Greenversations

Last fall, I wrote about this blog’s Twitter account, @greenversations. Since then, several folks across EPA have been trying out Twitter, with varying approaches.  Today, I got this question from Randa Williams, a researcher at the University of Washington who’s looking into best practices for businesses on Twitter:

I wonder when you will start having conversations rather than just broadcasting on twitter…Lots of EPA broadcast channels on Twitter, exceptionally few conversations. I know, engagement is more work, wondering if you had thought about expanding into this area.

It was such a good question, I thought I’d respond publicly as well as emailing her.

Randa is right: the gold standard is conversing on Twitter and other social media sites, not just broadcasting. But she’s also right that it takes resources.  Not just someone’s time, but also having the right person, who’s plugged into what’s going on around EPA and who knows how to speak to the world on EPA’s behalf.

There are also different ways to use Twitter, and we’re experimenting with most of them.  For example, we’ve done a little live tweeting, with plans to do more.  There are also different approaches to who to follow, how frequently we can commit to posting, etc.

We do have a couple of good examples of interaction for content on a smaller scale than “all of EPA:”

• @EPAregion9 - Wendy Chavez in our San Francisco office.  I think Wendy is our best tweeter at the moment.
• @EPAespanol - Lina Younes at headquarters.  Lina leads our multilingual communications task force (have you seen all the languages in the upper right corner of our home page?), and she tweets in Spanish.

While we figure out the gold standard (interaction), we’re doing what we can on what I call the tin standard (broadcasting). Given the number of followers, it seems a decent number of people appreciate even that.  Here are some of our other accounts:

• @EPAgov - our main account.  Primarily our automated news release headlines and blog posts, plus a few web updates and manual tweets.  This account combines content that’s also split into individual accounts, and is also available on normal Web pages:
  • @EPAnews - news releases (same info as shown in our newsroom)
  • @greenversations - blog (same as the blog itself)
  • @EPAweb - updates to epa.gov (same info as shown on our recent additions page)
• @EPAlive - we’re occasionally experimenting with using this for live tweeting
• @EPAowow - Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
• @EPAairmarkets - market-based regulatory programs to improve U.S. air quality
• @EPAregion2 - regional office in New York
• @EPAregion3 - regional office in Philadelphia

We’re also working up some conventions, like starting our account names with “usepa” and using the same seal as the avatar.

Not quite in the same category, some of us are also tweeting professionally. We’re not “representing” EPA per se, but we’re using it as a professional network and information source.  For example:

• @levyj413 - this is my Twitter account, and I use it to discuss social media in government (especially EPA)
• @suzack777 - this is Suzanne Ackerman on our web team.  Suzanne uses Twitter to research projects like blogger outreach, and uses Twitter to make contacts and discuss related issues.

So thanks, Randa, for reminding me that we need to communicate more about what we’re up to.  Stay tuned for updates about our other social media efforts, too (in the meantime, join us on Facebook!).

Jeffrey Levy is EPA’s Director of Web Communications.

The average family in the United States uses 400 gallons of water every day. We use it to cook, clean, drink, garden and for many other indoor and outdoor activities. Water is definitely an important resource to us all and is essential to our everyday lives. Unfortunately, to get this water to our homes it takes a lot of energy. Two to three percent of the world’s energy consumption is used to treat and pump water to our homes. And, the percent of energy that we need to treat and pump our water changes from region to region depending on how much the region consumes. In California, for example, about 20 percent of the state’s energy is used to treat and pump its water. Therefore, in order to conserve energy, it is important to conserve our water use within our homes. The EPA estimates that by practicing water conserving techniques, you can reduce your water use by 20–30 percent. By reducing your water use, you will be able to reduce your homes energy use and also be able to save some money and reduce your carbon footprint. And, it’s very simple to reduce your water use!!! Some simple things that you can do include:

• Listen for dripping faucets and running toilets. Fixing a leak can save 300 gallons a month or more.
• Turn off the water while brushing your teeth and save 25 gallons a month.
• Run your clothes washer and dishwasher only when they are full. You can save up to 1,000 gallons a month.
• Find out more ways you can conserve water

Can you think of other things we can all do to conserve water? Be sure to let us know so we can all save energy by practicing water conservation.

About the author: Michelle Gugger graduated from Rutgers University in 2008. She is currently spending a year of service at EPA’s Region 3 Office in Philadelphia, PA as an AmeriCorps VISTA.

Recientemente, estaba escuchando un programa de radio donde los comentaristas estaban hablando sobre el 40mo aniversario del alunizaje. Me recuerdo esa noche muy bien. Presencié las imágenes de este hito histórico con mi bisabuela en Puerto Rico. Ella tenía 84 años entonces y conversamos sobre cómo el mundo había cambiado durante su vida. Ella describió ver la llegada de los primeros automóviles a la Isla. Ella contrastó esos acontecimientos con la gran noticia de esa noche del 20 de julio de 1969 cuando el primer hombre pisó la luna. Mirando hacia los últimos 40 años, hemos sido testigos de grandes avances tecnológicos e innovaciones que ahora tomamos por sentado. El viaje al espacio, las comunicaciones, la nanotecnología son sólo algunas de las cosas que han cambiado en los últimos cuarenta años. Y eso me lleva al tema de hoy.

Siempre me ha atraído el concepto del futuro. En los años sesenta, me acuerdo de haber ido a la Feria Mundial en Nueva York y haber visto varias exhibiciones que pronosticaban cómo la vida sería en el siglo 21. De hecho, mi programa favorito de dibujos animados, los Jetsons, era una serie cómica de ciencia ficción en animación que proyectaba la vida del siglo 25 como era concebida por los productores del programa en 1963. Habían robots, aparatos electrónicos, y autos que volaban. Si nos ponemos a pensar, la mayoría de estas ideas futuristas, salvo los autos voladores, se han convertido en realidad. Sin embargo, al recordar esta serie, noté algo recientemente que me puso a pensar. No había casi ninguna vegetación en ese “futuro”. No había árboles. No había verdor. ¿Acaso así será la vida en el siglo 25?

Si lo analizamos realmente, un futuro sin árboles ni vegetación no tan sólo sería preocupante, sino sería mortal para toda la humanidad. Muchos animales, inclusive los seres humanos, no podrían vivir sin vegetación alguna en la Tierra. Las plantas son necesarias por múltiples razones—nos brindan oxígeno y son la fundación de muchas cadenas alimenticias. Además, desempeñan un papel fundamental en la ecología—sirven para purificar la atmósfera de cantidades excesivas de emisiones de bióxido de carbono. Por lo tanto, cuando pensamos en desarrollo sustentable [http://www.epa.gov/Sustainability/index.htm ] y la protección ambiental, estas no son modas pasajeras. Son esenciales para nuestra supervivencia. Todos debemos de trabajar a favor del medio ambiente al comprometernos a tomar acción a favor de nuestro planeta [www.epa.gov/espanol/seleccione5 ] el Día del Planeta Tierra y todos los días.

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

About the author: Kristen Skopeck is from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She is an Air Force veteran who joined EPA in 2007 to be a member of the Hudson River PCB dredging project team. She likes to spend her time reading, writing, watching movies, walking, and meeting new people.

In 2009 dredging began in the Upper Hudson River to remove sediments with PCBs. Read more.

Last week, a team of archaeologists and divers evaluated the remains of a late-18th or early-19th Century boat long submerged in the eastern channel of Rogers Island. Enough of the boat was intact to see that it had a distinctive centerboard keel slot technology that was an important innovation in early American shipbuilding. Divers used a small hydraulic dredge (similar to a vacuum) to further expose the vessel, screened the dredged sediment, measured the vessel, and took photos and video of the work. Afterward, the vessel was exhumed in pieces and added to a collection of other large debris, like tree stumps, that will ultimately be disposed of at a permitted landfill. Unfortunately, the boat’s deterioration and its coating of PCB-contaminated sediment prevented it from being brought to the surface and restored.

The entire PCB-removal project has been done in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, which states federal agencies must take into account the effects of their actions on any district, site, building, structure or object listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. So far, archeologists have found 10 sunken vessels that are being evaluated in the first phase of the project.

So, how did this boat end up submerged by Rogers Island? Fort Edward’s historian, Paul McCarty, said there is no way to know if the boat was put there for a reason or if it was a wreck, but the odds are that the boat was sunk in an accident and left underwater as a derelict. He hopes the underwater investigation and subsequent report will give some indication of what timeframe the boat met its demise and, maybe, help us understand why it happened.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

For each month in 2009, the Year of Science—we will pose a question related to science. Please let us know your thoughts as comments, and feel free to respond to earlier comments, or post new ideas.

The Year of Science theme for June is “Celebrate the Ocean and Water.”

Many EPA scientists celebrate the Ocean and Water by studying how to protect them and keep them clean for human and ecosystem health.

Now that summer is here, how do you plan to celebrate the ocean and water in the coming months?

About the author: Jeffery Robichaud is a second generation scientist with EPA who started in 1998. He serves as Chief of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch in Kansas City.

I struggle with chit-chat at social gatherings when the inevitable, “What do you do?” question is asked. It is easy to say I work for the EPA. But if the party-goer probes further, my answer is usually, “Well I work with a group of scientists and engineers who do lots and lots of different complicated sciency things in the laboratory and in the field to protect public health and the environment.” Usually at this point they ignore me and turn to my wife, the professional photographer, in an effort to avoid being blinded with science.

Joking aside, science is at the very core of everything we do as an Agency. In a Regional office, most of the Science we perform is Applied Science…taking all of the data and conclusions of basic science research, national studies, and Agency policies and translating them into decisions that affect the public and the environment in a very real way, often in their own backyards. Here in Kansas City, I’m lucky to have a team of professionals that has received numerous top national awards and recognition in an ill-understood but extremely important scientific field, risk assessment. In fact, when I searched Greenversations it wasn’t even mentioned.

Risk Assessment is a scientific process used to characterize the nature and magnitude of health risks to humans, fish and wildlife from exposures to chemical contaminants and other stressors. It brings together many scientific disciplines including chemistry, biology, toxicology, geology, statistics and ecology, all with the goal of providing the scientific support behind the Agency’s decisions. Risk Assessment is the science behind the establishment of fish advisories, cleanup levels at hazardous waste sites, evaluating health risks associated with toxic air pollutants, and registration of pesticides.

Beyond the obvious ability to affect decisions regarding human health and the environment, those of us involved with risk assessment enjoy the discipline since it is constantly evolving. Updated information on the toxicity of chemicals continually emerges, new exposure pathways come to the forefront such as vapor intrusion and exciting activities are always around the corner such as the field as computational toxicology. It is both challenging and rewarding to ensure that the best science is brought to bear as we meet tough challenges in the coming years. We’ll be hard at work performing the science behind the scenes; however don’t be afraid to talk to one of us at a cocktail party. Scientists are people too.

About the author: Brenda Reyes Tomassini joined EPA in 2002. She is a public affairs specialist in the San Juan, Puerto Rico office and also handles community relations for the Caribbean Environmental Protection Division.

It’s time for the dreaded task again: time to paint our house. As I discussed with my husband the possibility of hiring a contractor to paint the house exterior and for us to paint inside, our son’s asthma became a sudden concern. Paints, stains and varnishes release low level toxic emissions into the air for years after application . These toxic emissions stem from a variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are a by-product of petrochemical-based solvents used in paints. Exposure to VOC’s in paint can trigger asthma attacks, eye, throat and nose irritation, respiratory problems, nausea, allergic skin reactions and dizziness among other symptoms. As one can imagine, painting our house would require extreme planning, including a temporary move.

EPA studies indicate that when people use and store products containing organic chemicals, they can expose themselves and others to very high pollutant levels. These elevated concentrations can persist in the air long after the activity is completed, thus causing the quality of indoor air to deteriorate.

Given our concerns, I decided to embark on an internet research of our alternatives for painting the house without affecting our son’s health. These is a list of the suggestions I found on various sites, including EPA’s

• Low VOC or No VOC paints are an excellent alternative for painting the inside of our house.
• Ventilation is very important while painting.
• Warnings in the labels are extremely important since these are aimed at reducing exposure of the user.
• Buying limited quantities might save us something more than money. By buying only what we need we won’t have to worry about the fumes and toxic materials emitted by these paints while being on storage. Gases can leak even when the containers are closed.
• By using the right equipment-including masks–as with any other household project–we can reduce our exposure to hazardous substances while completing our task.

So before mixing that paint, take the necessary steps to protect your family.

Sobre la autor: Brenda Reyes Tomassini se unió a la EPA en el 2002. Labora como especialista de relaciones públicas en la oficina de EPA en San Juan, Puerto Rico donde también maneja asuntos comunitarios para la División de Protección Ambiental del Caribe.

Es tiempo de pintar la casa, una tarea no muy fácil. Mientras discutía con mi esposo la posibilidad de contratar los servicios de un pintor para que pinte la parte exterior de la casa, mientras nosotros pintamos el interior, nos percatamos que esta vez tenemos que tomar en consideración a nuestro hijo de 3 años. La casa había sido pintada previamente en el 2005, al poco tiempo de su nacimiento, pero nosotros no vivíamos en la residencia ya que se encontraba en proceso de remodelación. Nuestro hijo es asmático y los olores fuertes agravan su condición al irritar sus vías respiratorias. La pintura y productos relacionados liberan al aire emisiones tóxicas aún años después de aplicarlas. Estas emisiones provienen de una variedad de compuestos orgánicos volátiles (VOC’s) que son producto de solventes a base de petróleo. La exposición a estos VOC pueden provocar un ataque de asma al igual que irritación de ojos, nariz y garganta, problemas respiratorios, nausea, reacciones alérgicas en la piel y mareos, entre otros síntomas. Como es de suponer, pintar nuestra casa conllevará mucha planificación, entre ellas una mudanza temporera.

Los estudios de EPA indican que cuando las personas utilizan y almacenan productos que contienen sustancias químicas orgánicas pueden exponerse a ellas y a otros altos niveles de contaminantes. Estas concentraciones elevadas pueden persistir en el aire una vez la actividad haya sido completada y deteriorar la calidad del aire interior.

Debido a nuestras preocupaciones, decidí iniciar una búsqueda en Internet sobre nuestras alternativas para pintar la casa sin afectar la salud de nuestro hijo. Esta es una lista de las sugerencias que encontré en varias páginas electrónicas, incluyendo la de EPA

• Utilice pintura baja en VOC o que no contenga VOC. Estas son una excelente alternativa para las paredes interiores.
• Mantener ventilación apropiada a la hora de pintar
• Lea las etiquetas ya que estas están diseñadas para evitar el riesgo por exposición inadecuada.
• Comprar pocas cantidades puede ahorrar algo más que dinero. Al comprar sólo lo que necesitamos no tenemos que preocuparnos por los gases tóxicos que estas pinturas puedan emitir al estar almacenadas. Los gases pueden escaparse inclusive en envases cerrados.
• Al utilizar el equipo adecuado–incluyendo mascarillas–en cualquier proyecto casero podemos reducir nuestra exposición a sustancias tóxicas mientras completamos nuestras tareas

Así que antes que comience a mezclar esa pintura, tome las medidas adecuadas y proteja a su familia.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Barbara Klieforth is the Acting Associate Center Director for Drinking Water in the National Center for Environmental Research at EPA’s Office of Research and Development. She is also a life-long committed cycling commuter.

While ‘being green’ is not the only reason I bike to work (it’s also fun and faster!), it is something I think about – especially since I do some of my best thinking on my commute into the office. As a scientist I was trained to be a critical thinker, but as an EPA scientist I have be more thorough than ever because we have to substantiate doing new research and our science directly impacts people’s lives. So, especially now during national ‘bike to work’ week, I find myself wondering how to quantify the environmental benefits of my 6.5 mile ride to the office. Economically, bike commuting is a no-brainer: I easily save thousands of dollars a year biking versus driving. But, in strictly environmental terms, is commuting by bike worth the risks it poses (including forgetting such things as dress shoes!)? There are lots of cool online tools that calculate the environmental benefits of biking (e.g., Go by Bike Challenge, EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator), but one of my favorite sites simply compares the energy costs per kilometer of different forms of transportation.

In other words, the bicycle is an extremely efficient mode of transportation, and I am definitely saving plenty of energy per mile (good thing I have lots of personal calories to spare!). Less fossil energy burned = less polluting emissions. I know from some of my current focus at work on the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide that technological solutions to environmental problems we could be helping prevent in the first place are incredibly daunting. So I’d say no further research is needed to confirm that there are substantial environmental benefits to bicycling as a means of transportation. I can do something today to decrease pollution, reduce usage of fossil fuels, and have some fun on the way!

About the author: Larry Teller joined EPA’s Philadelphia office in its early months and has worked in environmental assessment, state and congressional liaison, enforcement, and communications. His 28 years with the U.S. Air Force, most as a reservist, give him a different look at government service.

My doorbell rarely rings. Invited guests, whom we called “company” as kids—we knew company was coming when Mom wouldn’t let us touch any treats for a couple of days, lest there not be enough left—usually knock, or I see them coming up the steps and beat them to the door. But a number of those rare rings each year are by people, typically college students, who ask me to sign a petition for worthy causes such as improved right-to-know laws, broader access to wind power, restricted pesticide use, and setting aside undeveloped land for wildlife habitat. I’m usually a sucker for these ringers and, please don’t tell anyone, shell out a double sawbuck when money is requested.

I always enjoy the short discussions that precede the requests. What’s changed since January, very noticeably, is the petitioners’ reaction when, if the conversation goes that way, I reveal my EPA affiliation. Although it makes no sense to bad-mouth or bad-look someone’s employer when you’re trying to get a donation from him, many of the doorway students in recent years showed their distaste for EPA, either with a proud derogatory comment or a telling smirk. It’s as if they couldn’t help themselves, despite the donation- or signature-seeking purpose of their visit.

Any of us who have worked for EPA for many years have seen the public’s view of how we’re doing turn from admiration to doubt to distaste to gratitude and to everywhere in between. And there have been times when, despite my insider’s (lifer’s?) belief that what we do is good—“Tikkun olam,” repairing the earth—we’ve all at times been, let’s say, less-than-inspired by what’s said, or not, from the top. (But don’t get me started.)

Twice in recent weeks, including yesterday, my EPA doorway confession yielded something novel for this decade: earnest inquiries about job opportunities. I know times are tough for job seekers (my older daughter is graduating from college next month and is ISO a job with health coverage), but I wonder with a slight grin if there’s another explanation for the different reaction to the mention of my favorite government agency.