Author Archives: JimmyVRJYun

What’s greener than burial or cremation? Human composting.

by JimmyVRJYun Posted on January 1, 2019

Invest in nonprofit journalism today.Donate now and every gift will be matched through 12/31.

After death, your options tend to be limited. You could go the cremation route, releasing carbon dioxide and mercury in the process. Or you could be buried in casket within a plastic-lined concrete vault, your body coated in carcinogenic embalming fluid. But must you destroy the planet, even after you’ve expended your time on earth?

Washington state might soon expand your options to include the (in my humble opinion, unfortunately named) process of “human composting.” A bill, expected to be introduced by state Senator Jamie Pedersen next month, would make the state the first to legalize “recomposition” — letting a body decompose in nutrient-dense soil. It would also legalize alkaline hydrolysis, aka water cremation, where a body dissolves in a vessel with water and lye until it’s just bone and liquid.

“People from all over the state who wrote to me are very excited about the prospect of becoming a tree or having a different alternative for themselves,” Pedersen told NBC News.

I don’t mean to get macabre here, but the reality is that everyone eventually dies. And the environmental cost of death really adds up. In the United States, 30 million board feet of wood, 1.6 million tons of concrete, 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid, and 90,000 tons of steel are used every year for conventional burials. Cremation releases 250,000 tons of CO2 each year, the equivalent of burning nearly 30 million gallons of gasoline.

Death didn’t use to be such an environmental drag. Burials were once a simple affair: a shrouded body lowered into the ground. The body would decay and leave behind minerals and nutrients in the soil. Maybe, if lucky, those remains could one day feed a flower or a tree.

Katrina Spade, the founder of Recompose, is popularizing a modern incarnation of this natural process. The company promises that over the span of a month, bodies will decompose into about a cubic yard of compost per person, saving at least a metric ton of CO2 in the process.

As Spade told the Seattle Times, “Our bodies are full of potential” — even, apparently, when dead.

Support nonprofit journalism

. Help us raise $50,000 by December 31! Only a few hours remaining.

Donate now and all gifts will be matched

.

See the original post: 

What’s greener than burial or cremation? Human composting.

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, OXO, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s greener than burial or cremation? Human composting.

Conservatives Just Lost a Big Weapon Against the Abortion Pill

by JimmyVRJYun Posted on March 30, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The US Food and Drug Administration announced Wednesday morning that it had approved updated information for physicians about mifepristone, the drug known as the “abortion pill.” The move is a notable one in debates surrounding reproductive health: Research has consistently shown that the previous FDA regulations for the drug were outdated and ineffective, and anti-abortion lawmakers have long been using that to their advantage by requiring doctors to adhere to the original FDA labeling.

The new labels will list the recommended dosage to be taken as 200 milligrams; the previous dosage was 600. Medical groups such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have been recommending that mifepristone be taken at lower dosage for years, because the lower dosage is more effective when used with a higher dosage of a second medication, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract. The lower dosage of mifepristone is less expensive for patients, and comes with fewer side effects. Patients can also take the pill up to 70 days after their last period, as opposed to the original 49 days.

As previously reported in Mother Jones, a 1998 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the original FDA regimen failed by the ninth week of pregnancy for one in four women (out of a sample size of 2,100). The abortions were either incomplete or the women were still pregnant. Although the outdated FDA labeling was never unsafe per se, 99 percent of women in the study experienced some negative side effect: nausea, cramps, faintness, vomiting, back pain, and fever.

The label update is a long time coming—the drug was first approved in 2000, and its labeling came from restrictions that were set in France in the 1980s. Anti-abortion groups and conservative lawmakers have used the outdated FDA regimen to restrict access to what abortion providers hail as a safe and simple method for women throughout the country. Arizona, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas all have laws requiring providers to adhere to the FDA labeling established when the pill first went on the market. Doctors in other states commonly practice “evidence-based” or “off-label” prescribing, meaning they use methods developed by physicians over time after a drug has been put on the market.

According to Molly Redden at The Guardian, the changes could also come into play in state law.

“But in addition to providing clearer guidance to doctors, the change could have the effect of undermining several state laws, supported by abortion foes, that force clinicians to administer mifepristone according to the old regimen that the FDA approved in 2000. The old protocols called for patients to make up to three separate trips to a clinic—one for the dose of mifepristone, one for the dose of misoprostol, and one for a follow-up—rather than a minimum of one, for the mifepristone, in addition to specifying the different levels of medication.”

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement in support of the new labeling, but warned that “there is still work to be done in updating the mifepristone label to reflect the current evidence.”

“For example, while the agency notes rare cases of fatal infections, it is important to note that no specific connection exists between medication abortion and these infections, which can also occur with other obstetric and gynecologic processes and procedures,” the statement reads. “The mortality rate associated with medication abortion continues to be lower than the mortality rate associated with childbirth.”

NARAL also issued a statement, saying the changes “will go a long way towards allowing women to make their own decisions about
their health care, and their futures.”

Read this article – 

Conservatives Just Lost a Big Weapon Against the Abortion Pill

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives Just Lost a Big Weapon Against the Abortion Pill