Tuesday, April 06, 2004
From the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Why are environmentalists trying to get snowmobiles
banned from national parks?
— Deborah Beck, Ketchum, Idaho
According to the San Francisco, California–based Bluewater Network,
which wants to ban snowmobile use in national parks, 250,000 snowmobiles
are operated in America's park system each year, with some 60,000
snowmobiles zooming through Yellowstone National Park alone. Counting
all snowmobile usage nationally, in and out of national parks, about
2.3 million take to the powder every year.
The main issue is the vehicleís two-stroke engine, which is a major
polluter. According to Bluewater, the air pollution from these dirty
machines is so bad that some Yellowstone Park Rangers now wear respirators
to protect themselves. Further, these engines dump 25 percent to
30 percent of their fuel unburned out the tailpipe onto vegetation
and soil and into the water and air.
According to Katy Rexford, Public Lands Associate for Bluewater,
snowmobiles dump more than 100,000 gallons of fuel and 2,500 gallons
of oil into Yellowstone's ecosystem every year. Banning two-stroke
engines in favor of four-stroke engines would make snowmobiles 80
percent cleaner, said Rexford.
But switching to four-stroke engines will not greatly affect the
noise pollution. The piercing noise of snowmobiles is also at issue;
studies have shown that snowmobiles can be heard 90 percent of the
time in Yellowstone, thus destroying natural soundscapes and diminishing
opportunities for more contemplative forms of recreation.
Another issue is their impact on wildlife: Canadian scientists
found that the noise from snowmobiles disturbs animals up to 1,250
feet away. Even when restricted to approved and maintained trails,
snowmobiles can push bison, wolves, elk, moose, and bald eagles
out of their preferred habitats.
Dear EarthTalk: Does eye mascara contain toxic ingredients?
— Amber Galt, Madison, Wisconsin
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified many modern
skin care, hair care, and cosmetics ingredients as hazardous. Such
ingredients can be absorbed into the body through the skin and may
be loaded with potential irritants, carcinogens, neurotoxins, or
hormone disrupters. The potential health problems associated with
brand-name cosmetics are many and varied.
Some cosmetics companies throw petroleum distillates, shellac,
and other preservatives into the pot when stewing up a batch of
lash thickener, says Kim Erickson in her book Drop-Dead Gorgeous:
Protecting Yourself from the Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics. Ingredients
like shellac and quaternium-22 can induce allergies; others, such
as phenylmercuric acetate, may cause skin irritation and blisters.
Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts the use
of phenylmercuric acetate, a mercury derivative, cosmetic manufacturers
are not required to register with the FDA.
Eye products sometimes contain kohl, which is made of heavy metals
such as antimony and lead. Also called al-kahl, kajal, or surma,
this color additive has been linked to lead poisoning in children
and is not approved for cosmetic use in the United States. However,
the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) warns
it can be found in imported mascaras.
Perhaps the most dangerous ingredient found in mascara is not meant
to be included: bacteria. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, author of
Eight Weeks to Optimum Health, airborne bacteria rush into the bottle
every time you open it. Preservatives break down over time, losing
their ability to prevent bacterial growth that can cause infection
and, in rare cases, temporary or even permanent blindness.
Doctors and beauty experts recommend replacing mascara every three
months, no matter how much is left. Throw it out sooner if it develops
an unusual texture or odor.
Got an environmental question? Mail it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The
Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881. Or submit
your question at www.emagazine.com or e-mail us at earthtalk@emagazine.com.
|
