Prenatal exposure to high levels of air pollution double the likelihood of children becoming obese in a new study by Columbia University's School of Public Health released last week. Its one of the first reports to definitively link chemical pollutants to weight gain. Pregnant women who lived in areas where they were exposed to abnormal amounts of Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons, or (PAHs), were more than twice as likely to have children who were obese by age seven than women who had lower exposure to the chemicals. PAH's are a pretty common pollutant which come mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. This news comes on the heels of a new study of the danger of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors, which can reek havoc with a person's hormones. Animal studies had already shown that PAHs inhibit the release of fat in the body, decrease IQ increase behavioral disorders. And oh yeah, PAHs can also give you cancer. There are many causes for weight gain in the US. Could one of them have anything to do with our swimming in a sea of 80,000 chemicals, only a handful of which are fully understood, much less regulated to reflect the current science?     Read More

In today's New York Times, columnist Nicolas Kristof writes extensively about the threat of endocrine disruptors - those chemicals that, instead of killing you outright, do strange and horrible things to your hormones and reproductive systems like genital deformities, breast cancer, infertility, diabetes and even obesity. Endocrine disruptors are everywhere, in food, cosmetics, even the receipts you get at the grocery store or your ATM machine...and the air pollution from many kinds of facilities.  It's the hormone-wrecking properties of one such chemical - bisphenol-A, or BPA, used to line food cans - that prompted eight medial organizations representing MDs in the fields of genetics, gynecology, and urology to say BPA should be banned from the marketplace last year. But it's clear that there are many, many chemicals, including less exotic ones like lead, and dioxin, that also act as hormone disruptors in the body. As Kristof explains, scientists know that even the tiniest variations in hormone levels influence fetal development. Endocrine disruptors play a kind of birth defect roulette as they course around the mother's body and end up in the fetus' bloodstream. In making his argument, Kristoff uses the example of a very specific birth defect, Hypospadias - a misplacement of the urethra - is now twice as common as it used to be and cites a leading researcher linking this trend to increased exposure to endocrine disruptors.  Why is this important for North Texans? Because the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) found that the incidence of Hypospadias was approximately four times higher in Midlothian than the state of Texas as a whole. Remember, everyone is exposed to a constant sea of endocrine disruptors just from everyday living, so that wouldn't explain the much higher rate of a specific birth defect linked to the chemicals in Midlothian. But maybe operating three huge cement plants plus a steel mill could.  That same ATSR study - officially "inconclusive," also found a much higher rate for Microcephaly, where the newborn's head is more than two standard deviations smaller than the average, and Craniosynostosis, a condition in which one or more of the skulls' fibrous sutures prematurely fuses. That was only one study of a specific area. We know the Frisco lead smelter generates large quantities of dioxin. We don't know the impact of those releases. We know that gas drilling also involves a lot of chemicals identified a endocrine disruptors, but we don't how the last decade of urban drilling in the Barnett Shale has dispersed them or what their cumulative effect has been. According to Kristof, many scientists have seen enough proof and now want to better protect us from the dangers of endocrine disruptors. "For several well-studied endocrine disruptors, I think it's fair to say that we have enough data to conclude that these chemicals are not safe for human populations," according to Dr. Linda Vandenberg, who was the lead author of a new report we featured last month that concludes there are no safe doses for these kinds of chemicals. When it comes to the effects of chemical exposure, government regulations often lag far behind the science. How long will it take this warning to be implemented into public health precautions? And why don't we have a system that examines the possible impact to human health of a chemical BEFORE it's released into the marketplace?  Read More

We've heard that the gas industry lobbyists hanging out at Dallas City Hall are seriously advocating reducing the mandatory distance between gas drilling wells and neighborhoods, from the recommended 500-1000 feet down to only 300 feet - the length of a football field. Citizens have noted all kinds of reasons why that's way too close, and even why 1000 feet is still not far enough to prevent significant public health risk from drilling's hazards. The Army Corps of Engineers  says fracking shouldn't be taking place within 3000 feet of dams because of the potential harm to structural integrity. Why would freeway support columns or home foundations be more immune to this threat? The Colorado School of Public Health concludes that those living within a half mile of a gas well - over 2000 feet - have a 66% increased chance of getting cancer. Why not incorporate this research into new Dallas buffer zone decisions? And from a reader comes this story of a Chesapeake gas well blowout in Wyoming that's forced the evacuation of people living as far away as 2.5 MILES.  Although Chesapeake would not disclose the amount of pollution the leaking caused, it assured everyone that air quality measurements were "normal."  Residents up to 6 miles away reportedly could heat the noise of the gas as the leak burst open. 300 feet? 3000 feet may mot be enough.   Read More

Let's see, last time we checked in at Frisco City Hall, the city was finally scheduling a June 18th amortization hearing in response to an historic map of Exide lead smelter contamination showing up in the mailboxes of over 30,000 registered voters' mailboxes and reporters calling for a response about what the city would do next after not doing anything publicly since January. This is a good thing, right? Citizens won, right? We wish we could shout a definitive "yes," but the answer is instead a definite maybe. The city has been half-hearted in embracing the amortization option, with the city attorney's office misleading the public and Council members over the history of its use in Dallas, and making it out to be more difficult to use than other municipal attorneys consider it to be. Now, maybe this is to cover-up for the lack of any real documentation the city has to prove Exide was a "non-conforming use in decades past," like a valid Certificate of Occupancy, we don't know. Whatever the reason, there is the public face at City Hall, pointing out that the Council has done all the mechanical things to set amortization in motion, and a private face at City Hall that takes every opportunity to dismiss the strategy. Based on recent events, the two faces have not yet reconciled into a unified cogent position by the city on amortization, and residents are still skeptical. When the City released its statement last week that contained the long-delayed hearing date, it also went out of its way to take shots at the position the residents group Frisco Unleaded, and Downwinders has taken on amortization. It didn't just tell reporters that a hearing date for amortization had been scheduled. It posted a specific response to Frisco Unleaded's flier. After a couple of days of digesting this, the leadership at Frisco Unleaded released its reply to the City's posting. Here the whole thing, and here's a sample that shows why residents still don't trust the city to do this the right way:  CITY:  Some maintain amortization is a simple process. It is not. There are many safeguards in place to assure an existing business is treated in a lawful and fair manner.  Failure to follow the law and treat the existing business fairly could subject the City of Frisco to other liability that could cost taxpayers if a judgment is awarded by a court against the City.  As such, it should not be assumed that all one has to do to close a business is set an amortization hearing and the case is closed or that speeding through the process is an advantage to the citizens of Frisco. FRISCO UNLEADED RESPONSE: Amortization has been made out to be more difficult than it is by a Frisco city attorney’s office that is biased against this legal strategy. What is our proof? Exhibit A: “The Postell Report.” After our initial criticism that the City of Frisco wasn’t taking this option seriously, Frisco city attorneys went to interview the attorney who pursued amortization of Dallas’ lead smelters in the 1980’s – Don Postell. Dallas had three lead smelters at the time. One closed before the city could take action. The second closed before its amortization was settled in court. The third smelter, owned by Exide, closed in 1990 as a result of being amortized, and its amortization was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court. Guess which example the Frisco report left out of its report on Dallas amortization? Yep, the smelter that was owned by Exide, amortized successfully, and had its amortization upheld by the Texas Supreme Court. So when the City of Frisco city attorney’s office wrote a report that described its meeting with the Dallas attorney who participated in the amortization of that city’s smelters, it didn’t contain one word about the Exide smelter that was successfully amortized. Does that sound like an objective fact-finding report on Dallas amortization to you? Moreover, the city attorney’s office has made several references in public to new legislation from the Texas legislature that supposedly makes it harder to amortize a business. No other lawyer familiar with this legislation that we’ve spoken to outside of the city attorney’s office shares this interpretation of the law, suggesting to us this is yet another smokescreen. We remain skeptical that the Frisco city attorney’s office is sincere about its commitment to amortization or has the legal expertise to pursue it successfully against Exide, but we look forward to being proven wrong.   Read More

About four or so years ago, Downwinders put out a nice little report that summarized decades worth of air pollution coming from all three Midlothian cement plants. For years, residents were told that the plumes they saw coming from the smokestacks of the kilns were " just steam." The point of the report was to prove that of course this wasn't true. You don't just emit steam and then report thousands of tons of air pollution to the EPA. So our report was titled "Not Just Steam" and you can download it from our "Cementpedia" page (look under "E" for "emission inventory"). Today some Colleyville and Southlake citizens, along with Oil and Gas Accountability Project organizer Sharon Wilson, released results from air testing they contracted a Richardson company to perform downwind while Titan Operations was fracking a natural gas well. Specifically, it was a time when the well operators were recovering the "flowback" from the well. Contrary to the recent claim from Chesapeake spokespeople that such gas well emissions are "just steam," this stuff was chock full of 26 chemicals, including Carbon Disulfide, a neurotoxin detected at twice the state level for short-term exposure, Benzene, a known carcinogen detected at 9 times above the state's short-term exposure limits, and Naphthalene, a suspected carcinogen detected more than 7 times above the state short term limit.  Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide and Pyridine were all also detected above safe limits for long-term exposure. In other words: No Just Steam. Here's the press release, at the bottom of which is all the technical information about the testing. Even though Colleyville prohibits "gases to be vented into the atmosphere or to be burned by open flame" this well is going great guns. It's also true that it's these very kind of drilling emissions that would have been stopped from new wells within the next 60-90 days under new federal rules as they were originally proposed. But they got changed by industry, so now they don't take effect until 2015. Old wells? Forgetaboutit. Why do we keep telling citizens that their environmental health is a do-it-yourself project? Because of situations like this where no government agency is keeping up with industrial abuses. There are an estimated 20,000 gas wells in the Barnett Shale.   Read More

The Dallas Residents at Risk Alliance, of which Downwinders is a member, is taking its successful March 27 community meeting format on the road again over the next couple of weeks. If you want to know what all the fuss was about, or need a refresher, you'll have three chances: Thursday April 26th, 6:30 to 8 pm, El Centro Community College/West Campus, 3300 North Hampton Road;  Thursday May 3rd, 7 pm to 8:30pm North Hills Prep School, 606 E Royal (near L.B. Huoston),  Tuesday, May 8th, 7 to 8:30 pm Harmony School, 8120 West Camp Wisdom Road. All three will feature members of the Alliance going through the Fracking 101 slide show and fundamental concerns, special guest speakers from the Dallas gas drilling task force and other experts, and a list of things that residents can do to make sure this epic saga has a happy ending when a vote comes up at the City Council within the next 30-60 days. Momentum is growing toward a saner solution. Come be a part of the most important environmental issue in Dallas since the lead smelter fights of the 1980's. And if you really want to plug into how to stop fracking from riding roughshod over Dallas, don't forget about the weekly Tuesday 6 pm evening Residents at Risk Alliance organizing meetings at 3303 Lee Parkway Suite 402, the offices of Alliance member Texas Campaign for the Environment. Everyone is invited. All you need is your interest in preventing a disaster before it starts.   Read More

Sometimes officials can only see the light after they feel the heat. Less than 48 hours after a new map showing 50-years of lead fallout from the Exide lead smelter was sent to over 30,000 Frisco households, and less than 12 hours after a news release made it a story to follow, the City of Frisco posted an update on its official Exide website yesterday, the first since November. It announced a June 18th amortization hearing for the Exide smelter. All it took was hundreds of Frisco voters sending e-mails to the City Council and Mayor less than a month before the next municipal election, reporters quizzing them on when the city would follow-up on their January vote to begin amortization, and a national news story that reminded them of what was in store if they let Exide have its way with their city. Even though it's now set a hearing date, citizens remain skeptical of the city's sincerity, primarily because the Frisco city attorney's office has been openly biased against the amortization process. The FU flier with map that started it all can be downloaded here.  The city's puffy and defensive response that came out at the end of the business day on Thursday is here. By the way, when we asked Jess Mcangus, the engineer at Spirit Engineering in Houston in charge of putting together the map for us and Frisco Unleaded, to respond to Exide's claims that the lead emissions estimates used to draw the map were way too high, this is what he said: "The lead emission totals were derived from Exide's own reported annual lead emissions, and when annual emissions were not available, from the lead emissions from Exide's own permits (reduced by their historic operating capacity).  If anything, the 300,000 pounds of lead is lower that what was actually emitted by the company."  Read More

Frisco Unleaded is unveiling this latest graphic showing of Exide's legacy of lead via mailers going to 33,000 Frisco households this week. Read the archived release here.  Read More

For the second time in a row, the "Real Estate Writer" for the Dallas Morning News has written a feature article about a nice, new expensive development where there are gas leases and permits already being requested, and yet failed to mention anything about those pesky gas wells. From what we can tell, the Real Estate Writer seems to be a DMN position paid for by Real Estate developers. Last month it was the West Dallas area surrounding the new Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge, where the city has leased its own land out for multiple gas leases. Today it's the "Cypress Waters" planned community being built by Lucy (Crow) Billingsley around North Lake, where there's already a gas pad permit in the pipeline, so to speak. But you'd never know it from reading the article. “We have 82 acres on LBJ Freeway that we have saved at the project’s primary entry point so that we can have retail to service the development,” Billingsley said. “We will also have restaurants on the lake.”  And if the wells get permitted, those diners will be getting lots of items off the official menu. We know she's a Crow. We know its a big development. But really? To be this much of a shill is embarrassing. UPDATE 11:30 AM: Dallas Area Residents for Responsible Drilling's Raymond Crawford e-mailed the DMN writer, Steve Brown and asked him if he knew about the wells slated for this development. Brown's reply was as enlightening as it was brief: "Yes, they've set aside six drill sites on the master plan for the project...I'm thinking that they consider this not a problem for rental housing but of course it would be a factor for people buying homes." Yes, of course, because homeowners have lungs, whereas we're not even sure if renters are a higher life form at all. Amazing isn't it?   Read More

The new oil and gas air toxics rules that over a hundred people came out to support this last summer at an EPA hearing in Arlington are under heavy fire as they're getting closer to getting implemented. These are rules, that for the first time would clamp down on the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) released by gas drilling that cause smog, toxic air pollution and make global warming worse. EPA recently announced a two-week delay in their being brought on line and there's a campaign by industry to gut the rules entirely by limiting their scope in a ridiculous way. Sharon has all the details in how you can urge the EPA to get a backbone and go through with their modest reforms, and The Hill has a good article explaining the effort to roll back the rules. Whether these rules are implemented in their original form or not, the struggle over their creation and scope argues for why more local governments should be looking at regulating these emissions through the lens of Greenhouse Gas pollution (GHG), as Downwinders and others are suggesting Dallas do in its new gas drilling ordinance. Lack of federal and state action on GHG pollution allows local governments to fill in the gap and level the playing field to reduce air pollution that would otherwise fall through the cracks and loopholes of current law. Even if the new EPA rules were to come on stream in their original form, they still wouldn't cover 70-75% of the VOC emissions causing so many problems. This is why local governments must act out of self-defense. In this case, no other level of government is making sure that new gas pollution doesn't contribute to already bad regional ozone problems, doesn't blow open a city's commitment to reducing its carbon footprint, as Dallas has pledged to do under the 2005 Mayor's Climate Change Agreement, and doesn't poison a city's neighborhoods. If the as industry was treated like other industrial polluters, it would have to mitigate or "off-set" these air pollution increase with air pollution decreases elsewhere in the same area. Gas operators do not have to do this. Local regulation could make them. It could force gas operators to decrease air pollution as much as they increase it in Dallas by paying for projects that reduce the same kind of GHG pollution as they emit. It would also act as a automatic incentive for the gas operators not to release as much air pollution to begin with - stopping it before it starts. EPA is not going to save the residents of the Shale from the gas industry. They'e got to do that themselves. Here's a way that could help.   Read More