The view from inside the Oakland Fire Department's burn trailer during a rollover fire. Photograph courtesy of Kara Platoni.

Looking back, the only field trip that stands out from my grade school days was our trip to the San Francisco Exploratorium. What I remember best is the tactile dome. I entered into total darkness and spent the next hour feeling, crawling and sliding my way through a 3-D maze.

That excursion was fairly tame compared to the exploits Kara Platoni, Eric Simons, and Casey Miner take on for their podcast series, The Field Trip, which broadcasts their science adventures out in the real world. For their first series that debuted last year, they explored fermentation by visiting the Cultured Pickle Shop, climbed into the Oakland Fire Department’s burn trailer for a kitchen fire simulation, interviewed a commercial salmon fisherman on his boat in the Berkeley Marina and followed a NASA crew at the bottom of a lakebed in Canada for their research study on Mars. To add a little more intellectual rigor to their adventures, they also interviewed an expert guest in their radio studio for each episode.

“We think our strong suit is going places, learning new things and being a proxy for the listener,” explained Kara Platoni. “We didn’t know of any other show where it was about going out and having a science adventure.”

As friends and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism colleagues, the genuine personal chemistry of this trio is evident in their podcasts and blogs. They're definitely having fun on their adventures while taking advantage of the wealth of knowledge and opportunities offered by scientists in the Bay Area — and the listener is invited to tag along.

The studio interview segments are loosely scripted, but the field trips are taped live. The key to making this work is the trio’s insatiable curiosity for science. After lots of preparation, they just go out and ask the questions that interest them in a humorous and spontaneous way that engages their listeners.

When selecting topics for their episodes, they focus on stories that take science out of the laboratory. “Our ideal narrator for the field trip is someone whose life just embodies science everyday. It is part of their job, hobby and home,” explained Platoni, “so we can show people how science is something that happens in your everyday life, not just something that happens in school.” Casey Miner added, “And it should be fun, interesting, weird or gross.”

Their field trips will continue with a second series this spring and cover the diverse topics of coffee, taxidermy, telescopes and local inventors. One upcoming episode on telescopes will visit the Chabot Space & Science Center Observatory and feature a studio interview with UC Berkeley astronomer Geoff Marcy. Beginning today, a new episode will air weekly each Monday through June 4. You can listen to a preview of their new season here.

Free episodes are available on their website, iTunes, Public Radio Exchange and Sound Cloud. You can also follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

The Tassajara Valley is at the center of a hot debate in San Ramon. The valley is a sparsely developed strip of land just south of Mt. Diablo and is home to a handful of ranches and orchards.

In the East Bay city of San Ramon, voters are deciding a measure that would substantially expand their city limits. Measure W is one of several urban growth measures on Bay Area ballots this November.

San Ramon is largely home to rows of suburban houses. At the edge of town, those homes give way to open, grassy hills.

"This really is the edge of development," says Matt Vander Sluis of the Greenbelt Alliance, an environmental non-profit. "You’ve got the beautiful rolling hills of the Tassajara Valley and then more and more open space stretching out essentially until the Central Valley."

The Tassajara Valley is at the center of a hot debate in San Ramon. The valley is a sparsely developed strip of land just south of Mt. Diablo and is home to a handful of ranches and orchards.

"This is one of our most important wildlife corridors and it’s also just an important piece of the mosaic of protected lands across the Bay Area," says Vander Sluis

Measure W would put 1,600 acres of this valley in San Ramon city limits by expanding the urban growth boundary. More than 40 cities in the Bay Area use these boundaries, typically to control the growth of housing development.

Measure W would increase the size of the city of San Ramon by 19 percent. But city officials say they have no plans to develop that area.

"There is no secret plan to develop Tassajara Valley," says Eric Wallis, a member of the San Ramon Planning Commission. Wallis says the reason city planners are supporting Measure W is so the city can decide the future of Tassajara Valley. Right now, the valley belongs to Contra Costa County.

"We feel very strongly that this area should be within our urban growth boundary for planning purposes because we’ve had some negative experiences with having the county plan areas that wound up going into San Ramon," says Wallis.

Right now, Tassajara Valley is zoned for agricultural use. If a developer wants to build something bigger than 30 acres, today it would require the approval of Contra Costa County voters. Wallis says that isn’t local enough. "Bottom line is – who do you trust? Do you trust someone who lives in the same city and is responsive to you as a voter? Or do you trust someone who lives miles and miles away?"

If Measure W passes and a local commission approves the changes, the valley’s future would be decided by city officials, without going to city voters. That’s a concern for Measure W opponents.

"About 70 percent of the land here in the Tassajara Valley that would be affected by Measure W is owned by major developers and land speculators. The only reason to expand an urban growth boundary is to open up an area for development," says Matt Vander Sluis.

Voters in Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Cloverdale are also deciding urban growth measures in November.

37.77053 -121.88006

By Deirdre Kennedy.

It is well known that strokes can happen in the elderly. But what many people don't know is that babies suffer strokes. So an entire month, May, has been dedicated to childhood stroke awareness. Infants often don't show the same symptoms as adults and because babies can't tell us when they're having problems moving or thinking. There is just a lot less known about infant strokes.

A stroke happens when the blood supply is cut off from a part of the brain or a blood vessel bursts and causes a build up of pressure in the brain. Doctors can tell that a child has had at stroke as an infant by taking an MRI of the brain. Researchers at UCSF Children's Hospital are working to develop early treatments for babies who suffer from stroke before it causes long-term brain problems. Donna Ferreiro, Chief of Child Neurology at UCSF and one of the nation's leading experts on neurological complications in babies, says a baby with a stroke can look completely normal.

"Often those strokes get missed in the nursery because these are babies who generally look well, they're cherubic, they weigh the right amount, they feed ok…It's not until they're older and then all of a sudden the parents notice that they're only reaching with one hand, and not both hands like they should, or that when they try to stand up and walk they topple to one side".

A stroke can continue to cause brain problems over time. It may cause seizures, which researchers believe, can damage the brain further. Like strokes, seizures are also hard to notice with the naked eye. Babies don't have big shaking movements like adults. They may have a subtle eye or head movement, some lip smacking or bicycling movement of the legs, says Ferreiro. By monitoring the brain waves of babies who have had birth problems or are born premature, doctors can intervene with drugs and other therapies. Both strokes and seizures can also happen in utero but there are no established treatments for newborn or fetal strokes yet.

UCSF is heading up an international consortium to test new drugs for babies. One involves using a growth factor called erythropoietin that promotes the formation of new blood cells. Ferreiro says it has been shown in the lab to make new neurons grow. You can find out much more about current treatments being used on newborns with brain defects, by listening to our Quest radio report, Baby Brain Development.

37.7848918 -122.4389185

Generally speaking, these habitats are the marshes, sand beaches, mudflats and the shallow waters of our rivers and creeks whose soil is saturated with moisture either permanently or seasonally; such areas may also be covered partially or completely by shallow pools of water.

They are also nature’s best defense against climate change and subsequent sea-level rise, because of two important functions they perform: they help reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gases through their ability to sink carbon; and store and regulate water. In other words, they act as sponges absorbing any overflow of water.

The federal government came to understand how biologically productive wetlands are and in 1977 enacted the Clean Water Act, the primary federal law in the US governing water pollution and limiting wetlands destruction. The law also created requirements that if a wetland had to be drained, developers at least had to offset the loss by creating artificial wetlands.

Wetlands have historically been the victim of large-scale draining efforts for real estate development, flooding them for use as recreational lakes or agriculture. Ironically, wetlands absorb and protect the surrounding ecosystem from the polluted run-off coming from the agricultural lands that displaced them.

Since 2000, more than 300 wetland restoration projects have been commissioned, varying in size from the 0.7-acre large 12^th Street Reconstruction Project in Alameda County to more than 13,000 acres being restored as a part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project in San Mateo County. However, the collective size of the projects (58,889.5 acres across California) is dwarfed when you consider that the state has lost 95 percent of its wetland habitat in the past 125 years.

Worldwide, it is estimated that by 1993 half of the Earth’s wetlands had been drained, according to a report published in the New Scientist.

Below you’ll find a map detailing the restoration projects taking place in the San Francisco Bay Area that shows information of their size, location and construction status.

View Wetland Restoration Projects–Northern California in a larger map

Listen to The Changing Bay radio report online.

37.827184 -122.421682

This is one of those environmental stories where one event, seemingly far in the past, can have a surprising ripple effect into the future. Most of us think of the Gold Rush and picture prospectors panning for gold in streams and rivers. But some miners used more industrial techniques like hydraulic mining. Using massive, pressurized hoses, they washed down entire mountainsides to get to the gold. (Check out this clip from the KQED special "Saving the Bay" for more).

As a result, millions of tons of sediment washed into rivers and streams in the Sierra foothills and made its way down to San Francisco Bay.  Amazingly, that process has taken decades, creating a murkier bay in the meantime.  Ten years ago, scientists at the US Geological Survey noticed the bay was clearing. While that can have many causes, scientists believe that the sediment pulse from the Gold Rush had finally worked its way out of the system.

It seems like the story would end there, but sediment has a complex role in the bay. Some ecosystems, especially wetlands, depend on sediment.  Salt marshes are built on every high tide by sediment that gets trapped in the plants.  These wetlands are also continually sinking as the soil settles, so this growth is key for keeping them at the right elevation. Less sediment in the bay means there's less for the wetlands, which could be an issue. But there's one thing that makes it worse: sea level rise. Some estimates say that the bay could rise by 55 inches by the end of the century.  That means sediment will have an increasingly important role in the future, one that state agencies are just starting to plan for.

Listen to The Changing Bay radio report online.

37.827184 -122.421682

The particulate from diesel trucks, which contains a number of carcinogenic compounds, can also cause lung cancer.

Wondering how much soot is in your city's air right now? Find out through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

As I write this, it's rainy outside, which is a good thing from an air quality perspective. Rain keeps the dust, or particulate matter (that's "PM" in air quality jargon), glued to streets and cars, and out of the air. Here in San Francisco, our PM 2.5 value is seven — seven micrograms of soot for each cubic meter of air. That's pretty clean, so breathe deep.

Using the calendar on the left side of the page, check out the levels from January 8th — a day where the average PM 2.5 level was 52 — and you can see why the Bay Area Air Quality Management District declared January 8 a Spare the Air Day.

So what do these numbers mean?

PM 2.5 refers to the smallest soot particles that air officials measure – each particle is about 1/70th the width of a human hair. These particles are so small, they're invisible to the naked eye. They're small enough to travel deep into the delicate alveoli, or air sacs, in our lungs, where they can cause or exacerbate asthma and other breathing problems. From there, they can make their way into our bloodstream, leading to heart attacks and strokes. The particulate from diesel trucks, which contains a number of carcinogenic compounds, can also cause lung cancer. (Check out this excellent Q&A on the hazards of diesel soot.)

The black numbers describe the current level. Blue and red figures describe the change from that same hour, the day before.

When you look at the chart, check out the PM numbers for West Oakland, right next to the Port of Oakland. These are what air officials point to when asked to justify the new rules for Port truckers, which this story, and this one, describe. A few years ago, the BAAQMD conducted a detailed health assessment of West Oakland residents, finding cancer rates three times the Bay Area average. In this week's radio story, we also cite a 2008 Harvard study on lung cancer rates in truckers. Here's a story about the study, and the study itself.

Poke around the QUEST website a bit and you'll find an abundance of media on this subject. Start with Gabriela Quiros's terrific TV story, "Perilous Diesel." Gabi's also taken a closer look at some of the mysteries surrounding childhood asthma in another TV piece, "Asthma: What Brought on the Epidemic?"

Last but not least, here's a slide show of scenes from this week's radio QUEST story, featuring characters and scenes from several sides of the campaign to reduce diesel soot.

Listen to Truckers Clean Up Their Act radio report online.

37.7955333 -122.2846028

Hundreds of plastic fragments taken from the Eastern Garbage Patch fill a Petri dish that is also crammed with insect-like water striders and blue copepods.

Be sure to check out Lindsey’s photos of the patch on the slideshow below.

Reporter Lindsey Hoshaw recently returned from a trip to the Pacific Garbage Patch.  She was the only journalist on a scientific expedition led by Charles Moore, who discovered the patch 12 years ago. QUEST reporter Amy Standen talked to Lindsey about her trip to the patch and what she found there.

Tell me a little bit about your trip to the Pacific Gyre. How long did it take, and what was life like onboard?

It took about a week to reach the patch after we set sail from Honolulu, Hawaii. There were four other crew members besides myself: first mate Jeffery Ernst, Algalita director of research Gwen  Lattin, University of North Carolina at Wilmington graduate student Bonnie Monteleone, scientist and director of UC Irvine’s Urban Water Resource Center Bill Cooper, and, of course, Captain Charles Moore, who discovered the patch.

The living conditions were tight. We each had our own bunk and there was one common living area where we’d eat meals, work on our laptops, read, and generally unwind at the end of the day. The meals that Captain Moore cooked were definitely the highlight. We ate fresh Mahi Mahi and had fresh fruit and vegetables throughout most of the trip until we started running low at the end.

Can you describe what the plastic patch looks like, as you approach it in the boat?  Is it something you can see from a distance?

The patch is very difficult to describe because it’s not all stuck together. Imagine if you dumped a small wastebasket full of trash in an Olympic-size swimming pool. It wouldn’t all stay in one place and it might not all float. Most of the patch is made up of tiny plastic particles that are the size of grains of rice. It’s not something that you’d “see as you approach.” In a way, there’s no single feature to approach; the boundary of the garbage patch is hard to define because there is plastic throughout the Pacific. When you’re out on the bow sometimes you won’t see anything and other days you’ll see a rapid-fire succession of empty barrels, rope, buoys, plastic water bottles, and lots of unidentifiable plastic fragments. I’ve often been asked why you can’t see the patch from Google Earth and this is precisely why: The pieces are so tiny, water isn’t a fixed feature, and many of the fragments float beneath the surface.

Describe the moment you reached the gyre. What were your first impressions?

Actually reaching the gyre was a little anti-climactic because we collected trash throughout the journey — not just when were in the highest accumulation zone. It’s not like driving from one state to another where you’d see the road signs and vegetation change. My impression overall was surprisingly tempered. It was strange to see toothbrushes and water bottles and a toilet seat floating in the middle of the ocean. But if you think about how much plastic we produce each year, it completely makes sense. If the average American produces over four pounds of trash a day, how can we be surprised that it’s ending up in the ocean?

Is there any single type of plastic that seems most prominent? (E.g. plastic bags, or fishing nets?) How much of the plastic is still recognizable as a specific product?

The four most common items we saw were ropes, buoys, water bottles, and 55-gallon plastic barrels. Things like umbrella handles, toilet seats, toothbrushes, and light bulbs were much less common. There seem to be more identifiable objects if you’re measuring by weight but if you’re counting the number of plastic pieces then there are many more fragments than specific products.

How does it get there?

Scientists believe most of the plastic in the gyre is from the Pacific Rim, off the coasts of North America and Asia. Some is obviously from commercial fishing vessels; the rope, nets and buoys likely drifted away from fishing operations or may have been intentionally dumped. The question about plastic’s journey from a consumer to the patch is an interesting one. I would love to see a model of how this occurs or a report that charts the path of one piece of plastic from producer to consumer to the patch. Thus far I haven’t seen this and we can’t pick up a piece of plastic from the patch and say, “here’s how this got here.” That said, here’s a likely scenario: Someone on-the-go buys a water bottle and tosses it in the trash. The trashcan happens to be full and the water bottle falls onto the sidewalk. That night it rains and the water bottle goes into a storm drain that empties into the bay. From there it is slowly sucked out to sea and ends up in the North Pacific Gyre, which keeps everything swirling together in a giant whirlpool.

Are there any known human health effects from eating large ocean fish with high concentrations of plastic-derived toxins? And what kinds of toxins are we talking about?

Obviously there’s a precedent for this: We’ve been warned about the inherent dangers in eating tuna that contains mercury. If we are eating large ocean fish with high concentrations of plastic-derived toxins, they may be leaking into our tissues but most table fish (the fish we eat) don’t come from the garbage patch. More research needs to be done on this subject. The types of toxins we’re talking about are DDT and PCBs, among other things.

Having seen the patch in person, does it seem feasible that the Pacific gyre (or any of the others) could ever be cleaned up? Any idea what the leading strategies might be?

I am an eternal optimist, so while it would be extremely difficult to clean up, I still believe some sort of removal program may be possible. What may happen in 100 to 200 years is that we start to see this plastic as valuable once petroleum is no longer available. If rescuing the plastic becomes profitable then I could see people investing in large commercial vessels to try and clean it up. But right now I haven’t seem any clean-up endeavors that have convinced me they can remove an ocean’s worth of trash.

… Or, does the focus seem to be more on understanding the patches so that we don’t keep adding to them?

Of the four groups I know of who are studying the patch — the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Project Kaisei and the GP2 Project — the first two are devoted to research and the latter are l ways to clean up the mess. There’s so much that needs to be understood in this arena, I think research is the way to go at this point.

For everyday citizens, our best bet is to do away with single-use disposable items like water bottles and take-out containers and plastic bags and coffee cups. I’ve started carrying around a mason jar, à la No Impact Man (http://noimpactman.typepad.com/), for coffee and restaurant leftovers. It’s just a matter of convincing ourselves that one hour of enjoyment with a disposable coffee cup is not worth a lifetime of plastic pollution.

Tune in April 20, 2010 for a new QUEST TV story, Sea of Plastic. You can also listen now QUEST Radio's story on the Pacific Garbage Patch online.

Funds for Lindsey's trip to the garbage patch were paid in part by Spot.us.

37.762611 -122.409719

Editor's Note: This week we have the first of two special reports on pesticide drift.

In this week's Quest radio piece, I talk to two pregnant organic onion workers who got sick after an apple farmer sprayed pesticides on a nearby orchard. Following a nearly three month investigation, the Kern County Ag Commissioner issued citations finding both the apple grower and the organic company at fault (see the citations here and here). Workers told me that even after the drift started, the organic farm's supervisor encouraged them to keep bunching onions, telling them to put handkerchiefs over their mouths to block out the smell of the insecticides.

Whenever a big pesticide drift accident like this happens, it raises important questions: How often do these kinds of incidents occur? Are things getting better for people in communities near where pesticides are sprayed?

That's hard to tell, because of the way the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and County Ag Commissioners keep track of the data. There's no single enforcement code to categorize incidents as "agricultural drift affecting humans."

DPR does keep a statewide database of acute illness related to pesticides, as documented in worker’s comp or physician's records. Pesticide activists say those numbers are low, because many victims don't see a doctor. And doctors don't always know how to recognize symptoms of pesticide illness, or that they are supposed to report those cases.

And here's another twist: back in 2000, DPR changed its criteria for how it evaluates pesticide illness. So you can't compare the number of incidents from the 1990s with incidents today. All that makes it very difficult to determine if growers and regulators are really doing a better job keeping the public safe from chemicals drifting off the farm, especially after the passage of bills like the 2004 law sponsored by State Senator Dean Florez.

While that law clarified rules for emergency responders and required growers to pay medical bills for uninsured victims, it doesn't seem to have led to a dramatic drop in pesticide drift incidents.

In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have sped up pesticide drift investigations and increased penalties. Instead, he directed DPR to streamline the enforcement guidelines for counties. Ag Commissioners can now issue a maximum fine of 5,000 dollars for each person sickened by pesticide drift.

That's a penalty some advocates, like Californians for Pesticide Reform think is far too low to act as a deterrent.

Meanwhile, County Ag Commissioners are facing budget cutbacks that may shrink their enforcement teams. Many agriculture commissioners already have just six or seven pesticide enforcement inspectors to police thousands of farms.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation says it can't enforce the law unless drift incidents are reported. The department has launched a new campaign to educate fieldworkers about pesticide drift, printing up wallet-sized cards with a toll-free hotline number in English and Spanish.

Listen to the Catching the Drift radio report online.

35.23698 -118.91297

You've probably heard about some of the breakthroughs in personal genome sequencing, where companies take a look at your DNA and send back your risk profile. That can be confusing information to have (check out this post from Quest blogger Dr. Barry Starr for his take on it). But there's a flip side to all this genetic research that doesn't have to do with risk: personalized medicine. That's where doctors can customize medical treatments to fit your genetic profile.

Right now, there are only a handful of drugs that are labeled with genetic information, so doctors can take it into consideration. (Here's an article from the New York Times that gives an overview).  But that doesn't mean existing medications are left out.  I spent some time with Deanna Kroetz in this story, who studies pharmacogenomics at UC San Francisco.  She explained that differences in our DNA can cause some of us to process drugs at different rates. We all metabolize drugs with enzymes in the liver, but based on expression of our DNA, we may have different levels of enzymes or our enzymes may not function as well.

There are plenty of other things that affect how we process drugs, like our diet or other drugs we're taking. But these genetic differences mean some people metabolize drugs quickly and others metabolize them slowly. One example that many people are familiar with is codeine.  Codeine is converted into morphine by our bodies and it's the morphine that actually has an effect — but that conversion depends on a particular enzyme. Some people have very low levels of the enzyme that's needed, so codeine doesn't do much for them.

They're also studying another drug response mechanism at UCSF and it has to do with our cells. Many drugs have to go inside our cells in order to have an effect, but if you think back to high school biology, you might remember that cells are protected by membranes.  It takes transporters – those special gatekeepers sitting on the cell membranes — to allow things in.  They also can spit things out of cells.

I spent some time in the lab with Rachel LaFond, a graduate student at UCSF.  She was running experiments on one particular transporter known as ABCG2. This transporter is particularly good at spitting things out of cells. Normally its job is to kick toxins out, but some cancers have been able to hijack this machinery.  Cancer cells with an over expression of this transporter can spit out chemotherapy drugs, which means they aren't helping the patient.  LaFond is working to understand this variation better, so they could one day develop a genetic test for it.

Listen to the Personalized Medicine radio report online.

37.769196 -122.39106

I often look at the chemical ingredients in what I buy. I shop at farmers markets for organic produce and use green cleaning supplies. So, it caught me off guard when a friend remarked, "you are so aware of what you eat, why aren't you just as curious about what you drink?" Well, we drink organic coffee but not organic wine. I was worried about sacrificing taste and I just didn't think most vineyards were heavily sprayed with pesticides. Then I learned that wine grapes are the second most sprayed crop in the state. This didn't seem like it could be that good for the farm workers, the Earth, or the consumer. Several studies have found trace amounts of pesticides in wine. They may be at extremely low amounts, but what kind of impact could pesticide residues have overtime?

Armed with a new green cause, I set out to find more information about eco-wines. I learned that organic wine is just one type of green wine — there is also wine made with organic grapes. It turns out I had been drinking some of these wines and enjoying them. The thing is, you can't call it "organic wine" if the wine has added sulfites, a naturally occurring compound. Most winemakers add sulfites to help preserve the wine and make it more stable. If a wine is made from organic grapes but contains sulfites, the world "organic" can only be mentioned as part of the ingredient claim on the back of the bottle. No wonder I didn't know I was drinking wine farmed organically.

It turns out northern Sonoma County and Mendocino county are hotbeds for green wine. In the course of reporting this story, I visited several of these wine makers. Bonterra Vineyards, below Ukiah, has been farming organically since 1987 and now farms one of their ranches, McNab, biodynamically. Their red blend is nicely balanced and tastes very good.

Biodynamic is a novel form of organic farming practice with its roots in France. A biodynamic vineyard is a self-sustaining ecosystem — making organic compost, removing chemicals from the soil and farming with the cycles of the Earth.  Biodynamic has its own international certification. (Here is a list of their certified wines). Just up the 101 from Bonterra is Parducci Wine Cellars. This family run company is farming organic grapes and in some cases, biodynamically. Parducci also claims to be one of the most sustainable wineries in the country.

Sustainable is a squishy term. Sustainable wineries may be running off solar power or doing creek restoration to save spawning salmon but they are not necessarily organic and they are not certified. However, the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program is working toward an industry certification. The idea is to raise the entire industry's practices and help vintners make more eco-friendly choices that often include using less chemicals in the vineyards.

Back to sulfites. This ended up being the main reason for the stigma still associated with green wine. Twenty years ago, green wines were uneven and there were not that many choices. Now, several of these eco-wines are winning high points from the industry. Organic wine can only contain naturally occurring sulfites, under 10ppm. Wines farmed organically must keep the added sulfites below 100ppm. Conventional wine can contain sulfites as high as 300ppm. When I was reporting this story, several folks asked me if I was going to explain why they get headaches from red wine. Isn't it the sulfites? Actually, it is not known why some people get headaches from drinking red wine. It could be the histamines. It doesn't look like it's the sulfites. Less than 1% of the population, according to the FDA, is sensitive to sulfites. The reaction is a respiratory one.

Anyway, if you enjoy wine, I encourage you to think beyond red and white but to consider green, too. To find out more, listen to our radio story and check out our links. Also, green wine pioneer, Paul Dolan together with Parducci has created a green wine handbook which is very helpful.

Listen to the The Politics of Green Wine radio report online.

39.197962 -123.207764