Green Tech

When 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley and his crew went to China to record the black market dismantling of electronic waste, or e-waste, the experience was almost as hazardous for the 60 Minutes team as working with the toxic material is for poor Chinese workers.

Jumped by a gang of men overseeing the e-waste operations who tried to take the CBS team's cameras, Pelley's crew managed to escape and bring back footage of the hazardous activities. Pelley's investigation will be broadcast this Sunday, Nov. 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The Chinese attackers were trying to protect a lucrative business of mining the e-waste -- junked computers, televisions and other old electronic products -- for valuable components, including gold. "They're afraid of being found out. This is smuggling. This is illegal," says Jim Puckett, founder of the Basel Action Network, a group working to stop the dumping of toxic materials in poor countries that certifies ethical e-waste recyclers in the United States. "A lot of people are turning a blind eye here. And if somebody makes enough noise, they're afraid this is all going to dry up."

E-waste workers in Guiyu, China, where Pelley's team videotaped, put up with the dangerous conditions for the $8 a day the job pays. They use caustic chemicals and burn the plastic parts to get at the valuable components, often releasing toxins that they not only inhale, but release into the air, the ground and the water. Potable water must now be trucked into Guiyu and scientists have discovered that the city has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. Pregnancies in Guiyu are six times more likely to result in miscarriages, and seven out of 10 children there have too much lead in their blood.

Car interiors and car seats are becoming less toxic, although "new car smell" continues to carry poisons linked to allergies and cancer, according to a report last week by the Ecology Center.

The Ann Arbor, Mich., group found that General Motors made the most progress in reducing potentially harmful materials, followed by Mazda and Nissan, since the nonprofit's initial Healthy Car report last year.

The Acura RDX appears to smell sweeter than other SUVs in a report by the Ecology Center.

(Credit: Corrine Schulze/CNET Networks)

The ingredients in question include lead, chlorine, and phthalates from plastics, as well as brominated flame retardants from cushions and padding.

The car with the best marks was the Acura RDX SH sport-utility vehicle. Three Smart cars made the list of 10 best picks, as did two Chevy models and two Toyotas. Also among the lauded models were the Chevy HHR SUV, as well as the BMW M5 and Honda Accord EXL sedans.

Among the worst vehicles, according to the rankings, were the Mitsubishi Eclipse Spider convertible and Suzuki Reno hatchback, as well as the BMW 120i and Volkswagen Beetle convertibles.

In addition, scores of children's car seats fared 27 percent better than in 2007. Sunshine Kids and Graco brands fared especially well, while seats from Alpha Sport and Britax were among the worst in the rankings.

The Ecology Center interpreted its results as proving that harmful chemicals are unnecessary for making safe cars and car seats, and it called for lawmakers to ramp up regulations.

The environmental watchdog group looked at more than 200 popular models of cars released between 2006 and 2008, as well as 60 types of car seats. It used X-ray fluorescence to examine components that drivers and passengers frequently come into contact with, such as steering wheels, seats, doors, dashboards, and armrests.

The presence of the ingredients detected isn't otherwise indicated by manufacturers. Nor do third-party green consumer labels usually describe such details for cars and car seats.

The results of the report can also be found by sending from a mobile phone a text message that includes the make and model of a car or car seat.

Critics of the Ecology Center's study have charged that it sensationalizes the health risks of cars, whose biggest danger comes from road accidents rather than toxic chemicals.

Most Americans live and work in buildings awash in chemicals blamed for asthma, lung cancer, and a host of other maladies.

The best way to clean the air could be with a green thumb, according to Bill Wolverton, a former NASA environmental scientist who has spent more than 30 years studying how plants purify the air. The results of his research could come to market this fall as a household air filter that looks like a potted plant.

A U.S. version of the EcoPlanter, sold in Japan, is being produced. It's supposed to provide the air-purifying power of more than 100 potted plants.

(Credit: Bill Wolverton)

"Every chemical we tested, plants could take them out," said Wolverton, who originally worked on life support systems for the moon and Mars.

Plants absorb and convert airborne poisons to energy and food. At the roots, ever-adapting microbes munch on toxicants.

Wolverton worked to enhance those processes and has licensed his technology to Phytofilter Technologies, an upstate New York state startup. It's creating potted plant air filters to sell for several hundred dollars each later this year.

The device has a fan at the base of a plant pot, drawing and trapping toxins near the roots, where hungry microorganisms dwell. A version has been sold in Japan for seven years as the EcoPlanter, which includes a mold-killing ultraviolet light.

The self-cleaning filter is supposed to pack the purifying power of more than 100 plants and destroy poisons that are only trapped by carbon, zeolite, and high-efficiency particulate air, or HEPA, filters.

Phytofilter founder Martin Mittelmark also developed a plant-based filtration system for a building at Syracuse University this spring, backed by funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.

In recent years, air quality tests by the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, found that levels of toxins in offices shrank by 75 percent with the presence of only six plants per room.

Wolverton thinks his technology on a larger scale could clean the exhaust from power plants by trapping air pollution in water, then feeding it through a closed system of marshes. A similar tactic taken by small towns in Mississippi turns sewage into fertilizer by diverting it through marshes. But Wolverton sees more interest coming from developing nations including China and India.

"Universities in the U.S. are geared up to use mechanical means to clean up the environment, and when you mention plants to some of these engineers, that's sissy to them," he said.

For now, Wolverton plans to give away plant filters to residents of formaldehyde-polluted trailers in areas still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. The technology cut formaldehyde levels by one-sixth in trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in tests he explored with the Sierra Club.

Common building products and furniture are also laced with formaldehyde and toxins including flame retardants. And scientists increasingly link chemicals in consumer electronics to myriad health woes.

Plants can offset indoor air pollution from industrial chemicals in consumer electronics, buildings and furniture. Could they clean up coal power plants too?

(Credit: Good Magazine)

Emissions from laser printers can be worse for the lungs than cigarette smoke, according to an Australian study released in August. Toxic flame retardants float from TV sets and desktop PCs within household dust.

The World Health Organization blames bad indoor air for nearly 3 percent of diseases. Americans spend 90 percent of their time indoors, where air is more polluted than outside and can contain more than 900 volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, according to the EPA.

"The newer, more energy efficient buildings are sealed tighter and create more of a problem because chemicals offgas from practically everything in them," Wolverton said.

"Green" buildings might use paints and varnishes without VOCs, which don't release headache-inducing fumes. But standards for green buildings too often overlook the use of plants, Wolverton said. "You need plants to act as lungs in buildings."

Several plants in a 200-square-foot space will improve the air in most rooms, according to Wolverton, who recommends potting in inert pebbles or clay mix rather than soil, in which mold can grow.

A well-drawn guide to household plants that absorb formaldehyde, benzene, and trichloroethylene comes from graphic artists at Good Magazine, who used Wolverton's research.

Based upon chemicals in common consumer products, for instance, a peace lily might be ideal for a laundry room, and a new couch could be flanked by bamboo palms. Among the plants researchers found to have potent air-purifying qualities are the Eureka palm, lady palm, peace lily, and rubber plant.

However, people with curious cats or dogs might beware of lilies, poinsettas, and other plants that may poison them. The Pet Friendly House lists plants that won't hurt pets who chew on their leaves.

These children's products have high levels of fireproofing chemicals linked to cancer as well as developmental and reproductive problems, according to tests with an X-ray fluorescence gun. One percent of the crib's weight could come from the chemicals, which are common in electronics and household dust.

(Credit: Elsa Wenzel/CNET)

SAN FRANCISCO--Nearly one-third of children's car seats, cribs, and strollers in California contain toxic chemicals tied to cancer, learning disorders, and infertility that are also common in consumer electronics, according to a report Tuesday by Friends of the Earth.

The nonprofit group's study, "Killer Cribs," found higher levels of halogenated flame retardants in the 150 baby products and 350 furniture items it tested from California stores than in reported rates from other states.

California standards require children's products classified as furniture to contain flame retardants. At a press event in downtown Union Square, state Assemblyman Mark Leno promoted a bill (A.B. 706) that would phase out the fireproofing ingredients. He and other supporters hope that if the bill passes, it will set a market precedent the rest of the country will follow.

Friends of the Earth campaigner Sara Schedler pointed an X-ray fluorescence gun at a car seat to show traces of bromine, indicating that fireproofing chemicals made up more than 10 percent of the seat's weight.

Polyeurethane foam padding in car seats, cribs, walkers, bassinets, and baby carriers was found laced with halogenated flame retardants.

"They go from the TV or crib or stroller into the dust, and the dust goes into the bodies of children and pets and stays there," said Arlene Blum, a chemist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The chemicals should not be used without testing," she said. "No data? No market."

It's unclear whether trace amounts of such chemicals wreak havoc on human health, but watchdog groups warn that the pollutants are so pervasive that even tiny amounts build up to a potent "body burden" over time.

Environmental groups want to see more benign alternatives, such as natural latex rubber foam or woolen mattresses. Scientists pushing innovations in "green" chemistry are exploring phosphate-based fireproofing chemicals.

Readings from the X-ray gun display traces of toxics on an HP iPaq handheld.

(Credit: Elsa Wenzel/CNET)

Flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are found in the breast milk or blood of most North Americans, according to the Environmental Working Group. They're also in polar bears and other animals, including fish sold in grocery stores.

In the early 1990s, Sweden became the first country to phase out such flame retardants. The European Union is following suit. Rules there since 2006 have forced electronics makers to stop using certain brominated flame retardants and heavy metals, including mercury, in global product lines. A national U.S. equivalent to the Restriction of Hazardous Substances rules does not exist.

Makers of consumer electronics, including Dell, Intel, Apple, Sony, and Panasonic, have moved to eliminate the flame retardants. But that leaves legions of older products--such as some 80 million analog televisions bound for landfills next year.

The chemicals in question became widespread when the EPA banned the use of other halogenated flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, in 1978. Smoking cigarettes, a common cause of household fires, was still popular. So, too, were large TV sets that doubled as shelves for candles and flammable items, increasing the risk of fire accidents.

Flame retardants within electronics tend to be bonded chemically within circuit boards and components, making it less likely for them to escape, according to chemists. That's not necessarily the case for the plastic casings of televisions, computers, and monitors.

As televisions heat up, they may leach the chemicals as a gas and pollute indoor air, according to an April study of 19 homes by Boston University.

Household dust is a major source of pollution from flame retardants, according to various studies.

Veterinarians who saw few endocrine disorders in cats several decades ago now describe an epidemic. The Environmental Protection Agency has linked thyroid disease to PBDE flame retardants, believed to be ingested by cats as they groom themselves.

On the other hand, chemical makers accuse green groups of using scare tactics to inflate potential threats posed by flame retardants, which they call necessary for public safety.

Halogenated fire retardants are supposed to prevent deaths and injuries. There have been more potentially preventable fires in Europe than in the United States since halogenated flame retardants became popular.

However, firefighters appear to be suffering increasingly from rare cancers that could be tied to inhaling flame retardants, which release a form of dioxins if burned.

Click on this image for a photo gallery showing what's within the major types of plastic.

(Credit: Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks)

A growing body of scientific evidence makes plastics increasingly less attractive to "green" consumers. Hormone-altering substances seep from drinking bottles. Great plastic garbage patches swirl in the ocean. And plastic bits have been found to concentrate poisons at levels a million times higher than in the water. Many people don't even know that most plastic is made from petroleum.

But agriculture giants including Archer Daniels Midland and small companies such as Cereplast are baking plastic from corn, soy, potatoes, and tapioca. Start-ups are even exploring pig urine and carbon dioxide to make plastics. Bioplastics could make up 30 percent of the plastics market by 2030, according to Helmut Kaiser Consultancy.

Still, most plastics continue to be made from petroleum or natural gas, which, although increasingly expensive, remain cheaper than using plants.

Click here to see all of News.com's Earth Day 2008 stories, photo galleries, and more.

Fossil fuel plastics involve toxic chemicals to produce, can harm human health, pollute ecosystems, and are rarely recycled. Some people struggling to eliminate daily use of plastics find it nearly impossible.

However, codes marking many plastic products can help people figure out what's inside the bottle and what to do with it when it's spent, depending upon regional recycling rules.

To help recyclers, the plastics industry more than two decades ago started a labeling system that identifies seven major types of plastics by a numeric stamp on the bottoms of bottles. But what do the numbers mean?

I took a look at the seven categories in products from around my apartment. I retain a fair share of ecologically-damaging habits, but it hurt to make a trip to the store for polystyrene cups (No. 2) and root beer for the polyethylene six-pack rings (No. 4). The PET water bottle (No. 1) was mailed to me in a press package from a company that makes "green" products. However, while sometimes I splurge on bubbly bottled water, I try to use a stainless steel Klean Kanteen for flat water. (Ahem, the HDPE foot powder (No. 2) was left by a guest.) Check out the photo gallery for more.

The growth of the solar power industry is poisoning land in China, according to the Washington Post.

Polysilicon, which is widely used to make solar panels, is in short supply. In the rush to make it cheaply, a Chinese company reportedly is dumping toxic waste into the ground, killing wildlife and endangering human health.

The newspaper describes green fields in the nation's eastern central Henan Province that have turned snow white from the powdery waste of silicon tetrachloride, four tons of which result from every ton of polysilicon created. Toxic hydrogen chloride gas and acids waft from the waste.

The waste is allegedly coming from Chinese polysilicon maker Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology, a supplier of rising solar power star Suntech Power, according to the Washington Post.

"In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-coms," writes Ariana Eunjung Cha, reporting that new factories there are set to produce more than twice the amount of polysilicon as is currently manufactured in the world. Silicon tetrachloride can be recycled. But manufacturers reportedly can make polysilicon about two-thirds more cheaply if they ignore environmental protections.

Henan Province is in the eastern central part of China.

(Credit: Google Maps)

U.S. politicians and activists have been pushing for "green-collar jobs" to fill the gap left by the dwindling blue-collar economy.

"Green" drywall maker Serious Materials is pursuing building a U.S. plant. And Suntech Power has expressed interest in building U.S. factories, helping to avoid the high price of shipping solar panels. However, watchdog groups and environmental laws in the United States would likely aim to prevent or punish the kind of dumping Suntech's supplier has been accused of.

Other unanticipated side effects of new "clean" technologies include rising food costs linked to the growing of corn for ethanol as well as the clearing of Indonesian rainforests to grow palm for biofuels. And China's Three Gorges Dam is flooding enormous swaths of land to make possible the world's largest hydropower plant.

Printer companies are under attack as more people become concerned about global warming and toxic pollution.

The solution? "Printer Vendors Need to Greenwash Their Image."

That unfortunate headline was the theme of an e-mail newsletter this morning from Lyra Research, a well-respected firm that tracks the digital imaging industry.

Apparently the writer didn't realize or care that "greenwashing" is a negative term. It describes how companies aiming to appeal to treehuggers are painting a green face, without necessarily cleaning up their act.

Picky consumers detest this trend, which makes it nearly impossible to tell which companies walk the green walk instead of merely spouting a green talk. Earlier this decade, greenwashing wasn't so insidious because most claims of eco-friendliness were made by small enterprises, like, say, your local weaver of organic hemp hacky sacks.

But now that the world's biggest corporations aim to appear green--sincerely or cynically--it's easy to be fooled by multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns.

This year, printer hardware is expected to contribute 1 million tons of solid waste in this country alone, while pulp and paper companies are the fourth-largest toxic polluters of water, according to Lyra.

The Lyra newsletter asked, "What can the industry do to prevent an attack by environmental groups and create a better image for itself?"

To start, the industry could gain some friends by reworking its razor cartridge model of ink replacement. I learned quickly--through reviewing printers for CNET--how much people hate that the cost of ink and toner quickly exceeds the price of the printer itself. Vendors insist that people use their premium-price, branded inks or suffer crummy-looking pages. And disposing of cartridges is a pain, even if you're organized enough to mail them in or bring them to stores, such as Walgreen's, for reuse.

Also, how about better tech support and repair? Fixing gadgets should be no harder than taking a cracked heel to the shoe cobbler. The tech industry overall should make better-quality, longer-lasting hardware. A printer that cranks out one page faster per minute than last season's model is not efficient. A printer that lasts but a year and costs more to fix than replace is not sustainable.

Yes, people at HP and most other printer companies have made sincere efforts to establish responsible recycling programs. They've also made more models Energy Star efficient, experimented with corn-based plastic and modular components, and made it easier to print on two sides of a page to reduce paper waste. You might even argue that personal photo printers are kinder to the planet than traditional lab photofinishing.

Still, what's the secret sauce in all that proprietary ink and toner? Materials safety data sheets that companies are required by law to report do not detail the little-tested toxicity of these chemical cocktails. The information is limited largely because American laws regulating potentially dangerous chemicals are notoriously weak.

It took independent testing by an Australian lab to root out potentially cancerous, asthma-inducing ingredients in laser toner.

I don't want to breathe in that noxious dust at my desk, and I certainly don't want to breathe in the hot air of greenwashing. Let's hope that tech companies boast of small successes in moving toward sustainability without getting ahead of themselves.