Environmental Alternatives, Inc.

Most people know about radon

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:20:00 +0000

Posted: Saturday, August 6, 2011 12:00 am

Most people know about radonBy LORETTA SWORD | lorettas@chieftain.comThe Pueblo Chieftain

A recent state health department survey showed that 73 percent of respondents know what radon is but only 34 percent have had their homes tested for the deadly gas.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment recommends that all homes in Colorado be tested.

Radon is an odorless, colorless radioactive gas that is the leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers and the second-leading cause of lung cancer overall. Radon is formed by the decay of naturally occurring uranium in the soil. Although harmless when it disperses into the air, radon is dangerous when it collects in homes.

“It’s encouraging that so many people are aware of radon, because most Colorado counties are at high risk for it,” said Chrystine Kelley, radon program manager in the hazardous materials and waste management division at the state health department. “The best way to protect your family is to test your home, and we recommend that every Colorado home be tested.”

State data shows that approximately 50 percent of Colorado homes have radon levels above the recommended action limit of 4 picocuries per liter of air (PCi/L). The good news, Kelley says, is a properly installed mitigation system can greatly reduce indoor radon concentrations.

This is the first year questions about radon awareness were added to the annual Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a series of telephone surveys monitoring how health factors such as smoking, excess weight, sedentary lifestyles and the nonuse of seat belts contribute to injury, illness and death.

The survey also found the following:

Respondents ages 18-29 were least likely to know what radon is, and the 30- to 49-year-old age group was less likely to know what radon is compared with people over 50.

Approximately 64 percent of black respondents and 58 percent of Hispanic respondents did not know what radon is, compared with slightly less than 20 percent of white respondents.

In general, radon knowledge increased with education level and income.

Respondents ages 18-29 were the least likely to have had their homes tested for radon, and black and Hispanic respondents were less likely to have tested their homes than white respondents.

Seventy-five percent of respondents whose homes tested above 4 PCi/L have installed mitigation systems.

“The only way to know if radon is present in your home is to test for it, and the only way to get rid of it is to install a mitigation system,” Kelley said.

The Study of Radon Awareness and Behavior in Colorado, additional radon information and discount coupons for short- and long-term radon test kits are available at www.colorado radon.info.

Public transportation question raised again

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:46:00 +0000

Feasibility study to gauge local need, interest

Charlotte Burrous

The Daily Record

A long proposed question of bringing public transportation to the area is on the drawing board once again.

Recently, Environmental Alternatives began to work in conjunction with Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments on a feasibility study to see if public transportation is desirable in Fremont County.

“Our first step is to complete the surveys,” said Sylvia Hooper, who works for Environmental Alternatives, which was awarded the grant money to conduct the feasibility study.

The first step is to have the surveys filled out and sent back from business owners, community agencies or individuals from the community.

“We need 2,000 surveys, (but) we (only) have 256,” Hooper said.

Of the surveys, 189 community members, eight business owners, 25 agencies and 17 from other sources said ‘yes’ while eight said ‘no’ with nine ‘maybes’ and 17, who skipped the question.

“We are going to try to link up with other bus services in the area,” Hooper said. “We’ve talked to the Royal Gorge, Golden Age Center and other agencies who transport their clients back and forth.”

She said they also have talked to a representative from Workforce Center, who also is on the committee to see where people seeking employment need rides.

“We do have a good cross section from people,” Hooper said. “I noticed we had a couple responses from the homeless and the whole demographics all the way up to (a county commissioner, who) answered our survey. We’re getting a good cross section of people, but we need more surveys.”

She said they also were interested in finding out the type of clients people have in order to set up the bus system.

“We’re asking about adults, children or if they’re disabled,” Hooper said. “We’ve combined all three surveys to find out where the bus is needed. Of course, it’s obvious Cañon City is going to be a big part of it, but surprisingly (we have some from), Brookside, Salida, Cotopaxi so there are a lot of people interested in getting bus service.”

She also is charting times for residents, who would like the bus to run.

“We allowed for swing shift and we’re getting some response from swing shift,” Hooper said. “We’re trying to figure out (the best times.)”

Originally, the deadline was June 22, but it has been extended to fulfill the qualifications of the grant, which must be completed by October.

“In order to do a good feasibility study, we want to make sure we have a good cross section,” she said. “According to our population of Fremont County, we need about 2,000.”

She encouraged people to fill out the surveys, which are online at facebook@fremontcountybus, which takes those interested right to the survey, she said.

Charlotte Burrous can be reached at cburrous@ccdailyrecord.com

Fireworks Donation

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:46:00 +0000

What New Lead-Paint Law Means for Homeowners

Mon, 24 May 2010 15:40:00 +0000

May 18, 2010, 2:18 PM ET.What New Lead-Paint Law Means for Homeowners

A lot of our readers have said, given the choice, they prefer old homes to newly built models.

But what about the lead paint issue?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, I report on how professionals who repair or renovate homes and other buildings constructed before 1978 are now required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices.

Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, which can lead to health problems such as nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss, the EPA says. The agency estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint.

Some contractors, property-management firms and landlords who work on building renovations say they plan to pass the costs of complying with the ruling onto consumers. Those costs range from materials such as lead-testing kits, plastic sheeting and respirators to training and certification.

Homeowners aren’t covered in the ruling, but given the hazards of lead-paint poisoning, they may want to consider taking safety precautions anyway or at least check their properties for possible lead contamination. Of course, lead paint is something to look for and ask about when you’re buying an older home. Sal Alfano, editorial director of Remodeling, a monthly magazine, says he expects some homeowners to take on renovation projects themselves to avoid paying higher fees that professionals may charge.

Meanwhile, consumers who still plan to hire professional help for renovation projects on pre-1978 homes may want ensure that those folks are trained and certified in lead-safe work practices. The EPA offers a search tool on its website for locating certified renovation companies.

Contractors say it’s likely that some of their competitors will take the risk of violating the ruling in order to charge less. While failure to comply with the ruling could result in fines up to $37,500 a day, a spokesman for the EPA says the government agency’s only method of enforcement is to investigate tips and complaints to its hotline, 800-424-LEAD.

Homeowners should also note that some home-renovation workers may not yet be educated in lead-safe practices due to a shortage of instructors. Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), introduced a bill to delay the implementation of EPA’s lead rule until classes have been held in a state for at least one year.

Readers, if you own a home built prior to 1978, would you pay extra to protect against lead-paint poisoning when doing renovations or repairs?

New Lead Paint Law Heavy on Budgets

Tue, 18 May 2010 15:45:00 +0000

New Lead-Paint Law Heavy on Budgets EPA Requires Workers on Older Building Sites to Adhere to Strict Safety Practices; By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN

A worker wears protective clothing while removing mold from a home built prior to 1978.

.Contractors and other professionals who work on building renovations are worried that a new government ruling aimed at protecting against the risks of lead-paint poisoning will add another financial burden to their already distressed sector of the economy.

As of late last month, businesses that repair or renovate older buildings—specifically homes, schools and daycare centers built before the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in housing in 1978—are required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adhere to strict lead-safe work practices. To comply with the new regulation, those working on older sites will need to invest in lead-testing kits, plastic sheeting, respirators, protective clothing and other lead-safety materials.

At least one worker involved in such projects will also need to become certified, at a cost of $300 every five years, and pay out-of-pocket for eight hours of training. Those who don't comply could face fines up to $37,500 a day.

Renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint can create hazardous lead dust and chips, the EPA says. The agency—which estimates that 87% of homes built before 1940 and 24% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead-based paint—launched a public-service campaign last month to warn consumers about the hazards of lead-paint poisoning, which can lead to nerve disorders, high-blood pressure and memory loss.

View Full Image

John Demetriou

Workers for a ProTect Painters franchise in Ann Arbor, Mich., get ready to paint.

.The new law went into effect in April, but the hazards of lead-based paint have long been known and many businesses have been taking precautions to protect against lead poisoning since the late 1970s.

But small businesses with limited cash flow, including home-repair providers, property-management firms and even landlords, say that while they support the ruling's health benefits, they are concerned about its costs.

Michael Davis, chief executive of Guardian Preservation Services Inc., a Chicago mold-removal company, figures the new ruling will add $160,000 to $300,000 a year in equipment and labor expenses. He's concerned about his ability to pass the extra expense along to homeowner customers, who have already reined in spending.

"We expect profits to decrease by about 12% if we can't recoup the cost from the client," says Mr. Davis.

A spokesman for the EPA says it conducted extensive research to determine the impact of the ruling on businesses and found the requirements "are not excessive or overly burdensome." The agency estimates that the costs will range from $8 to $167 per interior job, with exterior jobs likely to cost more.

Developments Blog

What New Lead-Paint Law

Means for Homeowners

.Hadley Hurford Jr., owner of a Mr. Handyman International LLC franchise in Nashville, says he has so far invested about $2,200 in training and certification fees for himself and four employees. "It's a lot of money for a small business," says Mr. Hurford, whose company saw its sales drop to $500,000 in 2009, down from $600,000 a year earlier.

About 15% of his territory is made up of older homes, and he estimates jobs on those properties will cost an extra $15,000 to $60,000 a year.

Given the weak housing market, attempting to charge customers higher prices could backfire, says Bill Carter, chairman of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry, a 7,800-member trade group.

"Homeowners don't want to pay anything more than they have to on replacement and repair," he says, adding that it's possible some small home-renovation companies will go out of business as a result.

Homeowners invested $115.8 billion in renovations in 2009, down from $144.9 billion in 2006, according to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. At the same time, it has become more expensive to make home renovations. The average wood-window replacement job, for instance, cost $11,700 in 2009, up from $9,684 in 2005, according to annual reports from Remodeling, a monthly magazine published by media company Hanley Wood LLC. The new EPA ruling adds between 5.3% and 11.2% in material and labor expenses to the cost of home-renovation projects in older homes, the magazine estimates.

Sal Alfano, Remodeling's editorial director, says he expects some homeowners to take on renovation projects themselves to avoid paying higher fees that professionals may charge, since homeowners aren't covered under the ruling. Or, they might seek out professionals who ignore it and can therefore afford to charge less. "It's really going to pinch everybody," he says.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted recently in favor of the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, a bill that if passed by the Senate would create a program offering financial incentives to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient.

John Demetriou, owner of a ProTect Painters International LLC franchise in Ann Arbor, Mich., with 10 employees, says he's hopeful that such efforts will help increase business by encouraging more homeowners to invest in repair or renovation projects.

"Lead is a bad thing," says Mr. Demetriou, who launched his business a year ago. If homeowners "are environmentally aware, they will want to try and do something about it."

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

Cancer, Cancer Everywhere

Tue, 18 May 2010 15:18:00 +0000

Cancer, Cancer Everywhere

By Tiffany OCallaghan Monday, May. 24, 2010

Jill Greenberg for TIME

Was it hype or health care? on may 6, the President's Cancer Panel published an alarming 240-page report on the risk of cancer from chemicals and other substances in the environment. "The true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated," the report's authors concluded. "The American people — even before they are born — are bombarded continually with ... these dangerous exposures."

The list of potential threats is exhaustive and, frankly, unavoidable: bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates found in plastic, pesticides, exhaust from traffic, pharmaceuticals in the water supply, industrial chemicals and radiation from medical tests, cell phones and the sun. The authors of the report — Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., of Howard University College of Medicine, and Margaret Kripke, professor emerita at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center — urge the government to increase research and regulation of these carcinogens, which pose "grievous harm," especially to children, and give specific advice to consumers for avoiding them. More than 80,000 chemicals are on the U.S. market, of which only a few hundred have been proved safe, the authors note. "People have the idea that they are being protected and that things that are harmful aren't getting onto the market," says Kripke. "But that's probably wishful thinking."

(See more about the perils of plastic.)

In large part, the panel's findings — chiefly that more research is needed — jibe with those of mainstream cancer researchers. But while the report highlights valid data, says Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, its final conclusions overreach them. "There are environmental causes of cancer. We should not trivialize them, and we do need more research," he says, but the contention that the rate of environmentally caused cancers is "grossly underestimated" is not based in fact. "[The rate] very well may be higher [than the current estimate of 6% of all cancers], but the research has not been done to quantify that."

(See 10 common househould toxins.)

But that is precisely the point, says Kripke. Although the panel's report concedes that "at this time, we do not know how much environmental exposures influence cancer risk," Kripke says the 6% figure is based on a study from 1981 and long outdated. "A lot has happened in 30 years ... and will still affect people for the next 30 years," she says, which is why the panel argues that we must not wait for proof of harm before protecting the public. In its lengthy policy recommendations, the report calls for, among other things, routine discussions between doctors and patients about environmental exposures and shifting the burden of proof of chemical safety from government to industry.

But researchers' main criticism of the cancer report is that it distracts from the known, major causes of cancers: smoking, obesity, alcohol, sexually transmitted infections. We don't want mothers to be "very concerned about some chemical in plastic, which might theoretically cause cancer in her child," instead of focusing on the food that's going into the container, says Brawley, estimating that up to one-third of all cancers in the U.S. are obesity-related. So while choosing pesticide-free produce may be a good precaution — indeed, none of the panel's advice is bad — you might be better off simply eating more fruits and vegetables in general, he says.

(See TIME's cancer covers.)

SIDEBAR

10 Cancer Panel Recommendations

1. Drink filtered tap water

2. Store food and water in glass, stainless steel or BPA- and phthalate-free containers

3. Minimize children's and pregnant women's exposure to carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals

4. Choose fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers; wash all produce to remove residues

5. Choose free-range meat that has not been exposed to antibiotics or growth hormones

6. Minimize consumption of processed, charred or well-done meats

7. Turn off lights and electrical devices when they're not in use

8. Drive a fuel-efficient car; walk, bike or use public transportation

9. Check home radon levels

10. Reduce radiation exposure from cell phones and medical tests; avoid UV overexposure