Heroin and Cornflakes

In this painting by Roger Fernandes, “Slapu”, the mythical ‘terrible monster’ of the Klallam people represents cancer.  The eight green and orange crabs circling “Slapu’s” face symbolize the community working together to defeat the monster.

It illustrates the importance of dealing with adversity, such as cancer, through ‘using your brain, working together, changing our ways.’

Our community in recent years has been embroiled in battle with tough adversaries such as tobacco and asbestos in the fight against cancer.  Are we about to encounter a new champion of neoplasia – Nanotechnology?

Are corporate and political forces again siding with an opponent to the detriment of our well being for the sake of profit?  Are corporate enterprises financing the political sphere in order to continue its malpractice of poisoning our community?

Lets take a closer look at what kind of fight some of our community is facing when profit is put before pollution and health and how this practice is sustained.

Nano materials improve performance of almost any product imaginable, from cosmetics to car batteries to cancer treatments, but little is known about the risks they may pose.

A carbon nanotube is essentially a sheet of carbon atoms–arranged in hexagons–that curls up into a tube.  The diameter of a nanotube is on the order of a few nanometers (approximately 1/50,000th of the width of a human hair), while they can be up to several millimeters in length.  One nanometer (nm) is one billionth, or 10^-9, of a meter.

How safe are they?

Nobody knows.  On the one hand they may be perfectly safe – on the other, they may possess asbestos-like properties.

Carbon nano tube seen through Fe-SEM electronic microscope

The needle-like fiber shape of CNTs, similar to asbestos fibers, raises fears that widespread use of carbon nanotubes may lead to mesothelioma – cancer of the lining of the lungs often caused by exposure to asbestos.

A major study by Professor Kenneth Donaldson published in Nature Nanotechnology suggests some forms of carbon nanotubes could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities.

The study used established methods to see if specific types of nanotubes have the potential to cause mesothelioma.

The results were clear,” says Donaldson. “Long, thin carbon nanotubes showed the same effects as long, thin asbestos fibers.” Asbestos fibers are harmful because they are thin enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, but sufficiently long to confound the lungs’ built-in clearance mechanisms for getting rid of particles.

Results recently presented clearly demonstrate that, under certain conditions, especially those involving chronic exposure, carbon nanotubes can pose a serious risk to human health by inducing harmful effects such as inflammatory and fibrotic reactions. Adv Exp Med Biol.

What are the implications?  Are we talking about a small issue here?

If it mirrors the case of asbestos then no.  Millions were affected in that industry. Companies and their insurers knew the hazards of asbestos and concealed this information from workers for decades (the asbestos documentary story).

Years later many workers developed serious consequential health problems resulting in many filing lawsuits against the offending companies.

Almost 400,000 asbestos claims were filed alone by automotive workers suffering from asbestos–related diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer and deadly mesothelioma.  They were exposed to asbestos through their work with asbestos–containing brake parts, gaskets and other automotive parts.   An incredible array of asbestos products were produced.

What are industry projections for nano?

The analysis firm Lux Research predicts that by 2015 nano will be incorporated in $3.1 trillion of manufactured goods worldwide (Lux Research 2008) and will account for 11 percent of manufacturing  jobs globally (Lux Research 2006). That’s an awful lot of produce and people coming into contact with nanomaterials.

What are the indirect implications for the environment?  What are the main materials used?  Are the procurement of these materials hazardous to the environment?

To date, silver is used in more manufacturer identified consumer products than any other nanomaterial.  Hundreds of nanosilver products are currently on the market, and their number is growing rapidly. (Dr. Samuel Luoma)

Dr. Samuel Luoma’s paper “Old Problems or New Challenges,” raises many questions.

Workers, consumers, lakes and streams are being exposed to nanosilver.  Ionic silver, a form of nanosilver, when tested in the laboratory, is one of the most toxic metals to aquatic organisms.  Ionic silver is being used now in washing machines and other products.

However “industrial releases associated with manufacturing the nanosilver that goes into the consumer products or production of the products themselves is likely to be greater than consumer releases.”

The inclusion of silver on the 1977 priority pollutant list1 (still in effect) means it is one of 136 chemicals whose discharge to the aquatic environment must be regulated.  This designation is based upon silver’s persistence in the environment and its high toxicity to some life forms when released to natural waters from smelters, mines or urban wastes.

Smelters are used because most mine-site processing of ore does not yield a metal that is pure enough for industrial use therefore further refining of silver is necessary.

Silver is usually found in ores with metals, such as copper, lead, and zinc.  Today, there are several processes used to extract silver and other metals from ores.

For gold, aluminum, silver and copper, this takes place at a smelter, a kind of furnace in which the processed ore is subjected to very high temperatures in order to melt the metal and release it from other materials in the ore.

Smelting technology has improved considerably over the past half century, but smelters still release a great deal of air pollution, especially oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, components of smog and acid rain, as well as lead.

Another method called the cyanide, or heap leach, process has gained acceptance within the mining industry because it is a low-cost way of processing lower-grade silver ores.

Wet tailings are left over after the ore has been processed.  They fill lagoons or landfills.

Is there any concern?  Surely in this day and age safety and health regulations are in place governing company environmental practices.

Are waste ponds safe for example?

Recent developments in waste product disposal, highlighted by coal ash, have raised concerns over waste ponds.

The EPA in 2000 decided that coal ash wasn’t hazardous waste and left regulation up to the states.

However an EPA report (2002) said that people who live near the most problematic disposal sites have as much as a 1-in-50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic.  The report was not released until 2007.

The highest risk is for people who live near ash ponds with no liners and who get their water from wells.  The report said the ash ponds also produced an increased risk of damage to the liver and other organs from exposure to such metals as cadmium, cobalt and lead, and other pollutants.

It also stated that people in 34 states who live near 210 coal ash lagoons or landfills with inadequate lining have a higher risk of cancer and other diseases from contaminants in their drinking water.

Most coal ash ends up in gravel pits, abandoned mines and unlined landfills – or in ponds like the one that burst in Kingston, Tenn., on Dec. 22. 2008.

In the Tennessee incident, 5.4 million cubic yards of sludge laced with arsenic and other toxic materials poured over 300 acres.

TVA, a corporation owned by the federal government, operates the plant at Kingston where the spill occurred.  “We’re not doing anything different than other utilities that have coal plants,” said a TVA spokesman.

Because of cancer concerns folk are a little worried about these sites. They want to know where they are situated.

The Department of Homeland Security recently told investigator Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can’t publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country.

There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she was not allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected.  Apparently they may pose a risk if terrorist organizations get to know their locations.

However, a coalition of organizations including the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act demanding the release of the list.  This has now been done.

So who did the dumps affect?

Children from minority or low-income communities are typically at greater risk of exposure to toxic substances.

African American, Hispanic, and Native American children are over-represented in the three to four million children (one out of every four American children) who live within one mile of a National Priorities List hazardous waste site.

Several studies have confirmed racial disparities in the citing of industrial and hazardous waste facilities.

This is borne out by the admission by TVA that it sent a test shipment of 1,500 tons of the sludge in 15 rail cars last month to the Arrowhead Landfill, Central Alabama in the mostly black county, where U.S. Census statistics show 31 percent of families live in poverty.

Both the Alabama and federal officials say the ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s plant in Kingston, Tenn., isn’t dangerous despite containing toxic materials like arsenic and lead.  Alabama officials say the material can be safely stored in the dump, which most often receives household garbage.

Yes right..go and live near there then!

OK that’s coal waste.   What about waste from other sources?   Is there a problem?

Maybe if you live in Alaska.

Cancer is the leading cause of death among Alaskan Natives and when adjusted for age distribution, the total incidence of cancer was significantly higher than that for the U.S. white population.

A recent study conducted by the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (29 Apr 2009) predicts an increase of 76 percent in American Indians and Native Alaskan by 2030.

Do pollutants resulting from  mining and smelting in Alaska have an effect?

Alaska has some of the most extensive deposits of precious metals (gold, silver, copper and zinc) in the world. Currently, there are six large hard rock mines permitted in Alaska including; Fort Knox, Red Dog, Illinois, Greens Creek, and True North mines.

Alaska is one fifth of the total land mass of the United States… it doesn’t seem to be creating too much pollution does it?

Well, not until you take into account how much they are producing.

Consider top producer Red Dog operations, 90 miles North Kotzebue, Northwest Arctic County, a subsidiary of Canadian corporation Teck Cominco Ltd., who announced Friday 3 July it is selling a 17 percent stake in the company to China Investment Corp. for $1.5 billion.

What has been its contribution to the environment?

From 1998 to 2002, its total releases to the environment increased 93% to a staggering 481,578,816 pounds of toxic waste product.  (see below for breakdown).

Total Environmental Releases includes all reported on-site releases to air, water, and land (including underground injection).

This total does not include any waste that is transferred off-site, so it does not include any environmental releases that may occur as a result of off-site disposal or treatment.

* denotes Pounds

In 2007 pollutants totaled 615.3 Million pounds which is more than the combined total of 30 states in the whole of USA.  Its profit was $951 million in 2006.

What are politicians and community leaders doing about it?   Surely they have the best interests of the environment and community at heart by ensuring mining companies clean up their act.

In 2008 environmentalists brought to the ballot Proposition 4 to limit pollution from mines going into salmon waters.

On one side were companies hoping to open Pebble Mine at a huge gold and copper reserve adjacent to one of the world’s largest salmon runs, Bristol Bay.  On the other side were fishermen and environmentalists pushing a referendum that would make it harder for the mine to open.

Supporters, who included many Native Alaskan leaders, say the mine would provide jobs for struggling rural Alaska and note that mining yields $200 million a year in state tax revenue.

However, fishing employs more people than any other Alaskan industry — 12,000 mostly seasonal jobs in Bristol Bay alone, compared with 5,500 mining jobs statewide.  But the mining industry has more lobbying clout.  In the referendum fight, the pro-mining coalition easily outspent its opposition.

Where did they get the money from?

Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown has received nearly all of its contributions from the Council of Alaska Producers.

The Council of Alaska Producers (“CAP”) is an association representing major companies involved in the exploration, development, and active operation of hard rock mines in Alaska.

The Pebble Partnership, a coalition of the two mining companies trying to develop Pebble, is a large contributor to the Council of Alaska Producers, giving them over $3 million dollars in July 2008.

In April 7, 2008, Governor Palin appointed Bill R. Jeffress to the Alaska Minerals Commission.  The 11-member commission, with five members appointed by the governor and three each appointed by the presiding officers of the state House and Senate, makes recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on ways to ease governmental and other constraints on the development of minerals in the state.

Jeffress was a member of the Alaska State Board of Forestry, vice president of regulatory and environmental affairs for the Council of Alaska Producers, and a member and officer of the Alaska Miners Association.

In the 2008 election cycle the Council of Alaska Producers, was top contributor to ballet measures funding.

While Alaskan law imposes contribution limits for a candidate’s election campaign, there are no such restraints for ballot measures funding.  The governor and other elected officials have traditionally been able to raise unlimited donations for committees they control for the purpose of supporting or opposing ballot measures.

Council of Alaska Producers donated $8,850,000 over 50% of total donations to ballet measures.

Did they get support for their donations?  Any favors in return?  Any help with Proposition 4 from politicians?

It must be remembered that Alaska law forbids state officials from using state resources to advocate on ballot initiatives.

In August (2008), governor Sarah Palin took sides on the initiative, “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop 4 — I vote no on that,” Palin said, when asked about the measure at a press conference.  Palin said the initiative was unnecessary because state regulators kept watch over the mines. “We’re going to make sure that mines operate only safely, soundly.” (washingtonpost.com)

Within a day, the pro-mining coalition fighting the referendum had placed full-page ads with a picture of the governor and the word “NO.” The initiative went down to defeat, with 57 percent of voters rejecting it.

Three days later, Palin was named Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

Is the mining industry grateful for the governors support?

About a quarter of the 41 gifts that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has received since taking office in December 2006 have a link to one of the state’s most influential mining lobbyists.   Even mining lobbyist, Wendy Chamberlain, is well acquainted with the family, taking one of Palin’s daughters on a trip.

Jerry Harmon of Couer Alaska Inc. hugs Rep. Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau, during a rally on the steps of the Capitol in Juneau on Monday, June 22, 2009.

Any more help for the mining community?

On Monday 22 June 2009 the mining community was again thankful to the entire Alaska congressional delegation and Gov. Sarah Palin when the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowed a gold mine near Juneau to discharge its waste into a fish-bearing lake.  They hailed it as a positive step for Juneau and the state.

Second on the Alaskan polluter list (44.5 Million pounds) is also from the same area : Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co Juneau, Alaska.

Coeur Alaska Inc., operator of the Kensington mine, announced plans to begin producing gold in the last half of 2010.

Kensington could produce 125,000 ounces of gold annually for 10 to 15 years, according to Coeur Alaska.  That production level would be worth over $110 million a year at today’s prices.

On Friday July 3, 2009, Sarah Palin announced that she is stepping down from her position as Governor in Wasilla, Alaska.  She said,

‘First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska.  It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska.’

Er.. yeah right Sarah.

What about the American Indian and Alaska Native households in Alaska?

The same households who had a median household income level of $38,774.  This was 35.7 percent less than the median for all households.  In the State of Alaska, White householders had a median income (2005 Dollars) of $65,403.

According to the United States Census, every one of the poverty-critical boroughs (counties) is home to a majority of Native Alaskans, while every borough not experiencing critical levels of poverty except for one, North Slope, is home to a majority of White residents.  All three of Alaska’s major cities are the same. (poverty suite101).

Whoever is benefiting from the vast profits being made, one things for sure – it isn’t the majority of Native Alaskan Indians who continue to occur high rates of cancer.  Is it due to the vast amounts of pollutants emitted by the mining companies?

Obviously there may be other variables at play.   Maybe they smoke twice as much tobacco as white folk.   Are there other toxic agents emitted from different sources that, due to their race and poverty, are dumped in their back yard?

Time restrictions prevent such investigations in this article.

The main objective of this article has been to try and demonstrate that lessons have not been learned.  To show industry blatantly continues to have a disregard for human health and the environment when vast profit is to be made.

Is Nanotechnology the new asbestos?  Will workers in 30 years’ time be filing lawsuits as a result of developing cancer?  Who knows?  Who cares?  Certainly not political representation of our society who continue to aid and abet disreputable corporate actions.

Mythical ‘Slapu’ represents a double headed monster that is political and corporate in its being.   The eight crabs represent the community who must work together to defeat it if we want to live in a better world.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Help maintain ‘Heroin and Cornflakes’ by donating.

Your donation keeps us free of ads, and helps us continue to raise awareness on environmental, social and health issues.

Thank you

Ann Margrain

Founder, ‘Heroin and Cornflakes’ blog.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This entry was posted Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm and is filed under general. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.