Glyphosate Fear-Mongering

Despite recent court cases, glyphosate is not recognized as a carcinogen or toxin as these terms are normally understood in environmental toxicology.  Yes, there is some research linking glyphosate with increased cancer risk, but that is not the scientific consensus.

I don't think this blog post on glyphosate can be counted as scientifically accurate, even though it does cite scientific research. Websites that sell fear based on a few studies while ignoring the body of scientific literature are not reliable sources for decision-making. 

I am writing as a concerned science-lover. For me (and I could be wrong), I see glyphosate fear-mongering as no different from conspiracy theories about vaccine harms or global warming.  Yes, there are scientific papers showing that vaccines cause autism and that global warming is not happening, but any article that only cites those papers without weighing (or at least mentioning!) the current scientific consensus would be misleading at best.

Focusing on glyphosate seems especially misguided given the other chemicals used in agriculture and commonly found in our food supply (e.g. chlorpyrifos).  While glyphosate may be the popular boogeyman of the year, science-based reporting should at least acknowledge that it is probably the least toxic of any chemical pesticides currently being used. 

A better approach than just selling fear:  promote solutions, such as better testing of all chemicals in our food supply. 

Juridicational Wetlands

 The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates all of the "navigable" water bodies in the U.S.  The precise definition of navigable waters is important for specifying what impacts may or may not be allowed to the Waters Of The United States (WOTUS).  However, since the inception of the CWA, numerous Supreme Court cases have challenged the definition of WOTUS.  On May 27, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuing a new definition of WOTUS.  While the new definition is already the subject of numerous lawsuits, it is now the new basis of the CWA.

Graphic from SWCA, The Wire.

So what does the new definition say?  Well, it is pretty straight-forward.  There are just 8 possible cases:  

1. traditional navigable waters

2. interstate waters

3. territorial seas

4. impoundments (of 1 - 3 above and 5 below)

5. tributaries

6. adjacent waters

7. five special groups of similarly situated waters

8. case-specific significant nexus waters  

For more information, see this excellent article in SWCA's The Wire.

Top Conservation Stories of 2014

Here are a few of the most important conservation stories from 2014:

--Gila River Proposed Diversion approved by ISC

--Mexican Gray Wolf critical habitat expanded to include most of NM and AZ south of I-40

Zone 1 is where Mexican wolves may be initially released or translocated.  Zone 2 is where Mexican wolves will be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy, and where Mexican wolves may be translocated.  Zone 3 is where neither initial releases nor translocations will occur, but Mexican wolves will be allowed to disperse into and occupy....where Mexican wolves will be more actively managed...to reduce conflict with the potentially affected public.  However, in AZ east of Highway 87 there will be a "phased approach" to managing wolf populations.

--U.S. Congress Omnibus spending bill approves the Resolution mine landswap in AZ, grazing lease terms expanded to 20 years, and Valles Caldera becomes newest National Park

--Drought in CA (7% snowpack) ... and NM.  (e.g. Heron Lake resevoir levels fall, fail to make San Juan-Chame deliveries to Rio Grande)

-- US EPA and NRCS try to regulate agriculture under CWA....and fail.  The problem of increasing toxic algae problem in Ohio lakes came to a head in 2014 when Cleveland had to turn off their city water intake from Lake Eerie due to a toxic algal bloom. The proposed rule would have allowed EPA to regulate "non-point source" water pollution from farms that did not have a NRCS-approved conservation practices in place.  But apparently the outcry was too much, and early in 2015 the rule was amended.  Note that the final rule, even though it no longer contained this provision, was still vehemently protested in 2015.

--  Gunnison Sage Grouse listed as "Threatened" under the ESA, Colorado appeals.

-- Colorado River Pulse....mostly just grows more tamarisk.

--  Pleistocene megafauna extinction due to meteor impact, new study finds.  

-- Wilderness turns 50 years old

-- New "stacked trait" GMO potatoes and soybeans approved in the U.S.

And a random tidbit:  rabbits eat more forage in utah than bison...leading ranchers to question the state's continued bounty for coyote skins.

EPA Pollution Standards

EPA Where You Live

Air

Drinking Water

Point Source Discharge

Glossary of EPA terms

USDA NRCS Phosphorus Index

Nutrient Pollution Management in 2011: New Regulations

Dr. Larry Antosch, Senior Director, Program Innovation and Environmental Policy, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation presented "Water Quality and Agricultural Nutrient Management – Many Forces Converge" to finish up the seminar series theme of Water Quality here in the School of Environment and Natural Resources. Dr. Antosch is well-placed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date view of nutrient management and water quality, having worked in the field for 30 years, first for the EPA and now for the FBF, which recently sued the EPA over pending nutrient restrictions in the Chesapeake Bay (CB) watershed. Dr. Antosh pointed out that since Ohio is in the CB "airshed" (some of our air pollution is deposited in the CB watershed) these regulations could impact us directly. They could also impact Ohio indirectly as EPA gears up for an even bigger watershed nutrient reduction program for the entire Mississippi.

In Dr. Antosh's opinion, some of the regulatory impetus is misplaced, because science does not have all the answers yet. For example, the increased of dissolved Phosphorous (rather than particulate phosphorous) entering Lake Erie and causing harmful algal blooms, is a mystery. Farmers or cities? Which techniques could best eliminate excess nutrients? Some have even pointed to no-till as a possible source, because nutrients are applied to the surface rather than mixed in.

Although Dr. Antosch emphesized the uncertain nature of water quality science, I believe there is enough information to act today. Several simple examples come to mind: (1) Regulations against applying manure and fertilizer in the winter, when plants are not growing and hence don't absorb any of the nutrients; (2) Existing steps to eliminate phosphorous fertilization of residential lawns; (3) Creating new wetlands to filter the runoff that does occur.

How much is a human life worth?

From a 2008 article in the Washington Post: Several federal agencies have come up with figures for the dollar value of a human life to analyze the costs and benefits of new programs they believe will save lives. A sampling:

According to the Principles of Economics by Gregory Mankiw, economics calculate the

value of a human life by looking "at the risks that people are voluntarily willing to

take and how much they must be paid for taking them".

For example, the decision to work as a contractor in Iraq involved placing a monetary value on

years of extended life. Assuming an annual risk of death of 0.004 and a salary

premium of $30,000 per year over comparable jobs in the United States, contractors in

Iraq are essentially compensated at a rate of $250,000 per statistical year of life. A recent survey of estimates based on occupational risk that found a range from $500,000 to $21 million per statistical life year depending on how dangerous the work is. If someone will accept a 1-in-10,000 chance of death for $500, then the value of life

must be 10,000 times $500, or $5 million.

An example of this kind of analysis was used by the federal Consumer Product Safety

Commission this year:A proposal to make mattresses less flammable was expected to cost the industry $343 million to implement. But, a spokeswoman said, the move was also expected to save 270 people. The commission calculated that each life was worth $5 million, which meant a

benefit of about $1.3 billion.

This total value can also be annualized. The World Health Organization has proposed $108,609 as the value of a disability-adjusted life year, while a recent study by Lee et al using Medicare willingness-to-pay, estimated it as $129,000. Lee notes that this figure compares to a range of $50,000 to $100,000 used in other countries, such as Australia and the UK, which run national health care systems in guiding their coverage decisions.

see: EPA's mortality risk valuation

The fact of the matter is that monetary valuations of human life are a necessary step in triage. However, as Risk and Decision-Making researchers know, individual's valuations of their own and others lives is rarely consistent or logical. For example, many people complain bitterly about automobile or factory pollution, while themselves being one of the largest, willful, and unnecessary sources of pollution:

Ship Pollution

Large ships continue to use old, polluting diesel engines, with disasterous health effects for people living close to the ocean. The EPA's proposed plan would greatly alleviate this largely unregulated source of pollution, which is currently equal to about 120 coal power plants running continuously in our nation's harbors and waterways. (source: President's Cancer Commission report, 2010)

EPA Website on large ship pollution.

Interestingly, ships also affect cloud formation: the soot in their exhaust creates nuclei for water droplets to condense and form clouds: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44517