Also posted at SayAnythingBlog

INDEPENDENT

A new report published by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Global Footprint Network states that we are currently living through a period of mass extinction which is unprecedented since the time of the dinosaurs - 65 million years ago - and the cause? Human activity, of course.

The report says that in the 35 years to 2005, biodiversity has fallen by almost a third, elaborating that

"...land species have declined by 25 per cent, marine life by 28 per cent, and freshwater species by 29 per cent"

Tracking nearly 4,000 species between 1970 and 2005, the team has not only revealed the destruction of the Earth's wildlife, but also pointed the finger at the perpetrators of this devastation.

Ben Collen, extinctions researcher at ZSL, said: "Between 1960 and 2000, the human population of the world has doubled. Yet during the same period, the animal populations have declined by 30 per cent. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans."

The thing that concerns me most is not that humans are to blame, but that such a profound loss of biodiversity could have far reaching implications for future biodiversity, especially with the advent of climate change (whether human caused or not - THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A MMGW DEBATE).

Less biodiversity, means less range within an ecology to respond to abrupt environmental changes. Therefore, there is less chance (a third less?) that species will survive such upheaval, which could have disastrous implications for us and for the biosphere.

What can we do about it?

We can pressure our governments to do something, but ultimately I think it'll be a lost cause. I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic as I get older and really can't see how we, as a species, can ever cooperate on something as big and far reaching as this.

This is an edited version of my first essay for my course. The essay in full and references can be provided on request.

The TV documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ (2007) seems to have been responsible for a lot of apathy and disinterest in anthropogenic climate change. Widely broadcast around the world on television and on the internet, it altered many people’s perceptions of man-made global warming, despite the widespread rebuttals, like that of Jones et al (2007) of the Australian National Climate Centre who concluded that it “...goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science...”
Indeed, environmental campaigner Jonathan Porritt (2007) wrote in his blog, “It’s down to dorks like Durkin... ...that an almost unbelievable 56% of people in the UK still believe that there’s a major scientific controversy about what’s causing climate change (citing Mori, 2007) ”
In November 2006, Sunday Telegraph reporter Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley published a series of articles, named Apocalypse Cancelled which claimed to lay waste to conventional climate change theory. He accompanied his newspaper articles with a referenced document, purporting to support his position.
In his paper, Monckton praised Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his scepticism of the impact of carbon dioxide on anthropogenic climate change. However, Professor Lindzen’s impartiality in this debate has been called into question by Ross Gelbspan writing in Harper’s in 1995. He reported that Lindzen’s speech ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus’, was underwritten by OPEC and that he received $2,500 a day for his consultancy services to the oil and coal industries.
Monckton was highly critical of the UN’s publication of graphs which failed to show the so-called ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ in global temperature trends, however Bradley et al (2003) concluded “...although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe.”
In the same paper Bradley et al cite Hughes and Diaz (1994) “...found no clear support for there having been a globally extensive warm epoch in the MWE (Medieval Warm Epoch), or indeed within a longer interval stretching from the 9th to the early 15th century”

Meanwhile, Mann et al (2003) concluded “While relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th , 11th and 12th centuries...(is) evident from reconstructions of hemispheric-mean temperature the specific periods of ...warmth differ from region to region from those for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.”

Hence one can surmise that the medieval warm period would not register on a global average temperature record as any single period of elevated readings.
Monckton is heavily critical of the hockey-stick graph produced by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) (1998, 1999) and heavily cited by the IPCC in their 2001 report. He draws extensively on the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) who claimed that Mann et al’s (1998,1999) methodology was flawed and was “ primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”
McIntyre and McKitrick produced two more analyses of the work of Mann et al (1998, 1999)Global-scale temperature patterns over the past six centuries: a comment (2004) and also Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance (2005) of which rebuttals have been made on the latter, notably by Huybers (2005) and von Storch and Zorita (2005). In February 2006, writing in Climatic Change, Wahl and Ammann produced Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence, in which they concluded that “Our results show that the MBH climate reconstruction method applied to the original proxy data is not only reproducible, but also proves robust against important simplifications and modifications...” and also that the accusations of poor data handling “...cannot be upheld, and leaves unchanged the overall MBH result of uniquely high Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th century.”
Another criticism by Monckton and Durkin is that the 420,000 year temperature and carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice cores appears to suggest that the temperature rose before carbon dioxide concentrations. This was also a claim made in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ to indicate that CO2 was not responsible for current elevated temperatures. This oversimplification of climate science is a false dichotomy which attempts to discredit accepted theory. Greenhouse gases are not the only forcing agent which influence climate as Monckton and The Great Global Warming Swindle suggest, but one of many. The assertion that rising CO2 was not responsible for the end of successive ice-ages is true, however that does not have bearing on modern man made global warming.
Accepted theory on the precession of ice ages is known as Milankovitch theory or astronomical theory of climate change and suggests that the earth’s tilt relative to the astronomical plane causes the seasons as we experience them and on a larger time-scale variations in this tilt and the earth’s orbit cause increased glaciation, which in turn causes the precession of ice ages (as more ice forms, more solar radiation is reflected back into space) .
So the driver of glacial and inter-glacial periods can be explained by the earth’s orbit and tilt. As the earth cools, increased amounts of carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, which has a negative feedback effect and increases cooling. Therefore as the earth warms at the end of a glacial period, increased amounts of carbon dioxide are released from the warmer oceans (because carbon dioxide is less soluble in warmer water), thereby creating a positive feedback and further warming. So we would expect atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to lag behind global temperature levels initially, but the positive feedback effect would drive further warming and thereby drive further release of CO2 from the oceans leading to the observed data.
Monckton indicates that the Antarctic and high altitude Greenland ice sheets have grown in recent decades, which contradicts global warming models which are often suggestive of increased melt in these regions. While this is true, this perhaps suggests a lack of understanding of the complexities of polar weather systems rather than proof of the fallacy of anthropogenic climate change. As Johannessen (2005) suggests, increases in high altitude ice sheet thickness in Greenland are perhaps indicative of a heretofore unknown correlation between Greenland weather patterns and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Johannessen's models suggested that three quarters of the high altitude ice sheet expansion could be explained by weather systems influenced by the NAO and therefore a quarter of the growth could be caused by global warming.
It is not outside the realms of possibility that a proportion of Antarctic ice sheet growth is caused by global warming too. While this could be indicative that sea level rises may not result from increased Antarctic melt, it does not preclude thermal expansion (amongst other drivers) from causing elevated sea levels.
On October fifteenth 2007, The Independent newspaper ran an article entitled 'Climate deniers to send film to British Schools' detailing plans by Viscount Monckton to send copies of The Great Global Warming Swindle in a package with a film of his own making called Apocalypse No!. This package is a rebuttal to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth due to be distributed to British secondary schools by UK government.
The article stated that Monckton does accept that the climate is changing and that at least some of it is due to humans, but he does not accept the catastrophic visions portrayed in Mr Gore's film or by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lord Monckton wants everyone to “... get a first chance to have both sides of the story and see that there is much greater division in the scientific community about climate change than we are led to believe by politicians.”
In 2007, Mori published ‘Turning-point or tipping-point’, it’s study into public perception of climate change. It found that although there is widespread acceptance of climate change (88%), there is much confusion over it’s causes and effects. 56% of respondents thought there was no clear consensus within the scientific community on anthropogenic climate change, while half thought that humans were not the principle cause of global warming.
58% of those questioned thought that a cleaner atmosphere would be a primary result of efforts to combat climate change. This ideation is possibly a throwback to the environmental campaigns of the seventies and eighties to combat atmospheric pollution.
Also in 2007, Yale University and Gallup released figures from an American poll on global warming. 71% of respondents were convinced that climate change is happening, but more than half thought that there is no scientific consensus. Of those who stated they believed climate change was happening, slightly less than a third thought it was entirely due to natural causes and over half thought that humans are entirely responsible.

US broadcaster Fox’s news anchors outright deny the science of anthropogenic climate change, which could have a detrimental effect on US confidence in the consensus on man-made global warming (although as the Gallup poll [2007] shows, many Americans seem to be making their own decisions, despite such negative broadcasting). The channel is staunchly right-wing in it’s coverage and editorial style and follows US conservative environmental policy doggedly. They play to the heart-strings of Americans who do not wish to see a detrimental change to their way of life. The right of every American to drive huge gas-guzzling trucks and have whatever they want whenever they want it, is almost synonymous with the right to bear arms. They champion the American way as a template for the rest of the world and don't seem to want to surrender any of the freedoms (or luxuries) to which they have become accustomed.
Such coverage introduces more doubt into the public debate and keeps people arguing over whether anthropogenic climate change exists. Therefore no political consensus is reached and individuals, corporations and governments are absolved from having to take evasive action, which might otherwise cause them to have to change their standard of living. There is also the possibility that such argument would create a lack of concern for the impacts of climate change or even for the ability of humanity to effectuate change (for good), which could easily lead to greater and more catastrophic climate change than we necessarily have to tolerate.
Of course, debate is necessary with such a far-reaching and consequential issue, such as anthropogenic climate change, but one-sided and biased reporting can just create more confusion, which can ultimately negatively influence public trust in scientific data from the IPCC and others.
The mainstream media and governments themselves seem to be intent on politicising the science of anthropogenic climate change, which rather than winning public support, can have a detrimental effect on public opinion.
As I have shown, many of the myths employed by climate change sceptics do not stand up under basic scientific scrutiny, but are perhaps convincing enough in their apparent simplicity and just that little bit too complicated for the 'average Joe Bloggs' to question their validity.
It is a matter of grave concern that Lord Monckton will soon be directly influencing British secondary school children with his brand of climate change scepticism. His 'evidence' is severely lacking in substance, though he more than makes up for that with complicated babble, which may just convince our children that he makes a fair point and there really is nothing to worry about.
It would be beneficial to produce more educational tools to teach our school children the true science of anthropogenic climate change.
Having said this, there does appear to be hope that people both here and in the US recognise that climate change is taking place and are willing to make a concerted effort to combat it. It may well be, that further and sustained extreme weather events are needed to convince people of the very real threat that climate change presents, but a public consensus on man made global warming must come soon if we are to make any headway in effectuating positive changes. Although I would not wish for such events to take place, as there effects would undoubtedly result in suffering for many it may be the only way to convince those people who are currently on the fence.

UPDATE: The possibility of this happening before 2030 took a blow this week with the publishing of a paper in Science, which suggested that the effects of GW, in the Northern hemisphere particularly, could be softened by reduced ocean currents until then, but then would closely follow established IPCC predictions. Throughout the course of my studies, it has become apparent that unless a concerted effort is made to reduce emissions dramatically by 2020, we will essentially be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If the true effects of GW are downplayed until 2030, then the deniers will have all the ammunition they need to continue to create doubt in people's minds, resulting in no action being taken to combat it's effects until it really is too late.

The following is an edited version of a recent essay, submitted in January. References and the full essay can be provided on request.

With the advent of anthropogenic climate change, it has become par for the course to consider the embodied carbon (and even the embodied energy) of the products we buy and our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint can often influence our shopping habits. It is becoming apparent however, that we also need to consider the embedded water in many of the products we buy, as we may be depriving water-scarce countries of this increasingly valuable resource and hastening future environmental and socio-economic crises for them and perhaps for ourselves. However, there is evidence to support the case for these same water-scarce countries sourcing many, if not all of their water intensive foodstuffs from water-rich countries. This paper will examine the issue of embedded water and it's perceived negative and positive aspects, both globally and for the United Kingdom.

Virtual water, sometimes referred to as embedded, exogenous or embodied water, was a term popularised by J Allan (1998) to refer to the water used to produce food products. More recently the term has been extended to include industrial products and agricultural commodities, including livestock and livestock products (Hoekstra & Hung 2005; Chapagain & Hoekstra 2003). The trade in virtual water, although a new concept, is not new in and of itself. Virtual water has been traded for as long trade has taken place, it just hasn't been defined as such. The level of trade in virtual water is known as virtual water flow, expressed either as a positive or negative figure – positive figures imply a net import of virtual water and negative figures a net export.
The use of embedded water, calculated on a country, business or individual basis is known as the water footprint, intended as a compliment to the already well accepted ideas of carbon footprint and ecological footprint.
'Blue' water and 'green' water refers to the source of the water used in the production process. Blue water is surface or ground water and is used for irrigation, industrial processes and municipal supplies, whereas green water is water contained in or absorbed by the organic matter in the soil and is usually replenished through transpiration. The use of 'green' water for production of crops is preferred to irrigating with 'blue' water, because it is far more efficient use or the resource and there is not really any alternative use for it.
If we consider that, globally, we already use half of all available 'blue' water to satisfy our water needs and that seventy percent of that is used for irrigation, whilst only between fifteen and thirty four per cent of all the crops grown in the world are produced through irrigation (Zygmunt, 2007; Fraiture et al 2004), we can see the scale of the waste inherent in the industry. Countries that rely on a preponderance of 'blue' water to grow crops through irrigation are often, though not always, to be found in semi-arid parts of the world where the high temperatures and high evapotranspiration rates make the the growing of water intensive crops (like cereals) an inefficient use of the available water resource – in arid countries the extraction of 'blue' water for irrigation rises to between eighty and ninety per cent (Warner 2003).
With the prospect of a steadily increasing global population, we can only expect the abstraction of 'blue' water to increase, which would put further strain on the available supplies of water and adversely effect vital ecosystems, which also require a portion of this water to survive. It should also be noted that a proportion of 'blue' water is necessary to dilute the water-borne pollution that results from mankind's activities and reducing the dilution that currently takes place could have a detrimental effect on already fragile aquatic ecologies.
As an example of 'green' water agriculture over that of 'blue' water, in temperate climes wheat production will use around one to two cubic metres of water per kg, whilst in arid climes the same

amount of wheat will use three to five cubic metres of water per kg (Hoekstra & Hung 2003). The main wheat exporting countries often produce the grain at a (subsidised) price which outcompetes it's production costs in other wheat producing countries. It is therefore much more cost effective, both in financial terms and in the amount of water used, for water poor countries to import wheat from water rich countries.
In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the trade in virtual water has been advanced has a possible preventative measure to avoid water conflicts (conflicts arising from competition over limited water resources) as water-scarce countries can import water intensive crops and products from water rich countries, so diverting their limited supplies of water to more productive or beneficial uses.(Allan 1998).

In fact, Allan (1998) suggests that the virtual water trade has already prevented such conflicts considering that “water demand began to exceed supply in the early 1970s for the region. Some countries have faced deficits since the 1950s.” Pohoryles (2000) suggests that the countries of the Jordan basin will require most of the available water for non-agricultural purposes by 2025, making the trade in virtual water essential for their survival.

The virtual water trade, in many cases including the countries of the Jordan Basin, is the harbinger of the end of food sovereignty (the ability to feed one's own populace) for many nations, particularly those that are water-scarce. This is not a proposition that would likely be welcomed by any sensible statesman, given that they would be making their country dependent on imports to feed the populace, so countries seeking a policy of virtual water trading have been doing so quietly and gradually. For example, Israel despite making no public policy decisions, imports 80% of it's national caloric intake, whilst Palestine imports 65% (Shuval 2005).

Of course, if a country were to become dependent on imports to satisfy their staple food needs, they would also be making much of their previously agrarian population unemployed and would need to invest heavily in industrial or commercial development to ensure their socio-economic stability. Charrier and Curtin (2000) suggest that “no change will be sustainable if it out-runs a community's capacity to adapt to new circumstances.”, so any moves away from domestic production of staple foods needs to be accompanied by a public policy of education and assimilation of the previously agrarian populace into new career streams. It is possible that some countries can continue with more profitable agricultural production than that of cereal crops, when faced with water shortages.

The World Water Council (2004) found that Spain had successfully moved from a prevalence of corn and alfalfa production to mainly olive and grape production when faced with dwindling water supplies, with little socio-economic impacts upon the country as a whole. Of course, such drastic changes in agricultural practices would be incredibly difficult in less developed countries, where subsistence farming is more prevalent and internally produced crops are the principal source of that nation's staple food supplies.

The United States is the world's greatest virtual water exporter at 152 billion cubic metres of water, which in terms of embedded water isn't too bad considering that they only irrigate 15% of their crops, although much of the water for this irrigation comes from over extracted aquifers (Woodhouse and Overpeck 1998) and much of that is used for rice production, which is not particularly suited to the environmental conditions found there. On the other hand, Thailand, one of the world's largest rice exporters, also has very high virtual water export rates and incredibly poor water productivity, but much of the water used here is flood water from inter-seasonal monsoon rains which would otherwise cause damaging floods and then flow into the sea, so should not necessarily be viewed as a detrimental virtual water export. It can also be noted that the process of storing water in paddy fields, increases the amount of water which seeps into the water table, thereby replenishing aquifers. (Zygmunt 2007)
According to Chapagain and Hoekstra (2007) the global water footprint is 7450 billion cubic metres per year, which averages out to 1240 cubic metres per person per year, but the difference between individual countries is vast, with that of China being three and a half times less than that of the United States. The US tops the list at around 6800 litres per person per day, with the UK close to the global average. The US and Canada are high, in part because of the high levels of meat and industrial consumption therein, whilst Malaysia suffers from incredibly poor crop yields coupled with poor agricultural practices (Zygmunt 2007). The UK's water footprint would not be so high if we did not import so much virtual water, which can be explained in part by the high population density of these islands and hence our inability to provide adequate food from the available agricultural land, but also due to supermarkets sourcing much of our food from cheaper overseas suppliers.

The water embedded in foodstuffs is the largest contributor to our global water footprint, with most food worldwide being grown and consumed within a countries borders. Eighty six per cent of the global water footprint is due to food consumption, with only thirteen per cent coming from imports. In comparison, sixty six per cent of the British water footprint is due to our food and yet forty eight per cent is due to virtual water imported in our foods. Such a positive virtual water flow to the UK, implies that we are unable to provide anywhere near sufficient food supplies from internal sources and could be setting ourselves up for a fall were the supply chain to be interrupted somehow.

The Virtual Water Trade could help to ameliorate some of the conditions brought about by the advent of anthropogenic climate change, but by it's very nature of transporting food around the world it could also contribute to higher carbon emissions. We just don't know what the long term effects of climate change will be, but if it leads to excessive droughts in many of the water exporting countries, then those countries that have become dependent on imports of staple foods, including our own, could find themselves facing a starving population and no way to resolve the situation short of rationing and even war to secure adequate supplies.
The issue of embedded water in our food and commodities could have detrimental effects on the economies of the world's developing nations. The promotion of free trade, as a panacea for the economic doldrums that many second and third world nations find themselves faced with, could in the not too distant future, lead to famines on a scale never seen before, due to the the changing climate, the amount of embedded water that these often water scarce countries export and their increasing dependency on imported staple foods (as an attempt to offset their water deficiencies).
A responsible and pragmatic approach for first world countries such as the UK would be to limit the amount of water intensive commodities we source from overseas. Our heavy dependency on imported foodstuffs could easily spell disaster for us, if adverse weather conditions were to effect the countries that supply us with the food we require – a prospect that is increasingly likely as climate change accelerates. In fact in terms of reducing our water footprints, it seems to be hugely irresponsible for a country like ours, with so much 'green' water available to us, to not be producing more water intensive foods like cereals and animal products and exporting some of them to water scarce countries around the world. Unfortunately, embedded water is not taken into account in the calculations of prices of much of our foods and our 'strong' economy often prevents our foods finding a market elsewhere, when much cheaper foods can be sourced from countries with weaker economies.
A globally integrated program which takes into account the embodied carbon, embedded water and ecological footprint in all the agricultural commodities and industrial products we source, whilst ensuring that 'green' virtual water exports to water scarce countries remain high, seems to be a rational and responsible course of action, but realistically is unlikely to happen. It doesn't even seem to be likely that such a program could be established just within the UK, as there are too many conflicting interests that would suffer as a result.

What follows is an edited version of my most recent essay. References and the full essay can be provided on request.

It is a common practice to use a thin metal core in the centre of a candle wick, to encourage the wick to remain rigid, centred on the candle, to ensure clean (soot-free) and proper burning and to encourage longevity of burn time. Usually zinc, tin or aluminium are used, but occasionally lead is used (CSTEE, 2003). The most common types of candles to use metal cored wicks are container, votive, pillar and tealight candles, particularly those sourced from the Far East. Taper candles do not use metal cored wicks (CSPS, 2003).
The use of lead cored wicks in candles has been explored in several papers and journals in recent years (Van Alphen, 1999; Wasson et al, 2000; Nriagu & Kim, 2000; USEPA, 2001) and has contributed to their banning, both in imports and domestic production, in the United States by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPS) in 2003, in Denmark in 2002 and in Finland (for indoor use) in 2001. There has been a voluntary program in the UK, for British candle producers, since the 1970s (ECED, 2004). There is however no law banning them in the UK and throughout much of Europe and even if most European candle makers do not use lead-cored wicks, there is no way for consumers to find out if they are used in domestically produced candles nor in those imported to the region, as lead testing kits are not readily available.
One company, Abotex, in London, Canada sells the Lead Inspector - a kit for lead testing - and it is this equipment that shall be used to test 19 candles sourced from supermarkets and independent retailers in the Norwich area, to attempt to ascertain the frequency of use of lead cored candle wicks.

The toxicity of lead is well documented. Indeed, in around 25 BCE, the architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio advised against it's use in water pipes and other elements where it would come into contact with citizens. His warnings were not however heeded and more recently, amongst others Hong et al (1994) suggest that lead poisoning could have contributed to the fall of the Roman empire.
It wasn't until the mid nineteenth century, after centuries of lead use that it's toxic effects began to be accepted and still another century or so before measures were taken to mitigate it's use. The effects of lead poisoning are now well documented and in adults and older children include gastrointestinal discomfort, constipation, anorexia, nausea, fatigue, weakness, personality changes, headache, hearing loss, tremor, lack of coordination and in infants and small children lead poisoning causes irritability, abdominal pain, ataxia, seizures/ loss of consciousness, (chronic) learning deficits hyperactivity and reduced attention span (USEPA, 2001) some of which are irreversible (Nriagu & Kim, 2000) The European Union's maximum safe limit for airborne lead particulates is 2 μg/m³, whilst the World Health Organisation recommends even less at 1.5 μg/m³ (CSTEE, 2003).

In 1999, Van Alphen ignited the debate on lead in candle emissions. His study of candles bought in Adelaide, Australia and manufactured in China found that around twenty per cent of the lead contained in candle wicks was released into the air as a result of combustion in the form of Sodium Lead Carbonate Hydroxide [NaPb(CO)OH]. As this is a lead carbonate, it is readily absorbed through the tissues of the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract. Not only did he find that the airborne lead particulates could be easily inhaled, but also that they would settle on surfaces throughout the house as a fine dust and create a second vector for lead poisoning, particularly for young children who often engage in hand-to-mouth activities. This study suggested that burning one candle in a room for three hours, resulted in average lead in air concentrations of 9.9 μg/m³, with a peak of 42.1 μg/m³, way above any safe levels.
Aidan Luce 0733549

A follow up by Nriagu & Kim (2000), studying candles purchased in Michigan, US, found that lead wicked candles were common in the US as well and recommended legislation to ban their use. This study found that it was principally candles produced in China that contained the most lead and resulted airborne concentrations of lead particulates of between 0.02 μg/m³ and 13.1 μg/m³ after a two hour burn.
In 2002, Wasson et al published another paper on lead in candle emissions, wherein 8% of the candles they purchased were found to contain lead cored wicks, where the wicks themselves were 39-74% lead, the rest being paper or cotton. In all cases, the lead was almost 100% pure. Some candles also contained lead in the coloured coating, although not in large enough concentrations to constitute a health risk by themselves. Wasson et al found that one candle tested, burning for four hours could raise airborne lead concentrations to 19.35 μg/m³ in the source room and 6.37 μg/m³ in the rest of the house. Burning three such candles would raise the levels to 58.06 μg/m³ in the source room and 19.12 μg/m³ in the rest of the house.
As a result of these studies and public pressure, the US CSPS banned outright the production and sale of lead wick candles in 2003. Finland and Denmark had restricted or banned their use and sale in 2001 and 2002 respectively. Slow to respond, the EU published a document through the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the risks to health from lead wick candles (2003) and in 2004, the European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General (ECED) published another on the risks and benefits of restricting lead use in general, but included an analysis of lead-cored candle wicks. This paper could find no reason not to enforce a ban on the use of lead wicks throughout Europe, but such legislation has still to see the light of day.
According to ECED (2004), the European Association of Candle Makers (AECM) represents 80-90% of European candle manufacture and none of their members uses lead cored wicks in their candles. ECED suggests that any candles with lead cored wicks produced in Europe would be come from east European states. They do warn however that because stricter legislation has been introduced in the US, Canada and Australia and because there are no requirements to declare lead content in candles sold in Europe (and therefore no records or tracking), Far Eastern manufacturers could shift their focus more to these shores and the frequency of lead cored wicks in candles sold within Europe could increase.

There seems to have been no more study of the subject for several years, except for the odd paper which references the ones mentioned herein. Thus it would appear to be necessary to ascertain the amount of lead-cored wicks on sale in the UK and in Europe and hopefully this paper could go some way to revealing this.
This study sampled nineteen candles bought at supermarkets Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda, Morrison's and Waitrose, as well as some smaller retailers - Neal's Yard, Evolution, Head in the Clouds, Whistlestop (99p Store) and QD.
Tealights and pillar candles were purchased at each store, except Neal's Yard, where only tealights were purchased. Incidentally, Neal's Yard were the only retailer who were able to confirm that their candles did not contain lead-cored wicks. According to their in-house product guide their tealights are aluminium cored. Twelve of the candles did not display a country of origin, three of those that did were European made and hopefully will be lead-free, confirming the ECED study. The rest were of Far Eastern origin, three from China and one from Thailand.
The lead testing kit used, Lead Inspector (US patent #1,256,782) is produced by Abotex and is used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada in lead screening procedures. The active ingredient in the Indicator Solution is Sulphide anions (S--). When mixed with water, reacts with lead cations (Pb++) to produce a distinctive brownish-black color. The chemical equation is as follows: Na2S + H2O + Pb++ > PbS + Na+ + OH- + H2S (Abotex, n.d.)
In each case, a 20mm long length of wick was cleaned and soaked in 4ml of a mild (clear) vinegar liquid for eighteen hours. If any lead were present, molecules would leach into the vinegar. After enough time had passed, 1.5ml of the vinegar was put into a test tube and four drops of the sodium sulphide indicator solution were added. The test tube was agitated. The liquid would change colour if lead was present. The resulting colour would be compared with a colour chart which denotes the approximate concentration of lead in parts per million (ppm) within the vinegar, as follows:

Faint yellowish tint 1-3 ppm
Light brown 5 ppm
Medium brown 10 ppm
Dark brown 25 ppm
Black Over 50 ppm

A control would have no wick. Equipment used would be rinsed in tap water between tests.
This study did not test the candles for emissions. The previous studies have shown that lead cored candle emissions are harmful and this does not need to be re-examined. The purpose of this study was to discover if the ECED (2004) study was accurate in it's prediction of possible increased frequency of lead-cored candle wicks in Britain (and Europe), to get some idea of the scale of the problem and perhaps to provide a stepping stone to further research.

The leachate from the candle wicks was quite minimal, and as a result only returned results in the 1-3 ppm range. Reading accurately was quite difficult and therefore these results can only be advisory. However, of all the nineteen wicks tested, eleven were found to contain traces of lead This is 57.89% of the candles, quite a substantial share of the sample group. All the identified Far Eastern candles yielded traces of lead and all the candles manufactured in Europe did not. Six of the candles that tested positive were pillar candles and five were tealights.

It would seem that lead cored wicks may be in use an awful lot in the UK and even Europe. With nearly sixty per cent of all candles containing lead, this could present a huge risk to people's health and seriously affect indoor-air quality.
Based on the ECED (2004) figures for candle consumption and this share of the market, in the years 2000 to 2002, nearly 30,000 tonnes of candles sold could have had lead cored wicks. In the EU15, the total would be 270,285 tonnes, but this is unlikely. What is more likely is that the legislation applied in the US, Canada, Australia et al has had the effect of increased sales and consumption of lead-cored wicks in countries where there is no legislation against them, as the ECED (2004) feared. For example, if we assume that Wasson et al's (2002) finding that eight per cent of candles they purchased had lead wicks can be applied to the global market at the time, then we can see that in the intervening five or six years since laws banning lead wick candles came into force, their production has not altered perceptibly, just that all the bad candles are going to fewer customers. ECED (2004) cited Potera (2000) who found that only 3% of 285 candles bought had lead cored wicks, if we make this assumption with this percentile, then the picture becomes even more bleak.
The non-leaded candles could also be fetching higher prices in the countries where they are the only ones which can be sold.

Of course there were limitations in the experiment and the results are by no means conclusive. The test results were ultimately decided at the discretion of the person conducting the experiment. Trying to ascertain a slight yellowish tint in a 5ml plastic test tube, could easily lead to misjudgement and is not as accurate as direct detection of lead, for example through mass spectroscopy or through analysing the candle emissions, but shows that further research needs to be done to ascertain the true extent of the use of lead cored candle wicks in Britain and Europe today.
Despite the fact that the test tube and the sample transfer equipment was washed after each sample was tested, there could be the possibility of cross-contamination spoiling the results.

Considering the results of this experiment, it is advisable to be extremely cautious. ECED (2004) suggested that 53% of Europe's candles come from China. As all our identified Chinese candles contained lead and it is also not unlikely that some of the candles of unknown origin were manufactured there, avoiding Chinese and other Far Eastern made candles is recommended. Because of the uncertainty of source, due to the lack of regulation of the market, it is most advisable to only source your candles from 'safe' sources. Most European manufacturers do not use lead wicks, so you'd decrease you chance of exposure to lead. However, to truly know that you are buying a safe candle, the best source countries would be those that have already banned lead cored candle wicks: US. Canada, Australia; Denmark, Finland or those that can confirm they do not use leaded wicks.