| Dear
EarthTalk: I need to replace my old TV. Can
you tell me which of the latest models is the greenest?
I was told that the flat-screen/plasmas are real energy
hogs. What do you recommend?
-- Angela Montague, via e-mail
| |
Some
flat screen TVs draw more power than a large refrigerator.
Beginning in November 2008, "Energy Star"
labels will begin appearing on televisions to help
consumers identify greener choices.
© Getty Images |
According
to The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith, a 42-inch
plasma TV set can draw more power than a large refrigerator,
even if the TV is only used a few hours a day. This is partly
because many newer models don’t turn off but go into
“standby” mode so they can start up fast later
with no warm-up period. “Powering a fancy TV and full-on
entertainment system—with set-top boxes, game consoles,
speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders—can add
nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill,” she
adds.
Smith
recommends green consumers consider the Liquid Crystal Display
(LCD) models, which typically uses less energy than comparable
plasma sets. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), a 28-inch conventional cathode-ray tube (CRT)
set uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set
might consume twice that amount, while plasma could use
five times as much, depending on the model and the programming.
For the largest screen sizes (60 inches and up), projection
TVs are the most energy efficient, clocking in at 150-200
watts—significantly less than the energy a plasma
set would use.
“What
scares us is that prices for plasma sets are dropping so
fast that people are saying, why get a 42-inch plasma set
when you can get a 60-inch or 64-inch one,” says Tom
Reddoch of the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute.
“They have no idea how much electricity these things
consume.”
For
its part, the industry is taking some steps to make its
products more efficient, and to improve disclosure of energy
usage. In June 2008 Sony pronounced its new 32-inch Bravia
KDL-32JE1 LCD model “the world’s most energy
efficient television.” Slated for sale in Japan in
August 2008 for around $1,400, the new set utilizes fluorescent
tubes to create higher levels of brightness with less energy
consumption, but still delivers large resolution, a high
contrast ratio and a wide viewing angle.
Beginning
in November 2008, forward-thinking manufacturers will get
a little boost from the U.S. government, which will start
awarding the most energy efficient new TV sets “Energy
Star” labels to help consumers identify greener choices.
TVs bearing the Energy Star label must operate at least
30 percent more efficiently than standard models in both
stand-by and active modes. Consumers can see which models
qualify by visiting the televisions section of the EnergyStar.gov
home electronics page. According to the EPA, if all TVs
sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, yearly energy
savings would top $1 billion and greenhouse gas emissions
would drop by the equivalent of taking a million cars off
the road.
Of
course, the greenest option of all (aside from getting out
from in front of that tube and spending more time outdoors)
is to keep or repair your existing CRT unit (a digital-to-analog
converter will be needed after February 2009 when new signal
specifications go into effect). Most CRT sets use less energy
than any of the LCD or plasma models, and if it ain’t
broke, why fix it? Buying a new TV, even a greener one,
only generates more pollution in production and transport,
and creates waste in junking the old model.
CONTACTS:
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Energy
Star; Electric
Power Research Institute; Sony
Corp.
Dear
EarthTalk: I heard that children are reaching
puberty at earlier ages now and that it may have to do with
environmental toxins and even their TV viewing habits. Can
you enlighten?
-- Mark Abbot, via e-mail
| |
Some
researchers believe that the preponderance of synthetic
chemicals in more developed societies are interfering
with human endocrine development and essentially "tricking"
kids‚ bodies into going through puberty prematurely.
© Getty Images |
To say that kids
are growing up faster than ever these days may be more than
just cliché. Recent studies have shown that children
are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, and researchers
are starting to see links between this trend and other societal
ills such as ubiquitous pollution and sedentary lifestyles.
In a 2007 report
for the Breast Cancer Fund entitled “The Falling Age
of Puberty in U.S. Girls: What We Know, What We Need to
Know,” ecologist Sandra Steingraber argues that unfettered
access to computers and TVs over the last 30 years has led
to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle among kids in the
U.S. and beyond. Active kids produce more melatonin, a natural
hormone that serves as the body’s internal clock and
calendar. This could explain why sedentary kids are likely
to go through puberty sooner: Their bodies think their decreased
melatonin production is a trigger to move into puberty.
“[Melatonin is] an inhibitory signal for puberty,”
says Steingraber. “The more melatonin you have, the
later you go into puberty.”
Of course, sedentary
lifestyles are also linked to childhood obesity, a condition
that often continues—along with the many health problems
that can accompany it—into adulthood. A recent National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that,
between 2001 and 2004, 17.5 percent of children ages six
to 11 were overweight—an effective doubling of obesity
rates three decades ago. A study by the non-profit Obesity
Society came up with a slightly higher figure—20 percent—with
the percentages higher for Hispanic, African-American and
Native American children.
Obesity is certainly
one factor in the surge in so-called “precocious”
adolescence, but chemicals are also thought to play a role.
According to Erin Barnes, writing in E – The Environmental
Magazine, a study comparing the body mass index of Danish
and American girls found that the former group hit puberty
a full year later than the latter even though their weights
were in the same range. Another study found that wealthy
girls in South Africa reach puberty a full year after their
African-American counterparts. “Many researchers,”
writes Barnes, “are studying the relationship between
chemical pollutants like PCBs (polychlorinated bphenyls)
and phthalates (commonly used plasticizers) and premature
development.”
Some researchers
believe that the preponderance of synthetic chemicals in
more developed societies are interfering with human endocrine
development and essentially “tricking” kids’
bodies into going through puberty prematurely. Also, precocious
puberty in girls has been linked to breast cancer, as well
as higher rates of drug abuse, violence, unintended pregnancies,
problems in school and mental health issues.
“Shortening
childhood means a shortening of the time before the brain’s
complete re-sculpting occurs,” says Steingraber. “Once
that happens, the brain doesn’t allow for complex
learning.” She adds that the brain can only build
the connections used to learn a language, play a musical
instrument or ride a bike before it gets flooded with the
sex hormones that come with the onset of puberty.
CONTACTS:
Breast
Cancer Fund; National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; Obesity
Society. |
