Tag Archives: low-income

Fracking harms the health of babies, study shows

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The practice of drilling into the ground to release natural gas — known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking — first made national headlines in 2011 when drinking water taps in fracking towns in Pennsylvania began catching fire because flammable methane was seeping into water supplies.

Since then, fracking has been linked to earthquakes in Oklahoma and a myriad of health issues. Proponents of fracking say the practice has reduced energy costs and has created thousands of jobs. But environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, say that for people living near sites, fracking can have severe health affects such as respiratory illnesses and cancer.

A new study from the journal Science Advances found that infants born to women living near fracking sites in Pennsylvania were especially vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. “As local and state policymakers decide whether to allow hydraulic fracturing in their communities, it is crucial that they carefully examine the costs and benefits,” said Michael Greenstone, a coauthor of the study and the director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in a press release. “This study provides the strongest large-scale evidence of a link between the pollution that stems from hydraulic fracturing activities and … the health of babies.”

The researchers analyzed vital statistics of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2013. They studied infants born to women living 1 kilometer (or slightly over half a mile) away from fracking sites, as well as women living within 3 kilometers (or less than 2 miles), and women living between 3 to 15 kilometers (or less than 2 miles to 9 miles) away.

They found that fracking reduces the health of infants born to mothers living within 3 kilometers from a fracking site. But for mothers living within 1 kilometer, the affects were acute. The probability of low infant birth weight, meaning the infant weighs less than 5.5 pounds, increased to 25 percent.

Studies show that low birth weight can lead to infant mortality, asthma, lower test scores while school-age, and lower earnings as adults. The study also found that mothers whose babies may have been exposed to nearby fracking sites tend to be younger, less educated, and less likely to be married — factors that can also lead to poor infant health.

But there are significant differences between the mothers who give birth close to fracking sites and those who don’t. Black mothers included in the study were more likely to live nearest to fracking sites, exposing their infants to higher risks of pollution. “This difference arises because over time, more wells were drilled near urban areas such as Pittsburgh, where higher numbers of African Americans live,” the authors wrote. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, has 63 active fracking wells. Many other fracking sites are located in lower-income communities.

Nationwide, between July 2012 and June 2013, as many as 65,000 infants were exposed to pollution from fracking, because their mothers lived within 1 kilometer of a fracking site.

“Given the growing evidence that pollution affects babies in utero,” said coauthor Janet Currie, who is a economics and public affairs professor at Princeton University, “it should not be surprising that fracking has negative effects on infants.”

See the article here: 

Fracking harms the health of babies, study shows

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking harms the health of babies, study shows

Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Many online commenters complain about the fact that Zero Waste blogs tend to be run by primarily young, affluent females who have the time and money to run around town, visiting numerous stores in order to source their favorite local, organic ingredients in fancy glass jars and stainless containers, before heading home to DIY everything from bread and yogurt to toothpaste and body wash. (I realize I, too, am guilty of giving this impression.)

For many, Zero Waste has become synonymous with privilege and wealth because there is so little online discussion about how people who donotfit those categories can possibly attain Zero Waste standards. This is hardly fair.

Just because someone has very little money or lives with disabilities doesnt mean they dont care about the environment, nor have the willpower and desire to implement waste reduction in their personal lives. More bloggers should be asking, “How does Zero Waste benefit people with disabilities and low incomes? Is it even realistic for those with limited physical access and tight budgets?”

Ariana Schwarz addresses this topic in an excellent article called Is Zero Waste Unfair to People with Low Incomes or Disabilities? Schwarz believes that Zero Waste is not ableist or discriminatory toward the poor. In fact, it provides great opportunities to improve quality of life.

Take packaging, for example.So often we think of single-used packaging as convenient, and yetlesspackaging is typically more accessible. Imagine opening plastic blister packs, Tetrapaks, and Tupperware or other food storage containers, with their one-handed peel motion; twisting up deodorant tubes and toothpaste lids; and opening rigid plastic packaging (such as the type toothbrushes come in) or Ziplocs while suffering from arthritis or ALS. Compare that to cotton mesh drawstring bags, wide-mouth Mason jars, and flip- or swing-top glass bottles, where access is easier overall.

In terms of cost, Zero Waste can save precious money.Investing in reusables that require an initial investment can save significant amounts of money down the road, i.e. cloth diapers, a menstrual cup, safety razors, etc. Buying in bulk quantities reduces cost and the number of shopping trips. Many bulk stores have low-positioned bins with lids that are easier to open and access from a wheelchair than reaching the tops of supermarket shelves.

Having tight budgets encourages people to grow their own food in abandoned or under-utilized spaces to save packaging and cost. There are many farmers markets in the U.S. that accept SNAP cards and food stamps; in Georgia, aspecial programeven doubles SNAP at markets.

Health can improve through implementation of Zero Waste practices. One commenter on Schwarzs blog wrote:

Zero waste has been a savior in cost and mental peace of mind. My apartment building is falling apart and the carpet full of allergens, but cleaning with vinegar, baking soda, and soap have gone a long way for my health and wallet (cloth towels instead of paper help too). Our allergies are much improved. We’re hoping to get a bidet soon; there’s one on Amazon for barely more than a jumbo pack of toilet paper. Same for being mostly vegan life is much improved and costs are way down.

Keep in mind that embracing small challenges, such as saying no to single-use plastic containers, utensils, and grocery bags, sends a powerful message to whomever has offered it to you, regardless of physical or financial challenges, and its important not to underestimate that power.

Zero Waste practices can benefit everyone, but responsibility does lie with those who do not struggle with barriers to accessibility to push this lifestyle more into the mainstream and make it even easier for everyone to participate.

Schwarz writes: Could you volunteer to collect food that would otherwise go to waste and redistribute them to the needy? Petition local shops for more accessible bulk bins? Or assist handicapped or elderly persons in your community with the grocery shopping?

What are your experiences with Zero Waste living? Do you live with a disability or on a low income that makes it difficult to implement environmental practices? Please share any thoughts in the comments below.

Written by Katherine Martinko. Reposted with permission from TreeHugger.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Read this article:  

Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Zero Waste Just for the Young and Affluent?

Farmers markets stand to benefit the poor the most

Farmers markets stand to benefit the poor the most

Farmers markets sometimes get a bad rap for catering to the moneyed set, as though only the well-to-do like to buy their produce in a pleasant, social, outdoor environment, direct from the source.

It turns out that’s all a bunch of compost. Low-income shoppers are actually the real farmers-market power users, buying bigger shares of their groceries at the markets than at other stores compared to middle- and high-income shoppers, according to a new report from the Project for Public Spaces.

The report looked at eight markets across the country in low-income neighborhoods with otherwise broad differences in demographic makeup. “[A]lmost 60% of farmers market shoppers in low-income neighborhoods believed their market had better prices than the grocery store,” the report states.

The main barrier to low-income shoppers patronizing farmers markets? Just basic information. Researchers found that shoppers often didn’t use their food-stamp benefits even though markets accept them, and shoppers didn’t know where markets were or when they were open.

If farmers markets embrace their low-income shoppers and just let them know what’s up, everyone could win.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original post – 

Farmers markets stand to benefit the poor the most

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Farmers markets stand to benefit the poor the most