consumption. Toxic chemicals produced from dyeing textiles, along with other chemicals such as those used to produce synthetics, are contributing to a major crisis in pollution of fresh water, affecting the health of a number of species, including humans.  (Read The Consequences of Chemicals, Future Fashion White Papers).

Heavy metals such as chromium and cadmium, which are used to make bright and vibrant dyes, pose a threat wherever they appear in a product lifestyle, particularly the use of the dye in dye wastewater. Air Dye is a revolutionary technology that dyes textiles without using any water. Not only are they reducing the overall amount of water required to produce a garment, but this technology also prevents toxic chemicals from entering our ecosystems.

Some manufacturers work in closed-loop production, which means that the waste or effluent produced is treated and re-used, reducing the amount of toxic waste normally disposed of into the ecosystem.  The company Lenzing is a great example, with their fabrics modal and  tencel, made from a wood pulp much like bamboo (which has yet to be manufactured in a closed-loop environment).

But so much attention has been given to the energy, chemicals and water that go into making a garment that what many people don’t realize is the majority of the environmental damage comes once a garment has been purchased. The energy and water required to wash a garment has far more devastating effects than the growing of the raw materials and the manufacturing of the textiles. Surprising? Not really when you consider that the average piece of clothing lasts three years, and is laundered hundreds of times in its lifetime.

The average North American household washes 400 loads of laundry per year. This accumulated number of washes requires 13,500 gallons of water to complete, and is equivalent to how much water it takes to fill a standard above-ground pool!

The first steps towards recovering from our water addiction begin with wearing our clothes several times before washing. But once we get to a full laundry basket that is truly in need of a wash, there are a few basic tips to help you get started on eco-friendly and budget-smart laundering habits.

1) Wash your clothes in cold water: An interesting fact – using only hot water for washing your clothes uses more electricity in a year than leaving the refrigerator door open 24 hours a day for an entire year. Cold water is the best alternative, as it not only reduces fabric shrinkage, but it allows colors to remain vibrant. So your clothes will fit and last longer AND you’ll reduce your carbon emissions by 500 pounds a year!

2) Wash full loads: Washing machines are most efficient when operating at capacity. Take advantage of your washing machine’s full potential and load it up. Your budget will thank you for it.

3) Use the right amount and type of detergent: When doing a load of laundry do you use the cap size as an indicator of the amount of detergent you should use? If so, odds are you are using way too much laundry detergent than what is actually needed. The amount you use should reflect the guiding lines on the inside of the cap. Here’s a great article on Treehugger with more information.

Another helpful hint is to look for phosphate-free detergents. Phosphates are the leading chemical agent in algal blooms and a major cause of aquatic ecosystem depletion. Also, instead of fabric softeners, try using white vinegar in the rinse cycle. The acid vinegar will neutralize the basic detergents and as a result will help keep your clothes looking clean.

4) Consider an Energy-Star rated washer: Gone are the days of scrubbing our laundry by hand down at the lake. If you’re in the market to replace your washing machine, consider a more cost effective one. An Energy-Star or front-loading washing machine can save thousands of liters of water a year and be 30 – 85% more energy efficient.

Image above from Costello Tagilapietra’s 2009 show at Mercedes Benz Fashion Week featuring Air Dye technology.

Related posts: Nifty Eco-Friendly Laundry Tricks Worth Trying
Eco Laundry Drying Secrets Revealed
Squeeze Em’ Into Any Teeny Tiny Space Laundry Racks
10 Myths About Dry Cleaning
Dry Clean Only? An Eco Expert Tells Us When It’s Safe to Ignore Labels

The post Reduce Your Wardrobe’s Water Footprint appeared first on EcoSalon.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the FDA’s approval of the birth control pill. The pill was first envisioned by family planning crusader Margaret Sanger as a remedy to the debilitating cycle of perpetual pregnancy for married women. Sanger’s own mother died at the age of 50 after 18 pregnancies; at her funeral Sanger famously confronted her father, telling him, “You caused this. Mother is dead from having too many children.”

The pill was intended to proffer women control over their reproductive destinies. But its secondary impact was just as important: women entered the workforce. Before the pill, less than 20 percent of women with a child under 18 worked outside the home. By the end of the last century, that number skyrocketed to 70 percent. Though many women still find themselves choosing between a career and a family, the pill allowed women to better calibrate these decisions. What followed, of course, was a major upheaval in the way we view men and women and their societal roles. Today, we’re still adjusting to that delicious shakedown.

For all the benefits of the pill, the iconic contraceptive has reaped its fair share of criticism. Like the condom, the pill, which is taken by more than 100 million women worldwide, has come under fire for having an iffy environmental track record. In a recent post on Grist.org, Lisa Hymas rolls her eyes at the media’s love note to the pill on its 50th anniversary.

“We’re still agog over a pill that Margaret Sanger dreamed up in 1912 – one that we have to take every single day, one that messes with our hormones, one that has unpleasant side effects for many women, one that contaminates our water supplies.”

Indeed, the pill is widely credited with diminishing certain fish populations. Estrogen, excreted in the urine of pill users, enters waterways where it is consumed by fish. In one Canadian and U.S. government experiment, male winnows exposed to trace amounts of estrogen became feminized. Their testicular development stopped and they began making eggs instead. Unable to reproduce, the fish population in the experiment died out within two years.

In addition to its impact on wildlife, the pill’s estrogen runoff may adversely affect humans, particularly in developing countries where waste water is more commonly recycled for human consumption.

Hymas’ call for a greener pill, a more accessible pill, and even a pill for men, deserves to be seconded. But let’s not forget that the pill has been a major boon for the environment in one regard. If you think the earth is overpopulated now, imagine what things would look like without the contraceptive. And for that reason, we toast the pill on its 50th anniversary.

Image: Phoney Nickle

The post How Green Is the Birth Control Pill? appeared first on EcoSalon.

St. Patricks’ Day this week turned cities green literally – from landmarks to libations. But how green have major metro areas around the U.S. been throughout the year? The American Cities Business Journal group has released a new study on the matter.

Their inaugural Green Cities Index examined 43 U.S. cities, and ranked them based on 20 criteria encompassing residents’ environmental behavior, cities’ use or abuse of land and water, and presence of a variety of environment related projects and industries. The Green Cities Index 2010 survey results have been hot in the blogosphere ever since, with bloggers and residents bragging or bummed about their scores.

Portland topped the Green Cities Index 2010, with San Francisco in a close second place, Honolulu at third followed by Austin and Boston. The new study’s rankings fell in line with related studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and by Popular Science. But not exactly.

Surprising Strengths

Green Cities Index 2010 gave areas lacking environmental credibility overall some surprising points. Houston, one of the most traffic-choked cities in the U.S., held the top spot for Energy Star rated facilities, saving it from a much lower score.

Meanwhile, Albany ranked in the top ten on this list, though traditional manufacturing plants have caused severe pollution there for years. The city’s high score was influenced by Albany’s top score for “green jobs.”

At least the presence of more green jobs per capita in the area indicates the promise of a sea change.

It ain’t easy being green…

How important are green aspects of a city to the quality of life there? We think entirely important. That’s why we’re surprised that Green Cities Index 2010 chart topper Portland did not rank so highly in a separate happiness survey, the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index which was released last month. The happiness study examined 162 cities, and Portland came in at 59. (That compares indirectly to 16th place on a 43-city list like Green Cities.)

Greensboro, North Carolina which came in dead last on the Green Cities Index, with the worst ranking for sprawl and its result, carbon emissions per capita, ranked 97th on the well-being index, which would put it at about 25th on a list of 43.

While there’s no apples-to-apples comparison between the studies, it’s worth asking: why aren’t the greenest cities always the happiest? Where does your city rank, and how happy are you?

Basic reading:

“A few hundred miles up the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Pittsburgh sits as a shining example of sustainability. After decades of working to clean its smoky skies and polluted waterways, the Steel City also has become a model for green building and sustainable design…” – A news feature discussing the reasons why Cincinnati Business Journal decided to launch its Green Cities Index

“Nine of the 10 cities that fare best on ‘life evaluation,’ assessments of life now and expectations in five years, boast a major university, a big military installation or a state Capitol – institutions that presumably provide some insulation from recession.” – A news feature breaking down a Gallup study of how happy people are in American cities, via USA Today

“If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it…” From a 2009 study on Suburban vs. City living by Edward L. Glaeser

“No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives.” – a different assessment of green cities from the Vancouver, B.C. news site, The Tyee

Further Resources:

News from OregonLive.com about the lack of trees in an otherwise green city, Portland: “Green Portland Isn’t Green Enough”

An Environmental Protection Agency air quality report

For contrast, a news report on air quality in Islamabad

A Greenbang.com story about London’s aim to imitate Copenhagen, Europe’s greenest city

A blog post calling for public transit support in Nashville, and referencing its low ranking on Green Cities Index 2010

Image Credit: Keith Skelton

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

The post EcoMeme: Green City, Happy City? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Color me hydrated! Yes, these appealing fruit shades enlivening the sleek water bottles are part of KOR Water’s new Thirst for Givingâ„¢  program.

Each color is tied to a different non-profit identified by KOR as part of this environmental mission – and clever marketing campaign.

KOR will donate 1% of annual sales to organizations doing exceptional work related to the causes that KOR supports: ocean and watershed protection, the global water crisis and container recycling.

“KOR’s mission is to celebrate and protect water,” said KOR founder and CEO Eric Barnes.  “The Thirst for Givingâ„¢ Program is our way of bringing more awareness to issues that deeply impact the future of water on our planet.”

The KOR One Hydration Vessel is now available in four shades, each one representing a specific water-related cause: Blue (Ocean Protection); Fuchsia (Global Water Crisis); Green (Watershed Protection); and Orange (Container Recycling).

The Four Non-Profits selected are:

• Ocean Protection: The Algalita Marine Research Foundation
• Global Water Crisis: Blue Planet Run
• Watershed Protection:  The Wetlands Initiative
• Container Recycling: Container Recycling Institute

The Fountain Valley, Calif. company invites retailers to become partners and sell the bottles at their stores. Meantime, you can locate one of the vendors already selling the bottles ($30 at REI) by visiting the KOR Website. If the bottles take off, it could mean helpful dollars for the targeted causes, since the bottles are on the pricey side.

Consumers who have tried the bottle, made of Eastman Tritanâ„¢ copolyester, have found it to be durable with a good grip. Its design includes a hinged lid that can be opened with one hand, which comes in handy for sports like biking, and a soft rubber base with a glasslike clarity for seeing what you are drinking (we are what we drink?). The sleek design won the National Georgraphic Adventure Best of Adventure Gear Award for 2009.

The post Genius in a Bottle appeared first on EcoSalon.

Imagine your village’s water supply was about to be contaminated by nuclear waste from a nearby dump and the federal government simply offered to put a fence around it. If you were the Hopi Nation, you’d sue.

In the 1950s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs created an unlined, unrestricted dump a few miles from a uranium mill on Navajo and Hopi land. Everything from uranium tailings to medical waste has been dumped there over the decades. The dump was closed – covered over with sand and dirt – in 1997 and the Hopi and Navajo people have been fighting for a cleanup ever since.

Studies have confirmed that groundwater near the dump contains levels of uranium, arsenic, chromium and more that far exceed what is considered safe. What’s the “safe” level of uranium, anyway? And after years of watching government agencies hem and haw over the issues (yes, even offering to simply build a fence around the dump), the Hopi Nation is fed up. They plan to take serious legal action.

And they’re not just suing as a matter of principle, but because a uranium-contaminated water plume is headed directly for the Hopi water supply. Drinking water is a precious commodity, especially in the Arizonan high desert, and it was governmental mismanagement that led to the problem in the first place.

It’s hard to believe that anyone could sue the government itself and succeed, but with President Obama’s more sensitive leadership, maybe this major law suit (which includes the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency) will make the United States government pay better attention to the real and ongoing saga of Native American affairs.

The post Hopi Nation to Sue the U.S. Government Over Environmental Charges appeared first on EcoSalon.

Move over, melamine; your infamy as a contaminant in Chinese infant formula is being pushed aside by one that’s made in the USA. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has found some samples of American brands of infant formula (although they won’t divulge which) are contaminated with perchlorates – which come from rocket fuel.

How, one has to wonder, are perchlorates getting into the formula many people are feeding to their newborn babies? Improper disposal on military bases, rocket test sites and chemical plants can allow perchlorates, which affect the thyroid, to leach into drinking water. That means these chemicals may be harming you, too. So far, the EPA hasn’t set a “safe” limit for perchlorates in drinking water, but I hope this issue will force the agency to take a closer look and regulate.

Image: Alessandro Perilli

The post Rocket Fuel Chemical Found in Infant Formula appeared first on EcoSalon.