Why should you tell your Senator to vote NO on Scott Pruitt for EPA?

Here are the 12 best reasons I’ve come up with. What are yours?

Trump Recap

When Donald Trump attained the presidency, my heart sank. As a woman, mother, and citizen, I feel personally violated by this man and all he represents.

But as someone who has worked to protect the environment for almost four decades, I also was discouraged because I knew what we’d be up against.

Trump has shown total disregard for Nature and the environment in the way he’s run his businesses.

He believes climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

And in his first environmental act as president-elect, he’s nominated the worst person possible to head the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Scott Pruitt, the attorney general for the state of Oklahoma.

Pruitt has a long record of suing the very agency he’d be charged with administering and endangering the very environment he’d be charged with protecting.

Rather than enforce the laws and regulations under his purview, he’d strive to dismantle them.

Rather than prioritize our health, the health of our kids, and the health of our planet, he’d protect the industries that jeopardize our health.

Though the president nominates a person to head the EPA, the Senate must confirm the nominee. Last week, as part of Moms Clean Air Force, I met with staff members for Senators who will vote on that confirmation either in the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, or in the full Senate chamber (Here’s a picture of “The Force” at work! I’m in the back row, 3rd from the right, in case you can’t tell).

I gave them 12 reasons why they should vote NO on Scott Pruitt for EPA.

I offer this list to you, as well. Please use the links above or below this post to share it on your social media, with your friends and colleagues, and with your own Senator.

Pruitt has been nominated, but he should not be confirmed.

Why Tell Your Senator to Vote NO on Scott Pruitt for EPA?

Because you want to breathe clean air – Pruitt has sued the EPA to overturn standards to curb mercury and other toxic air pollutants that will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks per year.  He has sued to void standards to reduce soot and smog pollution projected to prevent up to 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 34,000 premature deaths, and 400,000 asthma attacks every year. These lawsuits are bad news for all Americans, but especially the more than 24 million Americans with asthma.

Because you want to drink clean water – Pruitt has sued the EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for more than half the nation’s waterways, including streams that feed into the drinking water supplies of 117 million Americans.  He even sued to block limits on water pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, which has no known connection to Oklahoma.

Because you want to keep your kids safe and healthy – Pruitt refuses to accept research from the American Academy of Pediatrics that mercury, a neurotoxin emitted by power plants when they burn coal, is actually dangerous to developing children or that mercury poses a public health threat. (Here’s the report by the American Academy of Pediatrics and their Committee on Environmental Health if you want to read about mercury in the environment for yourself.)

Because you want to protect Nature and the environment – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency helps protect the natural world by enforcing laws and regulations intended to prevent pollution. A big source of pollution is oil spills, either at the site of an oil operation or from a leaky or ruptured oil pipeline. Since 2002, Pruitt has received more than $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry. How likely is it that Pruitt would bite the hand that feeds him and rein in the industry that’s been so generous to him? Answer: Not likely at all.

Because you want to protect our national parks – Says the National Parks Conservation Association, “the EPA should not be led by someone who has a history of active opposition to the mission, science and values of the agency it is tasked to uphold…Mr. Pruitt has a long record of …opposition to strong stewardship of these resources.”

Because you want to protect lakes and rivers -As Oklahoma attorney general, reports Moms Clean Air Force, Pruitt shut down his office’s environmental enforcement unit, which investigated issues like water contamination and illegal dumping. That action sent a signal to the most irresponsible elements of industry that there would be few legal consequences for violating clean air and water laws. In place of that enforcement unit, Mr. Pruitt built a multi-million office to crusade against EPA’s public health and environmental safeguards.

Because you want to protect birds, bees and other wildlife – Birds, bees and many other wild animals are threatened by overdevelopment and the excessive use of pesticides. It’s the EPA’s job to keep track of what pesticides are legal to use, and how they’re used. So here’s a chilling fact: Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma led the nation in pesticide-related illnesses and deaths between 2000 and 2010. As Trump would tweet: Bad! Sad!!

Because you want to eat safe food – Like tuna fish? With or without mercury? If you’re pregnant or have small children, you need to limit how much you eat because mercury pollution from burning coal is falling into our oceans, lakes and rivers and getting concentrated in the bodies of the fish we eat. EPA’s safeguards are actually helping mercury to decline in the Atlantic Bluefin tuna. But Pruitt doesn’t believe mercury poses a threat and in all likelihood would unravel the protections that are making a difference.

Because you want to stop climate change – Pruitt said in his confirmation hearings that he does not believe climate change is a hoax. Nevertheless, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, he sued unsuccessfully to overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are harmful.  He has also sued to block the EPA from setting any limits on carbon pollution from power plants, the nation’s largest polluter.

By the way:

 More than 97% of scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities.

According to a March 2016 Gallup poll, 64% of Americans are worried about climate change.

Also according to Gallup, 65% of Americans believe that human activity is to blame for increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.

Because you want to see the U.S. use more solar and wind energy and less coal and oil – The EPA is currently tasked with implementing the Clean Power Plan, which would accelerate America’s transition to renewable, non-polluting energy. Would that transition happen under Pruitt? Hardly. This review in The Guardian calls the attorney general a “staunch advocate for fossil fuels” and “a dream for oil and gas firms…a nightmare for the environment.”

Because you want to live in a country that values people and the planet – No need to explain that one!

Because you want to leave the world a better place for your kids and grandkids – What future do we want for our children, and our children’s children? I believe we want to leave the world a better, safer, healthier place than it is today. That requires not only vigilance to protect the gains we’ve made, but a commitment to do even more to reduce pollution, protect Nature, and link our health and prosperity to a healthy planet. Having an Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency who shares that commitment is essential.

Just Say NO! to Pruitt

One hundred seventy – that’s 170 – environmental organizations have joined together to oppose Pruitt’s nomination to head EPA. In a letter to supporters, the media and Congress, here’s what they conclude about his nomination:

President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has actively worked against the mission of the agency
he has been nominated to lead.

He should be rejected by the Senate.

Scott Pruitt’s views and actions run counter to the EPA’s critical mission
to protect our health and the environment.

He is unfit to administer the laws he would be entrusted to enforce.

The Senate should reject his nomination.

Write to your Senator today to urge NO on Pruitt! It’s easy to do on the Moms Clean Air Force website.

The post 12 Best Reasons To Tell Your Senator to Vote NO on Scott Pruitt for EPA appeared first on Big Green Purse.

The post The 10 Most Toxic Items In Your Pantry appeared first on Big Green Purse.

 But your eyes? That’s another story, at least according to the United Nations Minamata Convention, so named because thousands of people in Minamata, Japan suffered mercury poisoning from contaminated industrial wastewater.

The UN convention last week decided that companies can use mercury in mascara and other make-up until safer alternatives can be found. B why use mercury in the first place? Evidently it’s an effective preservative and germ-killer. However, it’s also a powerful neurotoxicant that can cause kidney damage and serious neurological effects. If you’re pregnant and exposed to mercury, your baby’s brain could be affected.

To date, no scientific studies have researched the impact that the levels of mercury found in eye make-up could have on human health. Still, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the consumer watch-dog group Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, says (quoted here in Scientific American) there’s no reason “a known neurotoxin should be allowed in any of these products” because alternatives exist. Most manufacturers just aren’t using them.

Fortunately, several cosmetics companies committed to public health and safety as well as beauty do exist, and they’re producing mercury-free mascara as well as other non-toxic make-up options. Here are the ones I know about. If you have other recommendations, please leave them in the comments below.

Suncoat Sugar Based Natural Mascara

Afterglow Pure Soul Mascara

100% Pure  Fruit Pigmented Mascara

Tarte

By the way, for added safety:

* Store mascara in a cool, dry place.

* Toss it after about three months, whether the tube is used up or not. Bacteria can multiply in older tubes and cause eye infections.

* Don’t apply when you’re driving (duh!). Many optometrists report treating women who scratched their corneas while trying to apply mascara in a moving car!

RELATED POSTS

Lead-Free Lipstick? Well…duh!

Beauty … or the Beast? Depends on the Safe Chemicals Act

The post Is There Mercury in Your Mascara? Probably. appeared first on Big Green Purse.

With the information so inconclusive, it makes sense to take precautions that will protect the environment as well as yourself:

Check the safety of the ingredients in your hair coloring against the Environmental Working Group’s cosmetics database, where you can also find alternative, safer products.

Buy hair-color products that meet the higher safety standards imposed by the European Union. Look for products made by cosmetic manufacturers who have pledged to follow these standards and replace all possible hazardous materials. Henna offers another safe option – if you want to tinge your locks auburn or red.

Don’t start coloring hair until you really have to! Highlight rather than dye your entire head.

Try color sticks (available at beauty-supply stores like Ulta and Sephora) to touch up gray spots at your temples or hairline to reduce the number of times in a year you dye your hair.

Plant-based Hair Dyes include:

* Advanced Cosmetic Technologies

* EcoColors

* Advanced Cosmetic Technologies

* Naturtint.

What if you’re a guy?

Avoid any hair color products that contain lead, a neurotoxin, which is often found in men’s hair dyes.

Know that the chemicals in darker hair dyes seem to be linked to more health problems than lighter colors. If you’re going for a new you, lighten up.

And the safest alternative of all? Go grey!

The post Be Safer and Smarter When Dyeing You’re Latest Do appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Simply bring in your expired, unbroken CFL bulbs, and give them to the store associate behind the returns desk. The bulbs will be handled by an environmental management company that will coordinate CFL packaging, transportation and recycling to maximize safety and ensure environmental compliance.

“With more than 75 percent of households located within 10 miles of a Home Depot store, this program is the first national solution to providing Americans with a convenient way to recycle CFLs,” said the company’s Ron Jarvis, senior vice president, Environmental Innovation.

What’s the appeal of CFLs? They  use up to 75 percent less energy, last longer and cost less over time than incandescent bulbs. The average household can reduce its energy bills by $12 to $20 a month by using CFLs. The bulbs were once accused of emitting a harsh, glaring light. But many bulbs generate a softer, yellower light now, increasing the appeal of using them for any room in the house.

In addition to recycling CFLs, The Home Depot plans to introduce more dimmable compact fluorescents within the year. Home Depot’s bulbs contain 2.3 to 3.5 milligrams of mercury, which is below the National Electrical Manufacturers Association recommendation of 5 milligrams or fewer. It is a small amount, equivalent to the volume of the steel ball in the tip of a ballpoint pen. By comparison, home thermostats contain about 1,000 times more mercury than the common CFL.

The company says it sold more than 75 million CFL’s in 2007, saving Americans approximately $4.8 billion in energy costs and preventing 51.8 billon pounds in climate-changing greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere over the life of the bulbs.

The Home Depot is not only encouraging consumers to change their light bulbs. It’s doing the same in its own stores. The company expects to save $16 million in annual energy costs by switching all of its U.S. Light Fixture Showrooms to CFLs by the fall of 2008.

The CFL recycling program is an extension of The Home Depot’s Eco Options program. Eco Options, launched in April 2007, is a classification that allows customers to easily identify products that have less of an impact on the environment.

Switching from traditional light bulbs to CFLs is an easy change consumers can make to reduce energy use at home. According to the EPA’s ENERGY STAR(R) program, if every American switched one incandescent bulb to a CFL, it would prevent more than $600 million in annual energy costs and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions from 800,000 cars.

NOTE:  Consumers can also recycle CFLs at any IKEA store.

Thumbs up to both Home Depot and Ikea!

The post Recycling CFLs is Finally Easy to Do! appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Chances are great that our daughters will pass on to our grandchildren some of the same chemical molecules they inherited from us. The estimated age by which a daughter will purge 99 percent of the inherited chemical varies depending on the chemical. It will take a day to excrete the phthalate plasticizers that soften up cosmetics, paint and plastics, but a year to dump mercury. Our daughters will be at least teenagers but perhaps senior citizens before they’re rid of the common flame retardants and stain-proofing chemicals we pass along. They would be 166 years old before they’re free of their inherited lead.

Meanwhile, their own body burden continues to increase. According to EWG’s test results, chemicals that persist in the body were found at higher levels in mothers than daughters, showing how chemicals can build up in the body over a lifetime. Mothers had an average of 1.5 to 5.2 times more pollution than their daughters for lead, methyl mercury, brominated flame retardants, and the Teflon- and Scotchgard-related perfluorochemicals PFOA and PFOS.

The EWG study, which was done on four mothers and their daughters, found that each of the eight women’s blood or urine was contaminated with an average of 35 consumer product ingredients, including flame retardants, plasticizers, and stain-proof coatings. These mixtures of compounds found in furniture, cosmetics, fabrics, and other consumer goods, have never been tested for safety. The mothers and daughters in this study join 64 other people tested in six EWG biomonitoring programs conducted between 2000 and 2006. In total, EWG biomonitoring has found 455 different pollutants, pesticides, and industrial chemicals in the bodies or cord blood of 72 different people — including 10 newborn babies with an average of 200 chemicals in each child.

“EPA studies show that children from birth to age two are 10 times more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals than adults,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research. “Scientists have found that chemicals’ toxic effects can be passed down for four generations, by causing permanent genetic changes that can be inherited. A stew of toxic chemicals is not the legacy mothers want to hand down to their children.”

We monitor the pollution in our air, our water, and even our fish. Isn’t it time we started paying attention to the pollution in our bodies?

Related Post: What’s in YOUR body, Mom?

The post A Mother’s Day Question: What Do You Have in Common with Your Daughter…or Your Own Mother? appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Chances are great that our daughters will pass on to our grandchildren some of the same chemical molecules they inherited from us. The estimated age by which a daughter will purge 99 percent of the inherited chemical varies depending on the chemical. It will take a day to excrete the phthalate plasticizers that soften up cosmetics, paint and plastics, but a year to dump mercury. Our daughters will be at least teenagers but perhaps senior citizens before they’re rid of the common flame retardants and stain-proofing chemicals we pass along. They would be 166 years old before they’re free of their inherited lead.

  Meanwhile, their own body burden continues to increase.  According to EWG’s test results, chemicals that persist in the body were found at higher levels in mothers than daughters, showing how chemicals can build up in the body over a lifetime. Mothers had an average of 1.5 to 5.2 times more pollution than their daughters for lead, methyl mercury, brominated flame retardants, and the Teflon- and Scotchgard-related perfluorochemicals PFOA and PFOS.

The EWG study, which was done on four mothers and their daughters, found that each of the eight women’s blood or urine was contaminated with an average of 35 consumer product ingredients, including flame retardants, plasticizers, and stain-proof coatings. These mixtures of compounds found in furniture, cosmetics, fabrics, and other consumer goods, have never been tested for safety.

The mothers and daughters in this study join 64 other people tested in six EWG biomonitoring programs conducted between 2000 and 2006. In total, EWG biomonitoring has found 455 different pollutants, pesticides, and industrial chemicals in the bodies or cord blood of 72 different people — including 10 newborn babies with an average of 200 chemicals in each child.

“EPA studies show that children from birth to age two are 10 times more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals than adults,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research. “Scientists have found that chemicals’ toxic effects can be passed down for four generations, by causing permanent genetic changes that can be inherited. A stew of toxic chemicals is not the legacy mothers want to hand down to their children.”

The findings were released a year ago this month at a briefing at the California State Capitol, but nothing has changed, either in terms of our exposure to these chemicals or the companies’ use of them. At the time, joining public health advocates and four of the mothers and daughters were Senate President Pro tem Don Perata, Sen. Deborah Ortiz and Assemblyman John Laird, authors and co-sponsor of SB 1379, a bill to establish the nation’s first state-level biomonitoring program to track pollution in people.

“We monitor the pollution in our air, our water, and even our fish. It’s time to start looking at the pollution in our bodies,” said Perata.

The post Do You Really Want Your Daughter to Look Like You? appeared first on Big Green Purse.