A launching event of the USEtox ^TM model will be held at the SETAC Europe conference on Tuesday, May 25th in Seville, Spain.

This model has been developed by a team of international scientists for assessment of human and ecotoxic impacts from chemicals in life cycle impact assessment and for ranking of chemicals according to their inherent hazard characteristics. At the launch, a representative from the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and a representative from the USEtox ^TM team will give a brief welcome and presentation of the USEtox ^TM model (15 min). The remaining time is allocated to informal talks with members of the USEtox ^TM Team and demonstration of the USEtox ^TM model, and for networking with LCA and chemical assessment colleagues. There will be posters and hand-out material about the model.

LCA-software companies that have integrated the USEtox ^TM characterization factors for human toxic and ecotoxic impacts into their software have been invited to demonstrate these facilities at the event.

If you wish to attend, please confirm your participation usetox@usetox.org

From the Executive Summary “Despite overall decreases in incidence and mortality, cancer continues to shatter and steal the lives of Americans. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.” 

Public and governmental awareness of environmental influences on cancer risk and other health issues has increased substantially in recent years as scientific and health care communities, policymakers, and individuals strive to understand and ameliorate the causes and toll of human disease. A growing body of research documents myriad established and suspected environmental factors linked to genetic, immune, and endocrine dysfunction that can lead to cancer and other diseases. 

Between September 2008 and January 2009, the President’s Cancer Panel convened four meetings to assess the state of environmental cancer research, policy, and programs addressing known and potential effects of environmental exposures on cancer. The Panel received testimony from 45 invited experts from academia, government, industry, the environmental and cancer advocacy communities, and the public. 

The report summarizes the Panel’s findings and conclusions based on the testimony received and additional information gathering. The Panel’s recommendations delineate concrete actions that governments; industry; the research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation, and other harmful exposures. 

The report summarizes hazard sources from: 

• Industrial and manufacturing activities
• Agricultural practices
• Modern lifestyles
• Medical sources
• Military activities
• Natural resources.

Actions include: 

Here we go again? Shifting burden from one area to another.  A life cycle perspective should be taken:

In a December 8th, 2009 article, the NYTs reports: “Across vast regions of the country, gas companies are using a technology called hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas from previously untapped beds of shale. The push has been so successful that the country’s potential gas reserves jumped by 35 percent in two years. The new supplies have driven down natural gas prices for consumers and might help the global environment by allowing more production of electricity from natural gas, which emits fewer global warming emissions than coal.”

However the good intensions of cheaper, more abundant energy source that is less impactive on one area of the global environment, has a local serious environmental issue.   “Hazards like methane contamination of drinking water wells, long known in regions where gas production was common, are spreading to populous areas that have little history of coping with such risks, but happen to sit atop shale beds.”

The folks at GoodGuide had to retract their statement today regarding their claim of unsafe levels of antimony and chromium on the popular Zhu Zhu Pet toy.  This is unfortunate given the general veracity of taking a full life cycle approach to assess products and services.  We hope that in the future GoodGuide will heed third party review of results prior to disclosure to the public.

Here’s the press release from GoodGuide:

GoodGuide Issues Correction About Its Toy Testing Methodology

SAN FRANCISCO, CA–(Marketwire – December 7, 2009) – In a press release we issued on Saturday, December 5th, we published the results of our testing of chemical levels in toys and stated that certain toys we tested had antimony and chromium levels that exceed federal standards. Since issuing our release, we have learned that the testing methodology used in the federal standards (a soluble method) is different than the methodology we used in our testing (a surface-based method). Accordingly, while we accurately reported the chemical levels in the toys that we measured using our testing method, we should not have compared our results to federal standards. We regret this error.