mercury rising

New data shows that mercury is present in high fructose corn syrup, which is the sweetener used for almost all of the products on the shelves of your neighborhood mega-mart.  The study was released through Environmental Health.

Mercury has been linked to learning disabilities in children and heart disease in adults. It is thought that the mercury is entering the sugary substitute during processing, thinking that it comes from the hydrochloric acid that is used to manufacture the product.  The toxin was detected in just under 50% of the total samples taken.

It is believed that, on average, Americans consume 12 teaspoons of HFCS, daily.  Although, it is expected that children ingest more than adults. 

There is no established safe dose for elemental mercury, the type discovered in corn syrup. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average-sized woman should limit her exposure to 5.5 micrograms a day of methylmercury, the kind found in fish. If that same woman regularly ate corn syrup contaminated at the highest level detected in the study—0.57 micrograms per gram—the researchers estimated that she could end up consuming an amount of mercury that is five times higher than the EPA‘s safe dose.

Given that HFCS is found in a very high percentage of products, it is safe to assume that we will be exposed to mercury, which was once thought to only be transferred through fish.  Now, it seems that anything we eat will do more harm than good.

water woes

Produce in California may see a price increase related to water issues in the state, according to the Associate Press.  In fact, farmer’s in Central California are abandoning their fields, leaving them to turn to dust, because of the plight caused by water shortages.

The most interesting finding in the report is that the limits in produce will not all be caused by the drought, but subsequent legislation that was put in place in anticipation of the drought.  Most prominently, the decision that ordered state water managers to expedite requests to move water so high-value crops like wine grapes, almonds and pistachio trees would stand a chance of surviving.

Federal water reserves are at their lowest since 1992, and unless California gets more rain, reserves will get slashed to nothing.

Obviously, in an already suffering economy, this is not good news.  It means that Californians will have to spend more money to get healthful food and their will be less jobs up and down the coast and central valley.

following in germany’s footsteps

Last week, we reported how Germany was quite revolutionary in telling its citizens to stop eating meat, unless on special occasions.  Following their lead, Britain will have meat-free menus promoted in hospitals as part of a strategy to cut global warming emissions across the National Health Service, according to the Guardian.

The biggest difference with this, however, is that it is not a single suggestion but rather, part of a nationwide plan to reduce carbon emissions in the UK Health System.

 

Last year the NHS published what it believes is the biggest public sector analysis of carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas, which showed the organisation’s emissions in 2004 were 18.6m tonnes and rising. This accounts for more than 3% of all emissions in England, and if the NHS was a country it would have been ranked as the 81st biggest polluter in the world that year, between Estonia and Bahrain.

One-fifth of the emissions were from transport, one-fifth from buildings, and the remainder from procurement, including drugs, medical equipment and food.

They have committed to a government pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.  Other proposals include reduction of water bottle use, greater sterilization and re-use of equipment, and encouragement of public transportation for visitors.

opinion: children are being hurt

I have written about this before, but it doesn’t seem to fully absorb into people’s minds.  So, I am going to use this forum to say, once again, that it is my belief that if you are not effectively and purposefully, environmentally responsible then you are contributing to the abuse of your child and the other children on this planet.

I have felt this for a long time.  I have made a point in my life to fully understand science, specifically the science and health behind global warming.  With each article I read about children’s exposure to chemicals, or increase in unnecessary diseases like diabetes and asthma, or the growing concern over food shortages or the decline of water, I make the logical conclusion that who will be most affected by these issues is our children.

I have spent much of my time on this site being polite; trying to educate and hoping that the public starts to understand the severity of climate destabilization. But that hasn’t seemed to be effective.  I used to worry about saying things controversial. I was apologetic to my friends with children when I hinted at my theories.  However, as I think about it more and more, I can’t help but think that this one is accurate.  

So, I decided to look up the legal definition:

 - Any recent act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

 - An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

So, I ask you, do you not see how not doing everything imaginable to change how we are currently living is a form of child abuse?

The act or failure to act which results in death or serious physical harm.  

This site has spent a lot of time writing about phthalates, bisphenol-a, food shortages, water shortages, and air quality.  In many cases, especially the cases of toxic poisoning, study after study has shown the negative impact to children through premature cancers, genital deformities, male extinction, and the list goes on.  

If the result of such acts is physical harm to a child then I conclude that by using the products that contain chemicals that are known to hurt infants, you are abusing your child.

If a parent would go to jail for purposefully starving their child, then I argue by not providing your child with the best food in the present, and ensuring high quality of food in the future, you are abusing your child.

If you, as a parent, were to find out that a neighbor had done something inappropriate to your child, you would go after that neighbor with all of your force.  But, when your neighbor drives an SUV, polluting the air and creating a place where your child can’t live, you let it go by without a second glance.  You and your neighbor are negatively impacting the future of your child and that is neglect and abuse.

I can probably come up with an argument to prove in many cases that you are inflicting abuse on your child, or neighbors child, by your lifestyle.  It is quite pathetic that there is some level of acceptable abuse that we put onto the children of this world.  We have made a silent assent that convenience is more important than your child’s health.  We have made a silent assent that corporations can manipulate us into buying harmful products and that we will not hold them accountable.  We have made a silent assent that we will not demand that we, as a community, are accountable and responsible to future generations.

You are going to argue that child abuse is violent and sexual, by nature.  And, I would come back to you and ask you to read the legal definition.  Read it over and over and over again until it sinks in.  Anything you do (or fail to prevent) that causes physical harm or damage is abuse.  Being passive and ill-informed is not an valid defense.

By exposing your child to something that is toxic, causing physical harm is abuse.  By not investigating everything you bring into your home to ensure that it does not harm your child is neglect.

My hope is that I make you angry.  I don’t care if it is being angry at me, or angry at some corporation, or angry at our government or angry at yourself.  Be angry.  Anger is the place in which people tend to start doing something. I want you to get so angry that you start learning more and researching, in a way to defend your actions, because you will find that the science backs me up.   I want you to get so angry that you learn everything you can about global warming, find out that this is real, that we are in a dire position, and learn that every action you take is not inconsequential. 

I want you to get so angry that you prove me wrong, because in all honesty, I want to stop caring about your child, since you seem to not care about them.

environmental report: mesothelioma

 

We were contacted and asked to publish this article on our site.

Fossil Fuels, CFCs Have Long Trail of Consequences

By James O’Shea; Content Manager, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center

January 22, 2009

Often when considering the environmental hazards presented by destructive human behavior, we fail to see further than the direct effects on our planet. However, if we look further, we can see that our behaviors are affecting not only the earth we live on but also the general human health. There are essentially two tiers to the damage posed by destructive environmental actions. Let’s examine each of them for a better understanding of this hazard.

The first effect is the direct human health costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels and the release of chlorofluorocarbons (associated with atmospheric ozone depletion) in the atmosphere. Asthma rates in areas with high smog indices (associated with fossil fuel pollution) are near double that in smog neutral areas. In South Africa and Australia, where the ozone is among the most depleted on the planet, skin cancer rates are astronomically high, as UV rays breaking our atmosphere are much more intense. These are the very real and direct impact of destructive environmental behavior.

The second tier that I wish to bring attention to is the working conditions in the processing of fossil fuels, which pose some of the greatest occupational hazards of any jobsite. Oil refineries and coal plants are laden with older asbestos fixtures, which has been directly linked to the deadly asbestos cancer, mesothelioma. Even as asbestos was banned in the late 1970s, older asbestos fixtures (which are much more hazardous) still permeate this industry. When asbestos fibers are inhaled, they lodge in the pleural lining of the lungs, which lays the groundwork for mesothelioma and other respiratory complications later down the road. Harmful asbestos exposures are only hazard in these industries however. Countless other industrial hazards such as benzene, which has been classified as a carcinogen, also have been clearly linked to the processing of fossil fuels.

We can see now that the effects of destructive environmental hazards go well beyond the direct impact on the planet. We are beginning to see now that these behaviors may ultimately cost lives if we don’t change our ways. Through change, we will preserve the planet for our children and the lives of its inhabitants today.

opinion: carbon calculator, week 4

 

Week 4 in the continuing series of what is missing from Carbon Calculators.  

There is a list of the things that those calculators don’t ask, thereby eliminating them from their algorithm. These are the things that are sometimes the meat of the matter, so to speak. By altering these things, you could affect your true footprint in ways unimaginable and truly make our planet sustainable.

GARDENING

What a pretty yard you have!  

Gardening… this can be a trap disguised behind an ecologically friendly mask.  How many times a week do you water? At what time of day do you water?  Are the plants drought resistant and require less water?  Are you using fertilizers and pesticides?  What do you do with your clippings after pruning and mowing?  Are you growing things you can eat or just things that look pretty, but have no value?  Have you utilized your roof space?  Do you have a gardener and does he (or she) use a gasoline powered blower for your leaves?

These are questions many people do not ask.  It is true that all plants are carbon sinks and so something is better than nothing.  However, who cares how much carbon the plants trap if in return you are using more water than you should?  It can sometimes be a drag, believe me, but unfortunately the state of the planet requires that everything we do be considered and evaluated.

Take the time to consider what types of plants you want to put in your yard?  Do you have the ability to have a vegetable garden?  Consider a low flow water system and ensure you are watering in allowable times, per DWP.  Look at your gardener… is he using a gas powered blower?  You aren’t his only client and he isn’t the only gardener out there.  Imagine the millions of blowers out there contaminating the air.

How about this… since you gave up the gym and freed some time by not reading magazines… get outside and deal with your garden yourself.  It connects you back to the Earth, which is what we are all fighting for in the first place, you burn calories, you don’t have exhaust contaminating your airspace, and you can start providing some of your own food instead of going to the mega-mart every day, and the list of benefits goes on and on.

epa overhaul

On the heels of Lisa Jackson’s approval as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Government Accountability Office has released a report saying that the EPA is flawed in its ability to assess toxic chemicals, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

The report has concluded that the EPA lacks even the “basic information to say whether chemicals pose substantial health risks to the public. It says actions are needed to streamline and increase the transparency of the EPA’s registry of chemicals. And it calls for measures to enhance the agency’s ability to obtain health and safety information from the chemical industry.”

Stating that the EPA needs to be timely in determining health risks to the public but their system “is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because the EPA has been unable to keep its existing assessments current or to complete assessments of important chemicals of concern.” In the last year they completed 8 assessments with 70 uncompleted still pending. That is not fast enough for health and safety.

Strengthening the EPA has been recommended as a top priority for the Obama Administration.

quite controversial, but the right decision

Germany did something very bold today in the fight against climate change.  Something that we will more than likely never see in this country, but should be done.  Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency urged its citizens to dramatically reduce its intake of meat, suggesting they go back to pre-war norms of eating meat only on special occasions, according to the Guardian.

There has been a lot of data released about the extraordinary amount of harm the livestock industry puts onto our climate being the most energy intensive form of “farming”.  Most accounts suggest that the meat industry accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gases emitted into our atmosphere.  It is a result of the chemicals, transportation fuels and methane released from the animals, as well as the clear cutting of forests for land for the cattle to graze.

This decision is being embraced by many in the environmental movement.  There are few, if any, countries that have publicly acknowledged that our current methods of meat production are unsustainable and must be stopped.  

The United States has huge meat lobbying interests in Washington.  When nutritionists at the USDA and with the AMA have ever suggested reducing the meat intake in the food pyramid, millions of dollars have been spent in discrediting the data and ensuring that our process will never change.  The lobbyists have even succeeded in wooing the FDA to pass the allowance of the strongest of antibiotics for animal use and the lack of labeling for genetically engineered cattle.

The impact of the meat industry is even starting to be seen in ways other than the impact on the environment.  Antibiotics are being found in produce due to its presence in the water supply. Additionally, bacteria are getting more and more resistant to antibiotics, resulting in people having a harder time fighting infections.

While there are grassroots movements trying to educate the United States public on the harm of the meat industry, it is relatively weak by comparison.  Vegetarianism and other such diets are seen as “abnormal” and alternative lifestyles, when in reality they are the most eco-conscious way to eat and live.

All in all, Germany has done the right thing in suggesting to its citizenry to eat less meat.  All countries should follow this example and we may have a fighting chance against global destabilization.

forests are dying

 

The death rate of the most stable and resilient forests in western North America has doubled during the past few decades as the climate has warmed, according to The Daily Climate.

The study focused its research on Western states and was comprised of data from 11 scientists.  The conclusion: Western forests are becoming more susceptible to wildfire, disease and invaders such as bark beetles. Average tree size is shrinking; creatures dependent on large, old-growth trees will increasingly find themselves out of a home. 

And as conditions get worse, the trees ability to trap CO2 will get less and less, making them carbon sources instead of carbon sinks.

The study started in 1955 and track growth rates and mortality until the present.  The data showed that while death rates are increasing, birth rates are decreasing.  It also concluded that rising temperatures are the sole cause.

Unfortunately, this becomes a double edged sword: as more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are put into the air, the temperatures rise.  As the temperature rises, more trees are susceptible to death making them unlikely to absorb more CO2.  As they stop absorbing CO2, more is released into the air and the cycle starts all over again.

a must read

 

James Lovelock is the man behind the Gaia theory.  The Gaia theory is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of theEarth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis.  

He was recently interviewed by The New Scientist and it is very important to read.

 

Do you think we will survive?

I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It’s happening again.

I don’t think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing’s been done except endless talk and meetings.

It’s a depressing outlook.

Not necessarily. I don’t think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen – a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare.

« Previous Page — Next Page »