09/20/2006
Disruptors, Known and Unknown
Last April I took my trusty VW Jetta to the garage for service and mentioned that my air conditioner wasn’t producing any cold air. Sure enough, my service coordinator informed me there was a leak in the condenser. However, he also said that he didn’t care for air conditioning and preferred driving with the windows open. I decided to give it a try, considering it was going to cost $800 to fix and I’d already spent $500 for the servicing.
However, when the weather turned beastly hot, I was ready to take the car back to the garage when a miracle happened. I turned on the air conditioner and there was cold air! All summer long the air conditioner has worked like a charm. This experience with automotive refrigeration spurred my interest in an article by Marc Reisch in the September 4 issue of Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN). The article indicated that forthcoming changes in automotive air-conditioning might increase the price of an air-conditioned car by $40 to $1,000.
The story is one more example of how difficult it is to do right by the environment. Take my 1997 Jetta. It’s likely that the refrigerant that sprang to life is a hydrofluorocarbon known by the catchy name of HFC-134a. The reason I think my car employs HFC-134a is that, in the mid-1990s, car manufacturers were switching from Freon and other chlorofluorocarbons, also used as propellants in various pressurized products such as shaving creams. They were disrupting the ozone layer. To address the infamous hole in the ozone layer, most nations endorsed the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. This protocol called for switching to refrigerants and propellants that wouldn’t deplete the ozone. One of the refrigerants is HFC-134a.
The result is a wonderful example of scientists detecting a very serious global problem and coming up with practical means to correct it. The ozone layer is reestablishing its former self. With the ozone problem being corrected by the use of compounds such as HFC-134a, it’s rather shocking to find that the European Union’s 25 countries have decided to ban the use of HFC-134a.
Why? While HFC-134a is good for the ozone layer, there’s the problem of global warming. We all know about carbon dioxide, CO2, as a prime cause of global warming. HFC-132a has a “global warming potential” over 1,300 times higher than that of CO2. According to the C&EN article, the fluorocarbons released into the atmosphere are equivalent to about 10 percent of the CO2 from fossil fuel as far as global warming potential is concerned. The European Union, isn’t satisfied and will ban HFC-132a in new cars in 2011 and by 2017 will ban use of any refrigerant with a global warming potential greater than 150 times that of CO2. This means chemists are going to be tested trying to come up with an acceptable substitute that is nontoxic and nonflammable, as is HFC-132a. Stay tuned.
Global warming is certainly of tremendous concern but at least we know the culprits such as CO2 and other compounds that can exacerbate the situation. Knowing these, we can hopefully figure out ways to minimize their emissions into our atmosphere before it’s too late. Our waters also contain pollutants that can disrupt our environment. Some are well known and publicized, such as mercury in fish. With mercury, we can minimize our exposure by simply restricting our consumption of fish.
Also worrisome are unknown contaminants in our water that might cause cancer or other serious problems. The plethora of bottled waters shows that many share this concern. Some time ago, I mentioned a troubling finding in the Potomac River watershed. The problem was that some male fish were found that were quite abnormal in that they were bearing eggs. Brian Trumbore called my attention to an article by David Farenthold in the September 6 Washington Post that indicates the problem of these “intersex” fish is now more widespread.
The fish in question are smallmouth bass and largemouth bass. The first findings of immature eggs in the sex organs of male smallmouth bass were in 2003 in a West Virginia stream. Last fall researchers caught smallmouth bass in three tributaries of the Potomac in Virginia and Maryland. A shocking 80% of the male smallmouth bass contained eggs. At some sites, all of the fish were growing eggs! There aren’t any smallmouth bass in the Washington, D.C. area but there are largemouth bass. Seven of 13 male largemouth bass that were caught had some sort of feminine characteristics and three of those contained eggs.
Vicki Blazer is a fish pathologist of the U.S. Geological Survey and a leader in researching this problem. She feels the findings indicate the possible presence of “endocrine disruptors”. These are contaminants that somehow mess up the chemical signaling that goes on in processes in the body. It appears that such a contaminant, or perhaps a combination of contaminants, turns on the process of egg formation that normally happens only in females. For example, estrogen from humans and animals is believed to be an endocrine disruptor.
The field of endocrine disruptors seems very complex and controversial. An indication of this is the fact that, according to the Post article, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was charged by Congress in 1996 to develop a screening program for endocrine disruptors but has as yet to test a single chemical! EPA officials say the research is more complex than anticipated.
The millions of people in the Potomac watershed region are concerned. Their water comes from the river and its tributaries. While officials of the water companies believe they’re doing a good job of filtering and treating the water, there is a question to be answered. If you don’t know what chemicals are endocrine disruptors, how do you test for them?
My wife and I had an experience with our own water last week. She got a phone call offering free testing of our tap water. She thought the call was from our water company, an impression that I questioned and she called the water company. She was assured it was legitimate. However, when the fellow arrived and set up his testing, it was quickly apparent he was from a private company selling water purification systems!
He was a nice, earnest young man and, thinking we might learn something about endocrine disruptors or other contaminants, we let him continue with his spiel and testing. All we learned was that we had moderately hard water, that water from our bottle of Poland Springs water had a much lower degree of hardness and that it would cost about $5,000 for a purification system. We’re living with our hard water!
Allen F. Bortrum
|