Tag Archives: health

No ‘Poo: Get Beautiful Hair with Just Baking Soda & Vinegar

Truly natural or organic shampoos can be pretty pricey, but you don’t need to drop big bucks for shiny, healthy hair. It might sounds like the recipe for a hair volcano, but baking soda and vinegar work great as shampoo and conditioner substitutes. Folks who use baking soda and vinegar instead of shampoo often call this technique the “no ‘poo” or “no shampoo” method.

Here are some tips on how to wash your hair with baking soda and vinegar!

Why Do No ‘Poo?

Like I mentioned above, it’s much cheaper than truly natural or organic shampoo and conditioner, but why not just grab a cheap bottle of Herbal Essences and be done with it, right? The trouble with conventional shampoo, including faux natural brands like Herbal Essences, is that they contain potentially harmful ingredients like sodium lauryl sulfate and fragrance.

For me, fragrance is the worst synthetic chemical in beauty products. “Fragrance” is actually an unregulated term that could refer to any cocktail of thousands of largely under-tested chemicals. Companies can get away with this misleading labeling under the guise of “proprietary information.” Meanwhile, we’re washing our hair with potential allergens and carcinogens. Boo on that!

I used to wash my hair with shampoo every other day, and after a few months doing no ‘poo, I only have to wash it once or twice a week, depending on how active I am. That means that not only do you save money, but you save water and the energy used to heat it for all of those longer showers.

Before we get into the ins and out of no ‘poo on the next page, I think it’s important to talk about one downside to making this switch: many people experience a breaking in period.

The Breaking In Period

I will warn you right now that almost everyone who switches to no ‘poo initially does have a breaking in period that can last from a few days to even a few weeks while your scalp adjusts. Some folks write the no ‘poo thing off after just a week or less, saying that it doesn’t work, but chances are that is because their body hasn’t gotten used to this more natural method for cleaning their hair.

Shampoo strips your hair of natural moisture, so your scalp might still be in oil-production overdrive for a little while while you adjust. The breaking in period can be pretty unfun, but there are a couple of things you can do to make it easier on yourself.

If you have short hair, brush it regularly. This helps distribute the oils more evenly, so your hair won’t look so greasy during the transition. Brushing can help distribute the oil in long hair, too, and you might want to go for updos, like pony tails or buns until your hair adjusts.

Image Credit: Creative Commons phoot by trenttsd


The Basic No ‘Poo Recipe

There are a couple of different ways that you can do this thing, but the basic idea is that you “wash” your hair in baking soda, rinse it thoroughly, then follow with a diluted vinegar rinse that you also rinse out thoroughly.

What you’ll keep in your shower are a water-tight container full of baking soda, and a squeeze bottle with your vinegar mixture. The amount of baking soda you use and the vinegar to water ratio that works for you really depends on your hair. If your hair is oily, you’ll want to up the baking soda and use less vinegar in your rinse. For dry hair, go the opposite direction. Here’s what works for me:

1. Pour about 1 tablespoon of baking soda into the palm of your hand, and moisten it. Massage it into your hair and your scalp. Wait a minute, then rinse.

2. Combine 1 tablespoon apple cider vinegar or white vinegar and 1 cup water in your squeeze bottle. You can do this in advance, so you don’t have to mix it up every time you wash, and you probably won’t need the whole cup for a single washing. Give the bottle a good shake, then squeeze some of the vinegar mixture onto your scalp. Massage it into your scalp and your hair, wait another minute or two, and rinse thoroughly.

Like I said, this is the mixture that works for me, but depending on your hair type, you may need to adjust the amounts of baking soda and vinegar that you use.

No ‘Poo for Curly Hair

The most common question I get when I talk about no ‘poo is whether it works on thick or curly hair. My hair is thick and a little bit wavy, and it works just fine for me, but I couldn’t speak for truly curly hair. A little research turned up an account from Lorissa from Beautiful Somehow who did a 30 day no ‘poo experiment. Here’s what she had to say:

I am so completely happy with my curly hair now! The curls are bigger, more defined, and not as frizzy as before. I am still using a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of mousse to set the curls. I am currently looking for a more natural alternative for it though. So if you know of one, please share!

You can read all about her no ‘poo experience over at Beautiful Somehow, and if you have any tips for an alternative to mousse, I bet she’d love your suggestions!

Tips from Fellow No-’Pooers

Stephanie Moram from Good Girl Gone Green does a slightly different mix for her hair. She recommends about 1 tablespoon of baking soda in a cup of water, and about the same ratio for vinegar. You can read about her no ‘poo method here.

My Healthy Green Family doesn’t like to call this method no ‘poo, but over there, Free Range Mama talks about the baking soda and vinegar method that she uses. She likes the same ratio as Stephanie recommends, and she also talks a little bit about a common question that folks have when they’re new to no ‘poo: the vinegar smell. As she describes, that smell should fade quickly as your hair dries. If it doesn’t, try using less vinegar in your mix next time.

Do any of you do the no ‘poo thing? I’d love to hear what’s worked for you – and what hasn’t! – in the comments.

Related:
5 Recipes for Homemade Personal Care Products
51 Fantastic Uses for Baking Soda
Non-Toxic Shampoo & Conditioner Test: Day 18

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Original article: 

No ‘Poo: Get Beautiful Hair with Just Baking Soda & Vinegar

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No ‘Poo: Get Beautiful Hair with Just Baking Soda & Vinegar

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

Superfoodsare gaining popularityand for good reason. They directlysupport the immune system, reduceinflammation, support mental health,pack a nutritional punch,and boost energy, stamina and longevity.

Here are eightsuperfoods to watch in 2016 that are not only good for you, but also good for the planet:

1. Crickets

Long-consumed in many parts of the developing world, crickets are makingtheir way into cookies, milkshakes and other food items in the U.S.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Crickets are loaded with protein. They also thrive in hotter climates and survive off decaying waste and very little water and space,Mother Jonesreported.For this reason, crickets and other insects havebeenhailedas the next climate-friendly superfood. They can be ground into baking flour or protein powder, and addedto cookies, brownies ormilkshakes.

While eating cricketsor any type of insect for that matterhasnt completely caught on in the U.S., its making progress. Last year, fast food chainWayback Burgersput outa fake press release as anApril Fools jokeabout insect-filled milkshakes, but the idea was so popular that theyrolled out theirOreo Mud Pie Cricket Protein Milkshake.

2. Pulses

Theyre the dried seeds of lentils, beans and chickpeasand the UN hasdeclared2016 to be their year. They already make up 75 percent of the average diet in developing countries, but only 25 percent in developed ones, according to the UN.

That could all change, though. Pulses contain 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, approaching the protein levels of meat, which average30 to 40 percent. They also require far less water than meat to produce.

3. Amaranth

Amaranth is a complete source of protein.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Amaranth is the new quinoa, trend expert Daniel Levine toldThe Huffington Post. Its a grain-like seed that cooks quickly and can be added to salads, soups and stews. Its a complete source of protein just like quinoa, and it is loaded withfiber,B vitamins andseveral important minerals. Additionally, its beenshownto reduce inflammation, and lower cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

4. Kefir

Kefiris the trendiestfermentedfood right now (sorry, kombucha and kimchi).Its high in nutrients andprobiotics, and is incredibly beneficial for digestion andgut health.Many people consider it to be a healthier and more powerful version ofyogurt.

To make it,grains (yeast and lactic acid bacteria cultures) are added to cow or goat milk. The concoction ferments over a 24-hour period and then the grains are removed from the liquid.

5.Teff

Sometimes written as tef or tef, this pseudo-grain (its technically a seed)has a high nutritional profile and a taste similarto that of amaranth or quinoa. Thisancient grainhas survived for centuries without muchhybridization or processing.Like most other ancient grains, its high in fiber, calcium and iron.

Traditionally cultivated inEthiopia and Eritrea, teff can be grown in a variety of conditions.Teff thrives in both waterlogged soils and duringdroughts, making it a dependable staple wherever its grown. No matter what the weather, teff crops will likely survive, as they are also relatively free of plant diseases compared to other cereal crops,Whole Grains Councilsaid.

Teff can grow where many other crops wont thrive, and in fact can be produced from sea level to as high as 3,000 meters of altitude, with maximum yield at about 1,800-2,100 meters high, the council said. This versatility could explain why teff is now being cultivated in areas as diverse as dry and mountainous Idaho and the low and wet Netherlands.

6. Moringa

Moringa can be ground intoa powder.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Its often called the the miracle tree or the tree of life, according toTIME. Its commonly found inAsian and African countries, and almost every part of itpods, leaves, seeds and rootsis edible. Its agood sourceof Vitamin B6, Vitamin C and iron. Not only does it pack a nutritional punch, its also afast-growing, drought-tolerant plantthat is a promising biofuel and medicinal source.

7. Kelp

Kelp grows super fast (up to two feet per day), and requires neither freshwater nor fertilizer. And rather than contributing to our carbon footprint, as many fertilizers and food sources do, seaweed cleanses the ocean of excess nitrogen and carbon dioxide,Mother Jonesreported. One kelpfarmer on the Long Island Sound evenclaimshesrestoringthe ocean while producing a sustainable food and fuel source.

8. Waste-Based Food

This isnt as weird as it sounds. In order to reducefood waste, restaurants are findingcreative waysto use the edibleparts of plants and animals that are often thrown out. Last year, award-winning chef Dan Barber held atwo-week pop-upat Blue Hill, his restaurant in New York City, where he cooked with spent grain, cocoa beans, pasta scraps andvegetablepulp.

Written by Cole Mellino. Reposted with permission from EcoWatch.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link: 

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Sunwarrior, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer. You can’t see it or smell it,which is why the U.S. EPA and other organizations encourage people to be on the lookout for it.

January is Radon Action Month, which makes it a perfect time to find out if your home is contaminated with radon. If so, there are several ways you can fix the problem.

Health Impacts of Radon

Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. Although lung cancer can be treated, only between 11 and 15 percent of those afflicted with this horrible disease will live beyond five years. Smoking and secondhand smoke also cause lung cancer, but radon isthe second leading cause. It’s responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. The U.S. Surgeon General issued this national health advisory on radon to encourage people to get their homes tested if they have any reason to believe it could be contaminated.

Where is Radon Found?

Radon comes from the natural radioactive breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water. It also can get into the air you breathe. Because it is a gas, it can easily get into buildings, including your home.

How Do You Know if Your House has a Radon Problem?

The only way to know for sure if you and your family are at risk from radon is to test for it. The EPA and the U.S. Surgeon General recommend testing all homes below the third floor for radon. EPA also recommends testing in schools.

How Can You Test For Radon?

Use a test kit or find a qualified radon measurement professional to do the test. The National Radon Program Services at Kansas State University offers discounted test kits for purchase online. The cost between $15 and $25 and will test for radon over both the short and long-term. Alternatively, you may be able to find a test kit at your local home improvement or hardware store.

If you need to bring in a professional, you can use EPA’s Map of Radon Zones to find links to your state’s radon program, if one exists, or EPA’s regional contacts, which should be able to help you get in touch with the right contractors.

What If You Find a Radon Problem?

According to EPA, you will need to fix or mitigate the radon problem in your home if, through testing, you find that your radon level is confirmed to be 4 picocuries per liter, pCi/L, or higher. EPA says radon levels less than that amount still pose a risk, so you might want to err on the side of caution and still take steps to reduce radon in your home. If you smoke and your home has high radon levels, you are at a significant risk for developing lung cancer.

To fix the problem, work with a qualified radon mitigation contractor. Before you start, you probably should get estimates from at least two contractors. In its handy Consumer’s Guide to Radon Reduction: How to Fix Your Home, EPA provides a very useful checklist that will help you do a good job securing a contractor and supervising the work.

How the problem is ultimately fixed will depend on the kind of home you have and what the problem is. Some techniques prevent radon from entering your home; others reduce radon levels after it has entered. It’s generally best to prevent radon from getting in, perhaps by suctioning it out of your home or the soil surrounding your home and venting it to the open air, where it will dissipate. If you have a crawlspace under your home, the solution may be to cover the soil below with high density plastic, then suction the radon emanating from the soil below the plastic and send it out into the air.

Sealing cracks and other openings in your home’s foundation may also help prevent radon from entering. Increasing ventilation in the spaces that contain radon will also help, though it’s not generally a permanent solution.

Generally speaking, if your home has a basement or a crawl space, you should probably have it tested for radon. Again, the test is not expensive but the consequences can be extreme if the problem is ignored. Even new homes built with radon-resistant features should be tested after occupancy to ensure that radon levels are low.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See the original article here:

January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on January is Radon Action Month. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Tips for Decorating an Eco-Home

Usually I write about how to improve your health with good food, but today I’m going to write about another really important aspect of a healthier, greener lifehow to ensure you’re living in a healthy environment.

Sad to say, but we are exposed to toxins every day, many of which come from the home. Carpets, paints, furniture and other home products can off-gas and drastically decrease the health of indoor air. But there are ways to improve the health of your home and make your home life super green.

Choose Organics for Accessories

Choosing organic sheets, towels, pillows and other linens is good for reducing your exposure to chemicals like formaldehyde. Organic cottons do tend to be more expensive, but organic agriculture helps support sustainable farming methods and reduce the risk of chemical exposure to farmworkers. Choose GOTS certified textiles to ensure it meets standards for ecological and social responsibility. Organic textiles can be found at so many big stores now (like Target) that it makes it easier than ever to make a healthier choice.

An organic bed is a happy bed

Use Plants to Improve Indoor Air Quality

If you are in a situation where you cannot choose eco-friendly options, you can always mitigate the indoor air pollution with plants. Plants are surprisingly effective at reducing indoor air pollution, all while adding coziness and green energy to your home. Check out this list of the best plants to improve indoor air quality and learn how the many varieties of plants can help clean up your house.

Choose Healthier Paints

Always choose low or no-VOC paints for the home to ensure the paint doesn’t off-gas as it dries. Consumer Reports explains that “VOCs can cause acute symptoms, including headaches and dizziness. The long-term effects are less certain, but according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, some VOCs are suspected carcinogens.” VOCs are found in paint and other household items, so you should limit your exposure to reduce your risk of complications like eye, nose, throat irritation, asthma complications and dizziness. If you have to paint with regular paint, be sure to ventilate well and wear a mask while using it.

Low or no-VOC paints are better for the home.

Find Better Furniture

New furniture and furnishings can off-gas VOCs just like paint, so choosing secondhand furniture and accessories can help reduce your impact on the planet and improve your health. That ‘new furniture’ or ‘new car smell’ is often a mixture of Acetone, Benzene, Ethylene glycol, Formaldehyde, Methylene chloride, Perchloroethylene, Toluene, Xylene and 1,3-butadienewhich makes that new car smell a bit less appealing. One of the biggest sources of these chemicals is particle board or plywood, but it’s also found in upholstery fabric and electronics. If you can’t buy secondhand, then be sure to let your furniture and accessories off-gas for a few days before closing into a room. Keeping plants near the furniture can actually help absorb some of the chemicals too.

Related:

10 Easy Ways to Make Your Shower More Sustainable
10 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Money & Energy
8 Decor Ideas for an Organic Living Room
20 Houseplants to Clear Toxins From Your Home

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit site: 

Tips for Decorating an Eco-Home

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tips for Decorating an Eco-Home

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Mother Jones

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

Every story has a beginning. This one starts in late 2001, when my father-in-law fractured three of his ribs. Harry was a retired physician, and after a thorough workup that he insisted on, it turned out that his bone density was severely compromised for no immediately apparent reason. Further tests eventually revealed the cause: He had multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow.

Harry’s cancer was caught early, and it progressed slowly. By 2007, however, it had taken over his body. When my wife saw him in early 2008, she remarked that he looked like someone in a lot of pain but trying not to show it—despite the fact that he was taking oxycodone, a powerful opiate.

During a career that lasted more than three decades, he had watched all too many of his patients struggle with their final months, and this experience had persuaded him that he would take his own life if he found himself dying of an agonizing and clearly terminal illness. Now he was. Finally, on the evening of January 29, he stumbled and fell during the night, and decided his time had come: He was afraid if he delayed any longer he’d become physically unable to remain in control of his own destiny.

Kendrick Brinson

This was important. Since Harry lived in California, where assisted suicide was illegal, he had to be able to take his life without help. Because of this, he initially intended not to tell either of his daughters about his decision. He wanted to run absolutely no risk that merely by being with him in his final moments, or even knowing of his plans, they’d be held responsible for his death.

Luckily, neither my wife nor her sister had to learn of their father’s death via a call from the morgue. A friend persuaded him to call both of them, and on January 30 we all drove out to Palm Springs to say our last goodbyes. After that, Harry wrote a note explaining that he was about to take his own life and that no one else had provided any assistance. It was time. He categorically forbade any of us from so much as taking his arm. He walked into his bedroom, put a plastic bag over his head, and opened up a tank of helium. A few minutes later he was dead.

Why helium? Why the note?

Harry was a methodical man, and when he decided he would eventually take his own life, he naturally looked for advice. The place he turned to was the Hemlock Society, founded in 1980 with a mission of fighting to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults.

When we went through Harry’s files after his death, we found a slim manila folder with several pages copied from various Hemlock publications, nestled between a bunch of fat folders containing financial information, his will, and his medical records. One of the pages recommended that you write a note making it clear that you had taken your own life, unassisted by anyone else. This was meant for the sheriff or the coroner, and was designed to protect anyone who might be suspected of illegally aiding you.

There were also several pages with instructions on how to take your life using an “inert gas hood kit.” This is a fairly simple and painless way to die, since your body reflexively wants to breathe, but doesn’t really care what it breathes. If you breathe pure helium, or any other inert gas, you won’t feel any sensation of suffocation at all. You simply fall unconscious after a minute or so, and within a few more minutes, you die.

At the time of Harry’s death, the Hemlock Society—known today as Compassion & Choices—was one of the oldest and best-known organizations working to legalize physician-assisted suicide. But it was hardly the first. During the 19th century, as opioid painkillers became widespread, euthanasia became a lively topic of discussion. By the turn of the century it had been banned in nearly every state. Public opinion finally started to shift in the 1930s, and by 1949 it had progressed enough that the Euthanasia Society of America was able to recruit several hundred Protestant and Jewish clergymen in an effort to challenge New York’s law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. Thanks partly to fresh memories of the infamous Nazi “forced euthanasia” programs that killed thousands of the disabled and mentally ill, and partly to the Catholic Church’s opposition to any form of suicide, their effort failed.

Still, support for physician-assisted suicide continued to tick slowly upward, from 37 percent in 1947 to 53 percent by the early ’70s, when the birth of the patients’ rights movement helped shine a new spotlight on issues of death and dying. Karen Ann Quinlan provided the spark when she fell into a coma and was declared by doctors to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” Her parents went to court to have her respirator removed, and in 1976 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in their favor. That year California became the first state to recognize living wills as legally binding documents that authorize the removal of life-sustaining treatment in the face of imminent death. Other states followed, and end-of-life directives became an increasingly common part of the medical landscape. Today, there’s hardly a medical show on television that hasn’t dealt with the now-famous DNR—Do Not Resuscitate—order.

Active euthanasia remained illegal everywhere, but the door had been opened a crack—and supporters of assisted suicide started pushing to open it further. Founded in the aftermath of the Quinlan fight, the Santa Monica-based Hemlock Society soon became one of the most aggressive backers of abolishing legal bans on physician-assisted suicide. By the end of the 1980s, national support had gained another 12 polling points, and success seemed within grasp. In 1988, supporters of assisted suicide tried but failed to get a measure on the California ballot. In 1991, a similar measure made it on the ballot in Washington state but failed to gain passage. In 1992, Californians got a measure on the ballot, and polls showed the public widely in favor. But a well-funded opposition campaign, led by the Catholic Church, took its toll, and in the end the initiative failed, 54 to 46 percent. Finally, in 1994, backers succeeded in Oregon. Three years later, following a court fight and a second ballot measure, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-aided suicide.

Ever since Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act took effect in 1997, the state health authority has published annual reports about the numbers and types of patients who have gotten a prescription for DWDA drugs. Probably the main takeaway is the simplest one: If Oregon is any indication, assisted suicide will never be a popular option. In 1998, only 24 people received DWDA prescriptions, and 16 used them. By 2014, after 16 years in which Oregonians could get used to the idea, 155 people requested prescriptions, and 105 used them. That’s 105 out of about 34,000 total deaths statewide, or roughly one-third of 1 percent.

Part of this is due to the stringency of Oregon’s law. Requests for DWDA drugs must be confirmed by two witnesses and approved by two doctors. The patient must not be mentally ill. And most important of all, both doctors have to agree that the patient has no more than six months to live. Because of this, about two-thirds of all patients who requested drugs had cancer, an illness that frequently has a definite timeline. Only about one-sixth have degenerative diseases with indeterminate timelines, like Alzheimer’s or ALS—Lou Gehrig’s disease.

In the decade after Oregon’s law took effect, the physician-assisted-suicide movement gained little ground. On a national level approval rates remained steady, with about two-thirds of Americans telling Gallup they supported the concept, but that seemingly strong support didn’t translate into legislative success.

Some of the reasons for this failure are obvious, but among the obscure ones is this: Assisted suicide has long been a West Coast movement. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, California, Oregon, and Washington all had active legislative legalization campaigns—even if only Oregon’s succeeded—and according to a 1996 survey, West Coast doctors received many more requests for assisted suicide than doctors in other parts of the country. No one is quite sure why, but outside of the West Coast, it was simply not a very prominent issue.

Another reason legalization failed to gain ground is rooted in semantics. Miles Zaremski, an attorney who has argued on behalf of such bills for years, is typical of assisted-suicide supporters when he maintains that in the case of terminal patients, “we’re not dealing with the concept or notion of suicide at all.” Rather, it’s nothing more than aiding the natural dying process. Opponents call this Orwellian and worse. Public sensitivities reflect this linguistic divide. Although that longitudinal Gallup poll has long reported two-thirds support for legally allowing doctors to “end the patient’s life by some painless means,” support historically drops by 10 points or more when they ask if doctors should be allowed to “assist the patient to commit suicide.” So when legislation is under consideration, opponents fill the airwaves with the word “suicide,” and public support ebbs.

A third reason is demographic: The assisted-suicide movement has long been dominated by well-off, educated whites. As early as 1993, Dick Lehr reported in a Boston Globe series titled “Death and the Doctor’s Hand” that every doctor he talked to said that patients who asked about assistance in dying were typically middle to upper class and accustomed to being in charge. As one oncologist put it, “These are usually very intelligent people, in control of their life—white, executive, rich, always leaders of the pack, can’t be dependent on people a lot.”

In fact, one of the reasons Oregon was first to pass an assisted-suicide bill is likely because it’s a very white state—and so are the patients who take advantage of the Death With Dignity Act. The 2014 report from the Oregon Health Authority says that the median age of DWDA patients is 72 years old; 95 percent are white, and three-quarters have at least some college education.

Aid-in-dying bills are a tougher lift in more-diverse states. Minority patients have historically been wary of the medical establishment, and not without reason. There’s abundant evidence that people of color have less access to health care than whites and receive less treatment even when they do have access. If the health care system already shortchanges them during the prime of their lives, would it also shortchange them at the end, pressing them to forgo expensive end-of-life care and just take a pill instead? This fear makes the doctors who serve them cautious about discussing assisted suicide. “My concern is for Latinos and other minority groups that might get disproportionately counseled to opt for physician-assisted suicide,” one doctor told Lehr. More recently, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, explained to the New York Times, “You’re seeing the push for assisted suicide from generally white, upper-middle-class people, who are least likely to be pressured. You’re not seeing support from the underinsured and economically marginalized. Those people want access to better health care.”

Finally, there’s the fourth and most obvious reason for legislative failures: Assisted suicide has a lot of moral opposition.

Suicide has always been a sin to the Catholic Church, and in 1965 the Vatican reaffirmed this position, declaring that abortion, euthanasia, and other forms of taking life “poison human society.” In 1980, the church released its “Declaration on Euthanasia,” which permitted the refusal of extraordinary measures when death was imminent but categorically opposed any kind of assisted suicide, calling it a “violation of the divine law.” In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his Evangelium Vitae encyclical, which condemned the growing acceptance of euthanasia as a personal right.

It was Evangelium Vitae that popularized the epithet “culture of death,” which has since been adopted by born-again Christians to condemn both abortion and assisted suicide. This makes assisted-suicide legislation especially difficult to pass in states with a large Catholic or conservative Christian presence.

Opposition also comes from many within the disability rights movement, who have a long-standing wariness of the medical community. “Doctors used to exercise near-total control over the lives of people like me with significant disabilities,” writes Diane Coleman, a disability rights activist, “sentencing us to institutions, and imposing their own ideas about what medical procedures would improve our lives.” That attitude has since improved, but not enough to allay fears that doctors might care for the disabled differently if assisted suicide becomes legal. Will they treat depression in the disabled with less than their usual vigor, giving in more easily to requests for lethal drugs? Consciously or unconsciously, will they be more likely than they should be to diagnose imminent death?

And it’s not just doctors. The seriously disabled already live with the reality that many people consider their lives barely worth living in the first place. They fear that if assisted suicide becomes commonplace, the right to die could evolve into a “duty to die,” and those with disabilities—along with minorities and the poor—might face increased pressure to end their lives. The pressure could come from family members, exhausted from tending to disabled children or parents. It could come from insurance companies, for which assisted suicide is a lot cheaper than six months of expensive end-of-life care. It could come from government “death panels,” trying to control costs and keep taxes low. Or it could come from the disabled themselves, out of worry that they’re a burden on friends and family, both emotionally and financially.

More generally, opposition also comes from those who fear a slippery slope. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, 1 in 28 deaths now comes via doctor-assisted suicide. That’s up 200 percent in the past decade, largely because the rules are so lenient. All you have to do is claim unbearable suffering, which in practice can mean that you’re just tired of living.

Opposition also comes from the medical profession itself. This has softened over the past few years, with a large 2010 survey showing that more physicians supported assisted suicide (45 percent) than did not (40 percent). Nonetheless, until last year both the American Medical Association and every single state medical group formally opposed physician-aided suicide.

In California, all of these things—its large Latino population, its large Catholic population, the opposition of doctors, and real concerns about both slippery slopes and pressure on the poor—conspired for years to keep assisted suicide from becoming legal. In the past quarter century, advocates tried five times to pass legislation legalizing the practice—via ballot measures in 1988 and 1992 and legislation in 1995, 1999, and 2005. Five times they failed.

Then Brittany Maynard happened.

For California’s assisted-suicide movement, Brittany Maynard was perfect: young, attractive, articulate, dying of a brain tumor—and very much on their side. Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, called her “the new face of the movement.

Maynard’s cancer was diagnosed on the first day of 2014. She underwent surgery to remove the tumor, but in April it returned, worse than ever. A few months later she moved from San Francisco to Oregon and partnered with Compassion & Choices—the successor to the Hemlock Society—to create a six-minute video explaining why she wanted the right to control the time and manner of her death. It has been viewed nearly 12 million times since then. In October, she was featured on the cover of People. On November 1, she took the pills she had been prescribed and died.

Maynard’s story galvanized the cause of assisted suicide in California. Two months after her death yet another bill was introduced. It passed the state Senate in June, but opposition from church leaders, disability rights activists, and others bottled it up in the Assembly’s Health Committee in July. Nationally, support for “assisted suicide” was up 17 points, and had finally hit the same two-thirds level in Gallup polls that “ending life painlessly” had long maintained. State polls showed even stronger support: Californians approved it by a margin of 71 to 22 percent. Nevertheless, for the sixth time, assisted suicide couldn’t quite find enough votes even to make it out of committee.

Then supporters got a lucky—and totally unexpected—break: Gov. Jerry Brown called for a special legislative session to address Medicaid funding issues. Unsurprisingly for California, those funding issues haven’t yet been resolved. But equally unsurprisingly, California legislators had no intention of letting a special session go to waste. Dozens of measures were brought up, and one of them was the assisted-suicide bill that had failed only a month earlier. This time, though, things were different. Special-session rules allowed supporters to exclude from the Health Committee five Democrats who had opposed it earlier in the year. With that, the bill finally made it to a floor vote.

It also helped that the bill had a list of safeguards even longer than Oregon’s. Patients must be competent adults with no diagnosed mental disorders that would impair judgment. Two doctors have to certify that patients have less than six months to live. Doctors are required to meet privately with patients to ensure they aren’t being coerced. Two oral requests for aid-in-dying drugs must be made 15 days apart, along with a written request. Only the attending physician can prescribe the medication. The drugs must be self-administered. And the law expires automatically in 10 years unless the Legislature reenacts it.

On September 9, ABX2-15 was passed by the Assembly. On September 11, it was passed by the state Senate. On October 5, after a month of silence about his intentions, Brown signed it into law. Sometime in 2016—90 days after the Legislature adjourns the special session—assisted suicide will finally be legal in California.

For more than a decade after Oregon passed the nation’s first assisted-suicide law, no other state followed. Then, in 2008, Washington voters passed a ballot measure legalizing the practice. In 2009, it was legalized by court order in Montana. Vermont’s lawmakers followed in 2013. Now, the addition of California has tripled the number of Americans with the right to ask a physician for a lethal prescription if they have a terminal disease.

Does this mean that assisted suicide is the next big civil rights battle? The fact that four states have approved assisted suicide in just the past seven years suggests momentum may finally be reaching critical mass. What’s more, if Gallup’s polling is to be believed, the word “suicide” has finally lost its shock value. Still, legislation continues to fail more often than it passes, even in blue states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. Right now, it’s just too early to tell.

Every story has an ending. This one, it turns out, hasn’t quite ended yet, but the beginning of the end came in 2014, when I too broke a bone. In my case, it was a bone in my back, and when I woke up on the morning of October 18, I couldn’t move. My wife called 911, and a few minutes later a crew of burly firefighters loaded me onto a stretcher and carried me downstairs to a waiting ambulance.

Kendrick Brinson

In the ER, the first thing they did was take a set of X-rays. A few hours later a doctor delivered the news in matter-of-fact tones: They had found lytic lesions on bones all over my body—on my legs, my skull, my hips, and my arms. Further tests were needed to confirm the ER doctor’s diagnosis, but there was really only one thing that could cause this. Like Harry, I had multiple myeloma.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that Mother Jones provides excellent health care coverage for its employees. I spent a week in the hospital, where I got a kyphoplasty to repair the bone and began the first stage of chemotherapy. After 16 weeks, the level of cancerous cells in my bone marrow had decreased from about 50 percent to 5 percent, good enough that I qualified for the second stage of treatment, an autologous stem cell transplant.

In concept, this is a simple procedure. First, I spent a couple of days having bone marrow stem cells extracted from my blood and then frozen. A couple of weeks later I was given a huge dose of a powerful chemotherapy drug that’s basically designed to kill everything in its path—including all my healthy bone marrow stem cells. This would kill me in short order, so the next day my stem cells were unfrozen and pumped back into my body. That’s it. All the rest was recovery. My immune system died off completely within a few days, and then started rebounding. After a couple of weeks I went home. Two months after that I felt fine.

Unfortunately, the procedure didn’t work. My bone marrow was still 5 percent cancerous. So now I’m on stage three, a different chemotherapy drug. It’s working, but it’s not working all that well. My last lab test showed that my bone marrow is only 4 percent cancerous, which is the right direction but not the right magnitude. There’s no known treatment that puts multiple myeloma in complete remission, but the goal is to get close enough to zero that the cancerous cells are undetectable. I’m nowhere near that yet.

I may still get there. And if my current medication doesn’t do the job, there are other things to try. Nonetheless, even though I feel fine, the grim fact is that I’m responding to the chemotherapy only modestly.

So how long do I have to live? Five years? Ten years? Two? No one knows. But I’m 57 years old, and death is no longer so far away that I never think about it. The odds are slim that I’ll ever collect a Social Security check.

That makes this story a very personal one. Sometime in the next few years the cancer will start to progress rapidly and there will be no more treatments to try. My bones will become more brittle and may break or accumulate microfractures. My immune system will deteriorate, making me vulnerable to opportunistic outside infections. I may suffer from hemorrhages or renal failure. My bones will stop retaining calcium, which will build up instead in my bloodstream. I may be in great pain—or I may not. Multiple myeloma can end in a lot of different ways. But one thing is sure: Once any of these symptoms start up, I’ll be dead within a few weeks or months.

Like Harry, though, I’ve never intended to let that happen. I have no interest in trying to tell other people what to do if they find themselves close to death, but my choice has always been clear: I don’t want to die in pain—or drugged into a stupor by pain meds—all while connected to tubes and respirators in a hospital room. When the end is near, I want to take my own life.

Until this year, that would have left me with only two options. The first is to wait until my wife is out of the house and lug out a helium tank. Assuming I do everything right, I’ll die quickly and painlessly—but I’ll also die alone. I would have no chance to say goodbye to friends and family, nor they to me. My wife would have the horror of discovering my corpse when she came home, and that would be her final memory of me.

The second option is that I’d wait too long and land in a hospital. I’d end up with all those tubes and pain meds I never wanted, and I’d never get out. Maybe I’d be there for a week, maybe a few months. Who knows? It’s pretty much my worst nightmare.

Kendrick Brinson

But now I have a third option. When I’m within six months of death, I can ask my doctor for a prescription sedative that will kill me on my own terms—when I want and where I want. Will I ever use it? I don’t know. I suspect that taking your own life requires a certain amount of courage, and I don’t know if I have it. Probably none of us do until we’re faced with it head-on.

But either way, I won’t have to die before I want to out of fear that I’ll lose the capacity to control my own destiny if I wait too long. Nor will I have to die alone out of fear that anyone present runs the risk of being hauled in by an overzealous sheriff’s deputy. I’ll be able to tell my wife I love her one last time. I can take her hand and we can lie down together on our bed. And then, slowly and peacefully, I’ll draw my last breaths.

I don’t want to die. But if I have to, this is how I want it to happen. I don’t want a “suicide party,” but neither do I want to suffer needlessly for months. Nor do I want to cause other people any more pain than I have to. I want to go out quietly, with my loved ones at my side.

When he signed California’s right-to-die bill, Gov. Brown attached a signing statement. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain,” he wrote. “I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

Nor would I.

See original article:  

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

The EPA Finally Admitted That the World’s Most Popular Pesticide Kills Bees—20 Years Too Late

Mother Jones

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

Bees are dying in record numbers—and now the government admits that an extremely common pesticide is at least partially to blame.

For more than a decade, the Environmental Protection Agency has been under pressure from environmentalists and beekeepers to reconsider its approval of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, based on a mounting body of research suggesting they harm bees and other pollinators at tiny doses. In a report released Wednesday, the EPA basically conceded the case.

Marketed by European chemical giants Syngenta and Bayer, neonics are the most widely used pesticides both in the United States and globally. In 2009, the agency commenced a long, slow process of reassessing them—not as a class, but rather one by one (there are five altogether). Meanwhile, tens of millions of acres of farmland are treated with neonics each year, and the health of US honeybee hives continues to be dismal.

The EPA’s long-awaited assessment focused on how one of the most prominent neonics—Bayer’s imidacloprid—affects bees. The report card was so dire that the EPA “could potentially take action” to “restrict or limit the use” of the chemical by the end of this year, an agency spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

Reviewing dozens of studies from independent and industry-funded researchers, the EPA’s risk-assessment team established that when bees encounter imidacloprid at levels above 25 parts per billion—a common level for neonics in farm fields—they suffer harm. “These effects include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced,” the EPA’s press release states.

The crops most likely to expose honeybees to harmful levels of imidacloprid are cotton and citrus, while “corn and leafy vegetables either do not produce nectar or have residues below the EPA identified level.” Note in the below USGS chart that a substantial amount of imidacloprid goes into the US cotton crop.

Imidacloprid use has surged in recent years. Uh-oh. US Geological Survey

Meanwhile, the fact that the EPA says imidacloprid-treated corn likely doesn’t harm bees sounds comforting, but as the same USGS chart shows, corn gets little or no imidacloprid. (It gets huge amounts of another neonic, clothianidin, whose EPA risk assessment hasn’t been released yet.)

The biggest imidacloprid-treated crop of all is soybeans, and soy remains an information black hole. The EPA assessment notes that soybeans are “attractive to bees via pollen and nectar,” meaning they could expose bees to dangerous levels of imidacloprid, but data on how much of the pesticide shows up in soybeans’ pollen and nectar are “unavailable,” both from Bayer and from independent researchers. Oops. Mind you, imidacloprid has been registered for use by the EPA since the 1990s.

The agency still has to consider public comments on the bee assessment it just released, and it also has to complete a risk assessment of imidacloprid’s effect on other species. In addition to their impact on bees, neonic pesticides may also harm birds, butterflies, and water-borne invertebrates, recent studies suggest. Then there are the assessments of the other four neonic products that need to be done. Frustrated at the glacial pace of the EPA’s deliberations, a coalition of beekeepers and environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday demanding that the agency withdraw its approvals for the most-used neonic products.

Read this article:  

The EPA Finally Admitted That the World’s Most Popular Pesticide Kills Bees—20 Years Too Late

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EPA Finally Admitted That the World’s Most Popular Pesticide Kills Bees—20 Years Too Late

Is Your Vegetarian Diet Bad for the Environment? We Unpack a Recent Study

Meat production is harmful to the environment right? Those of us who follow environmental news have heard it said again and again: Cut down on meat consumption and youll be reducing your carbon footprint. The UN has estimated that about 18 percent of global carbon emissions can be traced back to meat production, and that doesnt even begin to take into account the issues of water waste and antibiotic use. Nitrous oxide and methane are two of the greenhouse gases commonly cited as problems, with the shipment of meat also bearing some of the blame for the environmental impact of animal products.

But a recent study has challenged the notion that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment. Research by scientists at Carnegie Mellon University suggestedthat switching to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and fish (admittedly not a part of manyvegetarian diets) actually increases carbon emissions compared to simply reducing calorie consumption overall. The study has raised a few questions, and more than a few eyebrows. Is vegetarianism harmful to the environment? Should we all stop eating lettuce and eat more bacon (as some headlines have suggested)? The short answer is no. But first, let’s unpack the study.

The study

Researchers compared the carbon emissions of three scenarios: One that followed the current USDA dietary guidelines, one that decreased calorie consumption overall, and one that maintained calorie consumption but increased the percentage of calories that came from vegetarian and pescatarian sources, including dairy and fish. The scientists then examined each of the diets for three factors, including water consumption, energy expenditure and greenhouse gas emissions.

The results

The scientists found that reducing calories overall – not switching to a vegetarian or pescatarian diet – was most effective at reducing environmental impact. This is because calorie for calorie, some vegetables, fish and dairy require even more resources to produce than some meat sources.

Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think, Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy, said in a news statement. “Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken …You cant lump all vegetables together and say theyre good. You cant lump all meat together and say its bad.

Some writers have been quick to point out that theres tremendous variation in the calorie efficiency of both vegetables and meats. In her article for the Huffington Post, Hilary Hansen points out that while lettuce and cucumbers may not be particularly calorie efficient, veggies such as broccoli, rice, potatoes and kale fare much better. It’s also well-known that beef is profoundly worse for the environment than othermeat sources.In fact, some sourceshave suggested that beef produces 11 times more greenhouse gases than staples such as wheat or potatoes. Furthermore,locally, sustainably raised meats have a very different environmental impact than animal products from large factory farms in faraway states.

Also, as Rachel E. Gross points out on Slate, most vegetarians aren’t replacing their bacon calories with heads of lettuce. They’re probably replacing those calories with items like nuts, beans and whole grains, which have a lower environmental impact thanpoultry or pork and are more calorically efficient than lettuce or cucumbers.

You may also notice the “vegetarian” section of the study didn’t look at a fully plant-based diet, but instead included dairy and fish. Fish and dairy production bothhave environmental issues of their own. Overfishing is a huge problem for the world ecosystem, and dairy production generates significant greenhouse gas emissions, as it requires similar livestock-raising techniques to meat production.

Nevertheless, the study still challenges the notion that swappingmeatsfor vegetables, fish and dairy is not necessarily the best move for climate change. How can we modify our diet to reduce our climate impact?

Tips for reducing your carbon footprint through diet

Increase calorie-efficient foods such asbroccoli, rice, potatoes and kale. Reduce consumption of red meat, beef, dairy and shellfish. (You can see a list of the foods scientists looked at in this Washington Post articleand how they affect greenhouse gas emissions).
Only buy what you can eat: The researchers noted that reducing food waste would be the best way to cut down on carbon emissions. According to another study published this year, meat waste is particularly bad for the environment.
Support local farms: IFLScience reported that research shows a diet based on guidelines commonly found in Europe would be environmentally friendly. In this scenario, people get the majority of their food – whether its meat or veggies – from local sources.
Cut down on calories: Calorie reduction is carbon footprint reduction! Bonus: Research shows that reducing your calorie intake can increase your longevity. Just make sure to stay within a healthy window of total calories. Everyday Health reports that you need a bare minimum of 1,200 calories to stay healthy, but active people will require upward of 2,000-2,500 per day.
Buy sustainable seafood: Overfishing is a huge problem for the environment. Seek out seafood sources that have been certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continued here – 

Is Your Vegetarian Diet Bad for the Environment? We Unpack a Recent Study

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Your Vegetarian Diet Bad for the Environment? We Unpack a Recent Study

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

green4us

Think weapons, air conditioners, and ice cream, for starters. New York officials tour flood damage in a Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter in 2011. Hans Pennink/AP Climate change will have some pretty terrifying consequences. Experts have predicted everything from deadly heat waves and devastating floods to falling crop production and even increased political instability and violence. But according to some of the world’s biggest companies, these future disasters could also present lucrative business opportunities. In a remarkable series of documents submitted to a London-based nonprofit called CDP, big-name corporations describe global warming as a chance to sell more weapons systems to the military, more air conditioners to sweltering civilians, and more medications to people afflicted by tropical diseases. CDP, which stands for “Carbon Disclosure Project,” asks companies all over the world to disclose information about their greenhouse gas emissions and how the changing climate will impact their operations. Each year, thousands of companies send in responses. Below, we’ve compiled a list of some of the most striking—and, in some cases, disturbing—scenarios laid out by those businesses. It’s important to keep in mind that these companies aren’t rooting for catastrophic warming. In the same documents, they outline huge risks that climate change poses to humanity—and to their profits. Many of them have also taken significant steps to reduce their own carbon footprints. Still, the fact that corporations have spent so much time thinking about the business opportunities that could emerge as the world warms underscores just how colossal an effect climate change is going to have on our lives. Defense and border surveillance Embed from Getty Images Republicans have recently mocked President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders for saying climate change poses a national security threat. But Democratic politicians aren’t the only ones making this connection. In 2014, the CNA Military Advisory Board, a group of retired US generals and admirals, warned that the impacts of global warming “will serve as catalysts for instability and conflict.” Saab, a Swedish defense firm (and former parent company of the struggling automaker), agrees. In its CDP submission, the company cites the CNA report and adds that climate change could “induce changes in natural resources e.g. water, oil etc., which may result in conflicts within already unstable countries” as well as illegal deforestation, fishing, and drug smuggling. Saab sees these dangers as a business opportunity that will result in an “increased market for civil and military security solutions.” As an example, the company points to its Erieye Radar System, which “works in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment” and is “capable of identifying friends or foes.” Raytheon, the Massachusetts-based defense contractor, warned in a 2012 CDP document that climate change might “cause humanitarian disasters, contribute to political violence, and undermine weak governments.” The company wrote that it expects to see “demand for its military products and services as security concerns may arise as results of droughts, floods, and storm events occur as a result of climate change.” Connecticut-based United Technologies Corporation cites arguments that a devastating drought contributed to instability in Syria. The company notes that helicopters made by its Sikorsky business (which has since been sold to Lockheed Martin) were “deployed during population dislocations and humanitarian crises,” and that last year it provided support to the US military’s efforts to “mitigate population dislocations in Syria.” Cobham, a British corporation that manufacturers surveillance systems, stated in a 2013 CDP document that “changes to countries [sic] resources and habitability could increase the need for border surveillance due to population migration.” Security from “social unrest” G4S provides security for the enormous refugee camps outside Dadaab, Kenya. Many of the camps’ residents fled conflict and drought. Jerome Delay/AP Private security firms also see opportunities in climate change. G4S, a London-based corporation that operates around the globe, told CDP that extreme weather is a potential source of business. The company deployed hundreds of security officers to protect its clients following Hurricane Katrina, and it sent officers throughout the Northeast following Superstorm Sandy. G4S also sees financial opportunities in responding to humanitarian disasters such as droughts and famines in the developing world. The company currently provides security for refugee camps in Kenya that are home to hundreds of thousands of people, including many who have fled conflict and drought. G4S says the United Nations “has projected that we [the planet] will have 50 million environmental refugees.” (The United Nations appears to have backed off that particular prediction; according to its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [PDF], “there are no robust global estimates of future displacement.”) Securitas, a Stockholm-based firm that owns the fabled Pinkerton agency, also provided security in the aftermath of Katrina. That company says extreme weather linked to climate change will increase demand for its services “when properties…need to be protected from looting, burglary and social unrest.” Monitoring, Responding to, and Rebuilding From Extreme Weather Embed from Getty Images According to Raytheon, the possible impacts of climate change—including hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, and rising seas—could present opportunities to sell the company’s “weather satellites services, radar and sensing technologies, disaster response, homeland security, and emergency response communications, as well as alternative energy technologies.” Cobham anticipates opportunities to supply cameras to monitor flash floods, “large antennas” for extreme weather conditions, and emergency communications systems for “areas where severe storms have destroyed communications infrastructure.” 3M, the Minnesota-based manufacturing company, says it sells a number of products that can be used to protect buildings during extreme weather and to rebuild after a storm. Shipping Lanes and Travel Embed from Getty Images One of the most striking climate developments in recent years has been the opening of Arctic shipping lanes that were once obstructed by sea ice year-round. Hanjin, a major South Korean shipping company, acknowledged in a 2014 CDP document that a new polar route would be a “tragic consequence” of climate change. But, the company added, Arctic melting would also have environmental and financial benefits: It would allow the shipping industry to “drastically reduce CO2 emissions and cut transit time by 1/3.” Global warming could have some benefits for companies that specialize in transporting tourists, as well. According to Carnival, “change in mean temperatures could open up new routes and ports” for its cruise ships, while “change in precipitation [might] make some ports more attractive.” Drilling for more oil Embed from Getty Images Energy companies have long viewed melting Arctic ice as an opportunity to extract once-inaccessible oil and gas. That hasn’t worked out well so far. In September, Royal Dutch Shell announced that it was ending its costly Arctic exploration project. But Chevron is still optimistic. “Should the current trend in global warming be sustained, both access to and the economics of Chevron’s offshore oil and gas production in the arctic could potentially improve,” states the California-based oil company in its CPD disclosure. “The greatest effects will be associated with an extension to the summer operating period which will tend initially to favor access to and the cost of exploration operations in many arctic basins.” Protection From Deadly Heat Waves Embed from Getty Images In a report last year, a panel co-chaired by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned of risks posed by hotter temperatures: By the middle of this century, the average American will likely see 27 to 50 days over 95°F each year—two to more than three times the average annual number of 95°F days we’ve seen over the past 30 years. By the end of this century, this number will likely reach 45 to 96 days over 95°F each year on average. That’s an opportunity for United Technologies, which—in addition to its defense products—makes air conditioning, refrigeration, and energy efficiency systems. “Annually, extreme heat events kill more Americans than any other environmentally related events, and an increase in extreme heart [sic] events as a result of climate change is forecast for many parts of the world,” the company states. “UTC believes changes in temperature extremes will result in a need for more energy efficient building and other infrastructure, especially chillers and cooling units…We anticipate this demand to be global, with strong increases in tropical and some temperate zones.” According to UTC, “air conditioner sales have increased more than 20% per decade in the developing world 1990 – 2010 in response to increasing temperatures and increasing wealth.” UTC believes these trends could lead to $5 billion in new demand over the next two decades. Halliburton sees related opportunities. The oilfield services company states that it could see increased revenue from the additional energy resources needed for “increase[d] cooling and/or heating.” Combating Crop Failure and Hunger Embed from Getty Images Experts have warned that rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns could reduce crop yields in vulnerable parts of the world, making it difficult to feed a growing population. Biotech companies are racing to develop products that will address this problem. Monsanto, for example, says its products could help farmers “meet increased food needs as available natural resources become more limited.” Bayer notes that its crop sciences division is using “chemical and modern plant breeding approaches” to address the agricultural damage expected to be caused by “an increased occurrence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat, cold and storms.” On the consumer side, the Campbell Soup Company identifies “increasing humanitarian demands” related to climate as a significant opportunity—one that will allow the company to “leverage its key assets to provide relief for such demands.” In addition to directly donating money and food to humanitarian causes, Campbell highlights a current program in which one of its brands donates one smoothie to a needy child for every four smoothies that it sells. According to the company, these types of promotions “can result in millions of dollars for the company.” Fighting Climate-Related Diseases Embed from Getty Images Climate change poses a number of serious public health risks, and the pharmaceutical industry has certainly noticed. Walmart, for instance, believes that it could experience growing demand for prescription medications due to “increases in pollen exposure or climate-change induced medical conditions.” (The retail giant is careful to note that it primarily views climate change, which a spokesperson calls an “urgent and pressing challenge,” as a risk.) Several drug companies believe that rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and worsening extreme weather could increase the spread of tropical diseases that are transmitted by mosquitoes, such as malaria and dengue fever. In its CDP document, Bayer cites one estimate that climate change could result in 40 million to 60 million additional people being exposed [PDF] to these diseases. The company anticipates increased demand for its mosquito nets and other mosquito-control products, especially if malaria spreads to the developed world. GlaxoSmithKline also anticipates that climate change could affect demand for its anti-malarial products and notes that if the company’s “sales rose by 1% around £300m [about $446 million] would be added to our turnover.” A GSK spokesperson added, however, that the company is developing a malaria vaccine that it would offer to African children at a “not-for-profit price,” and that under some scenarios, climate change could actually reduce demand for the company’s products. Novartis, which makes several malaria and dengue drugs, points out that it has provided millions of doses to African health officials at a not-for-profit price. But, the company notes, “businesses selling these drugs will become more profitable if the diseases spread to more developed and richer countries.” A number of experts doubt that will happen, at least in the case of malaria. They argue that factors such as economic development and public health infrastructure are far more significant than climate in controlling malaria. Asked for clarification, a Novartis spokesperson stated that higher temperatures and increased extreme weather from climate change could “lead to large floods, social crises and challenges, which may allow vector diseases to spread further.” Still, he added, Novartis agrees that malaria is unlikely to spread in the developed world. Drug companies point to other health threats, as well. GSK warns that changing precipitation patterns and increased extreme weather events could “affect the spread of water-borne diseases” and respiratory and diarrheal illnesses, creating a need for “greater disease prevention and more patient treatments.” These problems could be especially serious in the poorest countries, according the GSK spokesperson. In its CDP submission, Merck says it is researching the negative impacts that higher temperatures could have on vaccines. Ice Cream! Austronesian Expeditions/Flickr Rising temperatures don’t just drive demand for air-conditioning units and better vaccines. According Nestlé, they can also boost sales of “refreshing products such as ice creams and bottled water.” Nestlé notes that in 2014, Earth experienced its hottest summer on record (until 2015, anyway) and that a number of the company’s local brands performed well that year. So how much of an impact does heat have? “Increased demand for bottled water and ice creams as a result of temperature increase can result in additional sales of CHF 100 million per year,” says Nestlé. In case you aren’t familiar with the exchange rate for Swiss francs, that’s about $100 million.

View original:  

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

Related Posts

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando
Climate Hawks Are Not Impressed by Obama’s Methane Plan
Why Can’t Public Transit Be Free?
Buried in Muck, Clues to Future NYC Drought
Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming

Share this:






Excerpt from: 

How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

Posted in alternative energy, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How 19 Big-Name Corporations Plan to Make Money Off the Climate Crisis

Scientists Just Made a Major Breakthrough in Understanding Autism

Mother Jones

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

Last week brought some rare good news in the autism research world: For the first time, scientists have found a direct link between autistic behavior and a neurotransmitter, a kind of brain chemical that communicates information from one nerve cell to another. In a study published in the journal Current Biology, scientists at Harvard and MIT found that some symptoms of autism stem from problems processing gamma-Aminobutyric acid, or GABA. An inhibitory neurotransmitter, GABA stops brain cells from acting in response to information they receive from the senses.

“Autism is often described as a disorder in which all the sensory input comes flooding in at once, so the idea that an inhibitory neurotransmitter was important fit with the clinical observations,” said Caroline Robertson, the lead researcher, in a statement. While many of us can simply tune out everyday sights or sounds—say, the sight of a grate on the sidewalk or the noise of a car driving by—those with autism are inundated with a deluge of sensory information that can turn everyday environments into distressing experiences.

In addition, Robertson added, about 25 percent of autistic people also have epilepsy—a result of “runaway excitation in the brain.”

In the study, participants started with a visual test: Looking through binoculars, they would see two different images in both eyes—say, a house on the left side and a car on the right side. Most people can focus on one image while diminishing focus on the other, and then switch, oscillating back and forth between the car and the house. In essence, inhibitory neurotransmitters enable the brain to process digestible pieces of information rather than try to take in everything at once.

But people with autism have a difficult time with this visual task—the oscillation between images is slower, and the focus on one image is less directed. Within both groups, though, there’s variation in how well people can perform the task. When the participants took part in a neuroimaging test that measured the amount of GABA, an unsurprising trend appeared for people without autism: The better people are at visual processing, the more GABA they have. For people with autism, though, there was no such trend: Those who were better at visual processing had no higher or lower levels of GABA than those who weren’t, suggesting a problem with the way that GABA is used or processed.

“It’s not that there’s no GABA in the brain,” said Robertson, “It’s that there’s some step along that pathway that’s broken.”

The finding is especially notable because GABA inhibits all kinds of sensory stimulation—not just visual. In theory, a drug that targets bettering the GABA pathway could reduce sensory symptoms of autism.

Still, Robertson warns that this isn’t a silver bullet—especially since scientists still know so little about autism and what causes it. “There are many other molecules in the brain, and many of them may be associated with autism in some form,” she said. “We were looking at the GABA story, but we’re not done screening the autistic brain for other possible pathways that may play a role.”

Link:

Scientists Just Made a Major Breakthrough in Understanding Autism

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scientists Just Made a Major Breakthrough in Understanding Autism

Flint Kids Have So Much Lead in Their Blood That the Mayor Declared a State of Emergency. Thanks GOP.

Mother Jones

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

Children in Flint, Michigan, have such high levels of lead in their blood that Mayor Karen Weaver declared a state of emergency on Monday, calling the situation a “manmade disaster.” The origins of the escalating situation in Flint go back to 2011, when Republican Gov. Rick Snyder appointed an emergency financial manager to balance Flint’s budget—largely by cutting costs on basic public services. Here’s what you need to know:


America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead


Is There Lead In Your House?


An Interview With Pioneering Toxicologist Howard Mielke


How Dangerous Is the Lead in Bullets?


Does Lead Paint Produce More Crime Too?


How Your Water Company May Be Poisoning Your Kids

What’s going on?

In April of 2014, Flint switched its water source from Detroit to the Flint River in an effort to save money. The decision, made by emergency manager Darnell Earley, was met with skepticism: Residents complained that the water was smelly and cloudy. Water tests have since shown high levels of lead, copper, and other bacteria, including E. coli. (GM started hauling in water to its remaining Flint plant last year after noticing that the Flint water was corroding engines.)

According to the Hurley Medical Center study below, the proportion of kids under five with elevated levels of lead in their blood has doubled since the switch to Flint River water, to roughly four percent. In some areas, that number has leapt up to more than six percent. “This damage to children is irreversible and can cause effects to a child’s IQ, which will result in learning disabilities and the need for special education and mental health services and an increase in the juvenile justice system,” wrote Weaver in the state of emergency declaration. In October, the city transitioned back to the Detroit water system, though lead levels still remain higher than the federal action level.

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2647345-Pediatric-Lead-Exposure-Flint-Water.js”,
width: 630,
height: 450,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2647345-Pediatric-Lead-Exposure-Flint-Water”
);

Pediatric Lead Exposure Flint Water (PDF)

Pediatric Lead Exposure Flint Water (Text)

Why are the lead levels so high in Flint?

Flint, the birthplace of General Motors and once a prosperous city, has been in a state of decline for decades. The population has halved since its peak in the 1960’s and 70’s; by 2013, the city had lost roughly three quarters of its property tax base and suffered from a 16 percent unemployment rate. The problem has been met with austerity: Under a controversial law passed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who has been criticized for close ties with the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the state can now appoint emergency managers with the ability to override local policies and make sweeping decisions in the name of “fiscal responsibility”—a policy that stripped half of the state’s black residents of their voting rights.

Flint emergency manager Darnell Earley implemented steep budget cuts, including last year’s decision to save money by changing the city’s water source. In March, Earley nixed a city council vote to “do all things necessary” to switch back to the Detroit system in March, calling the decision “incomprehensible.” He stepped down the next month. The series of events has led to litigation: In November, Flint residents filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the contaminated water caused them to experience myriad health conditions, including skin lesions, hair loss, depression, vision loss, and memory loss. The same month, the ACLU and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the city, governor, and public officials, claiming that public officials have known for years that drinking Flint River water could result in contamination problems. Michael Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan, said, “In their short-sighted effort to save a buck, the leaders who were supposed to be protecting Flints’s citizens instead left them exposed to dangerously high levels of lead contamination.”

How are residents getting by?

Those who can afford it are buying bottled water, but Flint is one of the poorest cities in the nation—41 percent of residents live in poverty. Many still use city water for bathing and cooking.

What are the effects of lead poisoning?

It’s easy to diagnose someone with high lead levels—it simply takes the prick of a finger and a blood test. The symptoms manifest slowly, often years later. According to the World Health Organization, “Lead affects children’s brain development resulting in reduced intelligence quotient (IQ), behavioural changes such as shortening of attention span and increased antisocial behaviour, and reduced educational attainment. Lead exposure also causes anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible.”

What are state officials doing?

A pipeline connecting Flint and other central Michigan counties with Lake Huron is in the works and scheduled to be completed by late 2016. In the meantime, according to a recent Washington Post article, the state has offered more than $10 million to pay for the temporary switch back to the Detroit water system, in addition to covering the costs of water testing and water filters.

Continued here:

Flint Kids Have So Much Lead in Their Blood That the Mayor Declared a State of Emergency. Thanks GOP.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Flint Kids Have So Much Lead in Their Blood That the Mayor Declared a State of Emergency. Thanks GOP.