As the Year Winds Down...

Happy Solstice! (the one ritual we all acknowledge this time of year)

Due to time constraints (and my realization that I’m suffering from computer-overuse-induced repetitive stress injury), Green Goddess Gazette is taking an indefinite pause.

However!

* If you like reading me, I’ll still be blogging on women, media and the environment (and other topics) over at the WIMN’s Voices group blog. (I also have a short piece in the current issue of BITCH: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, a print magazine. Look for my byline hither and yon in '08.)

* Green Goddess Gazette will be re-launched sometime next year in a new format, hopefully as a real, income-generating (?!) webzine. I envision a women’s environmental news digest with occasional feature interviews with women environmental newsmakers. From a feminist perspective, of course.

Onward to 2008!

Vindicating Rachel

May 2007 heralded the 100th birthday of biologist Rachel Carson, author of the seminal 1962 book Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers of synthetic chemicals and helped launch the modern environmental movement. While many media outlets celebrated her life and work with encomiums, other voices (notably contrarian New York Times columnist John Tierney) dismissed her as a fool or even a menace, responsible for countless deaths from mosquito-borne malaria in the developing world. The reason? Carson’s work warned about the effects of pesticides on birds (and humans), which led to DDT's banning in the United States.

"Rachel Carson: Mass Murderer?," an article in the current issue of Extra!, the journal of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, documents the sometimes absurd anti-environmentalist attacks on Carson and offers a science-based debunking of her critics.

Making Connections
Two other, unrelated articles appearing over the past month also bolster Carson’s defenders-- though that wasn't their explicit intention.

Marla Cone's September 30 article in the Los Angeles Times spotlights a new, National Cancer Institute-funded study that found links between early exposure to DDT and breast cancer.

Women heavily exposed to the pesticide DDT during childhood are five times as likely to develop breast cancer, a new scientific study suggests.

For decades, scientists have tried to determine whether there is a connection between breast cancer and DDT, the most widely used insecticide in history. The UC Berkeley research, based on a small number of Bay Area women, tested a theory that the person's age during exposure was critical, and provided the first evidence of a substantial effect on breast cancer.

The piece notes that "The new study looked for the first time at DDT concentrations in women when they were primarily in their 20s, closer to when their breasts developed and during a time of widespread spraying [which 'peaked in 1959.']. "

Timing, results suggest, is key: "The women in the top third of DDT concentrations who were exposed before age 14 were five times as likely to get breast cancer as the women with the lowest levels, according to the study. No relationship between cancer and the insecticide was found in the women born before 1931, who would have been older during any exposure."

The article also notes, "Other evidence also suggests that breast cancer can be triggered early in life. ...Japanese females who were younger than 20 in 1945 developed the highest breast cancer rates among those exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs."

Cone's piece makes sure to add that the results are preliminary and chemicals are only one factor in developing cancer. Still, the news is exciting progress in the prevention front. (Though it's too late for Carson, who died of...breast cancer.) And if you're scientifically minded, here's the study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives.)

Fighting Malaria without DDT?
And then there was this story: "New Malaria Vaccine Is Shown to Work in Infants Under 1 Year Old, a Study Finds," by Donald G. McNeil, Jr. of The New York Times.* It reports:

The world's most promising malaria vaccine has been shown to work in infants less than a year old, the most vulnerable group...The study, being published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, was small, comprising only 214 babies in Mozambique, and intended to show only that the vaccine was safe at such young ages. But it also indicated that the risk of catching malaria was reduced by 65 percent after the full course of three shots. ...If it passes much larger clinical trials set to start in seven countries next year, and if it is accepted by national regulatory agencies, it could be ready for distribution by 2012.

McNeil also notes,

In 2004, Dr. Alonso showed for the first time that the vaccine could protect children against infection or death. That study of 2,022 children aged 1 to 4 showed protection from infection about 45 percent of the time.

Such a relatively low level of protection would not be acceptable in a vaccine in the West, but malaria is a leading killer of African children, so even imperfect coverage is a major public health victory.

Clearly, new ways to fight deadly malaria are on the horizon – ones that don’t require spraying DDT.

Different articles, different days, different topics --- but the dots connect, if you’re paying attention.

*Available in the Times' archives

Documentary Eyes Environmental Links to Breast Cancer

I’ve complained before that articles on possible environmental links to breast (and other) cancers are relatively few and far between, and those that appear have no “legs.” So I was excited to hear about “No Family History,” an upcoming documentary investigating the links between breast cancer and the environment. Now in post-production, this independent film needs our support (donations are tax-exempt).

According to filmmaker Sabrina McCormick, an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at Michigan State University, she and her collaborators interviewed scientists, advocates, and survivors to (in the words of the promotional postcard) “move beyond ‘pink ribbon’ awareness to look at how we can prevent the illness.” The film addresses these issues through the story of one woman’s grueling story of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Read the rest of this post at WIMN's Voices.

Greening Our Lives: The Personal and the Political

Greetings! The Green Goddess is back, after a summer long on elder care and short on time to blog. But, dear readers, somehow more than a thousand of you visited just the same from as far away as Greenland, South Africa, and India. Thanks!

Greener Glossies
I see that the glossy women’s fashion magazines – despite (or perhaps because of ) their focus on exhorting consumption – are increasingly covering environmental issues, albeit from a “lifestyle” perspective. For example, Marie Claire has a piece that helps readers more closely parse their environmental “footprint.” The tagline:

Who's Carbon Footprint Is The Smallest? Guess who is earth-friendly and whose carbon footprint is to blame for drowning polar bears and worse: Is it the mountain maven, the globe-trotter, or the urban hipster? It’s not who you think….

Spoiler: Turns out their hypothetical solar-powered eco-activist is one of the worst offenders --because of her jet-fueled globe-trotting. The appletini-sipping, subway-riding, apartment-sharing city dweller is lightest on the planet. What’s rather ingenious about his piece is that it reflects the jumbled reality of people trying to live greener in the real world, with all the complex tradeoffs that implies, and provides simple suggestions on how to be more consistent if greenness is your goal.

Marie Claire also offers a handy guide to “The Top Three Carbon Evils” to further put the environmental impact of our lifestyle choices in perspective. Hint: The culprits are air travel, driving gas-guzzlers, and eating meat.

Or course, as I’ve said before, such articles skirt the real issue: that we operate in a larger society, and only broad institutional and policy change – not piecemeal actions by random individuals – will make a real difference in terms of "saving the earth."

Politicians have much more power than you or I to, say, initiate and enforce higher fuel-economy standards on the cars we Americans drive. To see where the major candidates stand on environmental issues, read Grist magazine's recent revealing series of interviews online.

Meantime, the excellent Consumers Guide to Effective Environmental Choices by the Union of Concerned Scientists is your best bet for advice on greener living.

Industry Standards
By the way, I asked Ashley Parish, Marie Claire’s web editor, what the magazine is doing to lighten its own carbon footprint. She replied that they “track greenhouse gas emissions and set greenhouse gas reduction targets at each of our supply mill sites; support recycling and recovery programs; improve energy efficiency in the manufacture of pulp and paper; and encourage increased use of biomass in paper production.” Presumably, she means the magazine's publisher, Hearst, is doing this. That's significant because it operates on an economy of scale.
OK, great. But I’d like to see some concrete statistics (it’s easy to say “we support” and “encourage”).

Parrish also noted that Marie Claire is beginning to cover eco-related news on a regular basis. Glad to hear a glossy's moving beyond an annual “green issue.”

'Toon In

Once again life and work are stealing me from blogging time. So in the interim, I offer for your amusement and enlightenment a couple of environment-related political cartoons by Mikhaela Reid.

This 27-year-old feminist inksmith recently published a book of her work, Attack of the 50- foot Mikhaela. Besides pollution, global warming, and the like, her trenchant and take-no prisoners 'toons tackle topics such as women’s body image, reproductive rights, the depredations of the radical Right, and more.

C’mon now and support another woman making her own media!