Tag Archives: technology

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

by fwxpar Posted on February 29, 2016

Mother Jones

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

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee will introduce a bill on Monday afternoon aiming to help solve the long-running fight between the government and the tech and privacy communities over encryption, which has made headlines recently thanks to the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The bill, which will be introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and is backed strongly by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), would create a commission of 16 experts with a range of backgrounds—from cryptographers and intelligence officials to privacy advocates and tech executives—to “examine the intersection of security and digital security and communications technology in a systematic, holistic way, and determine the implications for national security, public safety, data security, privacy, innovation, and American competitiveness in the global marketplace,” according to text of the legislation that was provided to Mother Jones.

It’s part of a larger push to have the government and private sector work together to create new ways to solve the impasse over encryption and other digital security issues. While the government wants to be able to access encrypted devices and messages when needed, tech companies and cryptographers have said there is simply no current way to create such a backdoor for the government without also potentially giving that same access to cybercriminals and hackers. Hillary Clinton has called for a “Manhattan-like project” to square that circle, with other presidential candidates calling for similar public-private cooperation.

McCaul and the commission’s backers hope the panel may find a new, previously undiscovered way to reconcile the legal and technical demands of the two sides, but there appears to be little idea of what that could be. In conversations with lawmakers, privacy advocates, national security lawyers, and technologists, none were able to offer Mother Jones any concrete notion of what a solution may look like. Many members of the technology and privacy communities also view calls for more cooperation and discussion as disingenuous. They argue the technical questions are settled, and that more talking won’t solve anything—but may produce bad legislation that harms security and privacy. “‘They say they can’t do it, but let’s pass the legislation to find out, and I bet they’ll figure out the solution after we’ve mandated it.’ That seems like a bad idea to me,” Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute told Motherboard last year.

Each party would get to nominate eight members of the commission, with each nominee coming from a different one of eight fields. Six of the slots would go to law enforcement and intelligence community representatives, with the other 10 given to tech business and economics experts along with two cryptographers and two members of the civil liberties community. The group would have a year to draft a final report, which would require the approval of 11 of the 16 members.

You can read the full text of the bill below:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2725649-McCaul-Commission.js”,
width: 630,
height: 800,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2725649-McCaul-Commission”
);

McCaul-Commission (PDF)

McCaul-Commission (Text)

See the original post – 

Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Cyber, FF, Gandhi, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will This Bill End the War Between the Government and the Tech Community Over Encryption?

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

by RMZRachele Posted on February 1, 2016

green4us

And the Democrats get it wrong. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) navigate through an Iowa corn field during a 2013 hunt. Nati Harnik/AP With the Iowa caucuses just a week away, Ted Cruz is duking it out with Donald Trump. But Cruz is also taking a beating from a less well-known opponent: the biofuel industry. Apparently the ethanol folks don’t like Ted Cruz… pic.twitter.com/3OEYBUrOmY — David Biello (@dbiello) January 21, 2016 The problem is Cruz’s stance on the Renewable Fuel Standard, a federal mandate that requires fuels made from corn, sugarcane, and other biological sources to be mixed into the nation’s gasoline supply. The most prominent of these fuels is ethanol made from corn. Cruz wants to abolish the RFS (along with all government mandates and subsidies for energy, including for fossil fuels and renewables). Last week in New Hampshire he described the RFS as yet another way in which the government is “picking winners and losers.” That position sets him apart from the other Iowa front-runners, Republican and Democrat alike. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both expressed support for the RFS. Trump recently said he wants to increase the mandate. Cruz’s opposition to ethanol mandates puts him in a place you’d never expect to find him: on the right side of a debate about climate change. Cruz’s position could be a major liability in Iowa, where the RFS has become one of the most important corn-related federal programs and is a major fixture in the state’s politics. Iowa produces by far the most corn-based ethanol and thus arguably benefits more than any other state from the RFS. Last week, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) called for Cruz’s defeat in the caucuses, specifically citing Cruz’s “anti-renewable fuel stand.” (Branstad’s son works for the ethanol trade group America’s Renewable Future, the organization in the Twitter photo above.) Last week, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R), a longtime proponent of the RFS, said he agreed with Branstad’s criticism of Cruz. Of course, Iowa Republicans aren’t all single-issue voters, and it remains to be seen how much ethanol will matter to caucus-goers. Still, Cruz’s opposition to ethanol mandates puts him in a place you would never expect to find him: on the right side of a debate about climate change. Throughout the campaign, the Texas senator has been second only to Trump in his outspoken denial of mainstream global warming science. He has repeatedly used his Senate position to espouse blatantly misleading data that purportedly shows global warming stopped two decades ago. In August, he accused climate scientists of “cooking the books” and later told Glenn Beck that at this point climate change activists resemble a “religion.” But on ethanol, Cruz is on the right track. To understand why, let’s back up a bit. At the global climate talks in Paris in December, the United States committed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. That goal mainly hinges on slashing pollution from coal-fired power plants. But the president’s plan also calls for filling the tanks of the nation’s cars and trucks with ever more fuel made from plants. The same day the Paris talks got underway, the Obama administration increased the requirements of the RFS. The new rules guarantee a growing market for corn-based ethanol, as well as for cutting-edge biofuels made of everything from grass to algae. Only about 5 percent of the country’s transportation fuel currently comes from biofuels (another 3 percent comes from natural gas, and the rest from petroleum). But that small number masks a rapid upward trend: Biofuel’s share has grown fourfold in just the last decade. Roughly 80 percent of that supply comes in the form of corn-based ethanol, production of which has skyrocketed 320 percent over that period. Today, one of every three bushels of corn grown in the United States ends up as ethanol. The remaining volume of biofuels comes largely from imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy-based biodiesel. A tiny splash comes from so-called “cellulosic” biofuels made from grass, cornhusks, and other nonfood sources (the term refers to lignocellulose, the material that comprises much of the mass of plants). The nation’s love affair with biofuels dates back to the final years of the George W. Bush administration, when Congress passed the current version of the RFS. That law set ambitious long-term targets for biofuels and tasked the Environmental Protection Agency with keeping the industry on pace—hence the new requirements announced in November. When corn ethanol started to take off in the mid-2000s, it was supposed to be an easy climate win, projected to have 20 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions per gallon than petroleum. But real-life experience proved murkier. By 2011, the EPA’s own estimates showed that corn ethanol production resulted in emissions that were anywhere from 6 percent to 66 percent higher than petroleum, depending on the kind of power source used to convert it from a cob into fuel. The original promise of biofuels was based on a basic accounting error, explains Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and the World Resources Institute. Burning biofuels still produces tailpipe emissions; the climate benefit was supposed to come from the carbon dioxide emissions sucked out of the air as the corn grew. But the EPA’s early estimates assumed that the corn diverted to biofuel wouldn’t be replaced in the food supply. In other words, Searchinger explains, “the offset is that people and livestock eat less.” Instead, the opposite happened: As ethanol boomed and corn prices climbed, farmers in Iowa and elsewhere planted millions of new corn acres, sometimes at the expense of grasslands and forests that did a better job of capturing carbon than rows of corn do. “If you have any amount of land use change to replace the crops, that wipes out the [climate] gain,” Searchinger says. A similar problem arose with soy-based fuels, as soy diverted from cooking oil to biodiesel was largely replaced with palm oil from Southeast Asia. Deforestation to produce palm oil is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Still, some energy analysts remain hopeful about the climate benefits of more advanced, cellulosic biofuels. “Definitely there are lots of environmental problems with corn ethanol, but turning back to oil isn’t the solution either,” says Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Advanced biofuels are an important part of a multipart strategy to cut emissions from the transportation sector.” Today, cellulosic biofuels are still a bit player, though they’re growing quickly; production is expected to double this year. But they’re still lagging far behind the production levels Congress first envisioned when it created the RFS. In 2015, production of cellulosic biofuels was 96 percent below the original target. Behind that delay is a complex blend of factors. The technology needed to produce cellulosic biofuels at an industrial scale took longer to develop than originally anticipated, in part because the EPA was so far behind schedule on its RFS planning that the 2014 requirement wasn’t even announced until 2015. Delays like that have spooked investors, who were left wondering what the future market for cellulosic biofuels would look like. Meanwhile, the 2008 recession led to an across-the-board dip in gasoline consumption, further reducing market opportunities. Cellulosic biofuels have also been crowded out by corn ethanol. Gasoline refiners are only required to mix their product with about 10 percent biofuels (the so-called “blend wall”), and they have fought vigorously against an increase in that requirement, claiming that most car engines aren’t equipped to handle anything more. Ethanol has taken up most of that share, leaving cellulosic biofuels with nowhere to go; new flex-fuel cars that can run on much higher volumes of biofuel are still a small market. “It’s challenging to market biofuels beyond 10 percent at the moment,” Martin said. “That probably more than anything caused the difficulty with how to proceed. Without a solution to the blend wall, that’s a real problem for the cellulosic plants.” One of the most promising developments for cellulosic biofuels is underway just outside Ames, Iowa, where Sarah Palin delivered her rambling endorsement of Trump last week. Here, one of the country’s first commercial cellulosic biofuel plants opened in October with much fanfare, including appearances by Gov. Branstad and Sen. Grassley. The plant, operated by chemical giant DuPont, aims to convert corn “stover” (husks and other nonedible byproducts left in the field) into a fuel that the company claims will have up to 90 percent lower emissions than petroleum. Jan Koninckx, director of biofuels at DuPont, says that after years of false starts his industry is finally poised to deliver, at scale, a biofuel with solid environmental credentials. “This is really the only realistic way in the foreseeable future to substantially decarbonize transportation,” he says. Of course, one of the most promising options for climate-friendly cars might not rely on liquid fuel at all. The market for electric vehicles is growing by leaps and bounds. And according to Searchinger’s research, an acre of solar panels can produce up to 300 times more energy for vehicles than the same acre planted with corn. Using electricity instead of gasoline could drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce America’s dependence on oil imports—without the concerns about land use. “Things that are slightly better than fossil fuels aren’t the solution,” Searchinger says. “You need things that are 100 percent better than fossil fuels.” Right, Senator Cruz?

Jump to original: 

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

Related Posts

72 Percent of Republican Senators Are Climate Deniers
Yup. A Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Texas City Opts For 100% Renewable Energy–to Save Cash, Not the Planet
Obama Blasts Climate Deniers and Calls for a Clean Energy Revolution
This Is Mike Huckabee’s Brain on Ethanol
One Weird Trick to Fix Farms Forever

Share this:






Visit link:  

Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, Oster, OXO, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s One Issue Ted Cruz Actually Gets Right

Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

by Grady6963359742 Posted on January 27, 2016

It may come as a surpriseor perhaps not surprising at allthat a variety of toxic chemicals have been used to makeoutdoor gear like jackets, shoes, tents, backpacks, and even sleeping bags.

A new report by Greenpeace Germany has documented that “hazardous and persistent chemicals, dangerous to human health and the environment, have been found in the products of leading outdoor brands.”

Greenpeace tested 40 products purchased in 19 different countries and regions. Among the companies whose products were found to be tainted are The North Face, Patagonia, Mammut, Columbia and Haglofs.

The chemicals found embedded in the fabrics of the products these companies make are calledpoly- and per-fluoronated compounds, or PFCs. PFCs are synthetic chemical compounds that do not exist in nature. They are used by the outdoor gear industry to make products waterproof and dirt-repellent.

As effective as they may be, PFCs have serious human health and environmental impacts. These compounds can cause harm to reproduction, promote the growth of tumors, and affect the hormone system. The National Institute for Environmental Health Science reports that in animal studies PFCs also “reduce immune function; cause adverse effects on multiple organs, including the liver and pancreas; and cause developmental problems in rodent offspring exposed in the womb.”

The Minnesota Department of Health notes that PFCs “are extremely resistant to breakdown in the environment,” so once they are released, they persist for a very long time. They can get into the food chain of animals far from their source. PFCs have been found in animals like dolphins, in polar bear livers, and in human blood. They have also shown up in drinking water and in fish near textile factories in China where much of the clothing and gear is produced.

The gear is not believed to threaten you if you wear it. However, because we all live on one planet, and because once the chemicals are released they circulate all over the world, you could be exposed to themwhether you’ve bought the gear or are basically an innocent bystander. Certainly polar bears never wear Polar-tec, yet the chemicals have shown up in their bodies.

What Can You Do?

1) Ask the manufacturer of your gear whether they use PFC compounds for water proofing and repelling dirt. There’s not really much you can do if you already own the gear, other than return the gear to the manufacturer when you’re finished with it, but that’s better than tossing it in the trash.

2) Buy used gear. Since a big source of PFC pollution comesduring manufacturing, you can reduce the amount of new products manufactured – and new chemicals emitted – by buying gently used equipment and clothing.

3) Likewise, sell your used gear on EBay or Craig’s List, donate it, or take it to a thrift shop rather than throwing it away. Extend its life as long as possible.

4) Buy gear from companies that have pledged zero discharge of hazardous chemicals into the environment. There aren’t many of them, but one to look at is Paramo, which has issued a “Detox Commitment” that hopefully will inspire its competitors.

RELATED

Big-Brand Clothing Found Laced with Toxic Chemicals
Why You Should Wash Your Clothes Before You Wear Them

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

Continue at source: 

Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

Posted in alo, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are There Toxic Chemicals Lurking in Your North Face Jacket?

3 Ways Climate Change Affects How We Spend Money

by TVEJarred6824744 Posted on January 20, 2016

Climate change is predicted to have a major impact on many aspects of our lives. Average global temperatures will increase, sea levels will rise, allergiesmay get worse (seriously, it’s likely that they will) theres little question that there will be many complicated biological ramifications.

But what about the cultural and economic changes that might accompany climate change? Some have argued that climate change may increase violence, and surely there will be other societal implications we cant yet predict. Experts do have ideas, though, for what a warmer planet might mean for our spending habits. Here are three trends you may see come to pass in the coming decades:

Fewer luxury goods

A recent study put forth by Swiss banking group UBS suggests that in cities where the threat of climate-related disasters looms large, middle-class families are spending less on luxury goods than they have in the past. They found that in climate-strapped cities such as Los Angeles, Taipei, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai and New Orleans, families had to spend more of their income on housing and repairs, forcing them to scale back on expensive splurges in the realms of entertainment and luxuries.

“More fear, less fun is how we might sum it up,” said the authors of the study.

The study noted that 2015 was the most expensive year on record in terms of natural disasters; a whopping $32 billion were lost within the first half of 2015 alone due to instances of extreme weather.

More sharing

Though the rise of the sharing economy is no doubt attributable to a number of factors, its a huge trend thats expected to continue growing as temperatures rise. This may or may not be a good thing for the environment. While car ownership appears to be decreasing overall, primarily among millennials, the word is still out on whether or not this will actually lead to a reduction in transportation emissions.

There are two sides to the argument, according to environmental blog Grist. On the one hand, sure, ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft free people from needing to use cars to get around on a daily basis. On the other, theres some evidence that the popularity and convenience of these unconventional cab services has actually increased the number of cars on the roadsparticularly in dense cities like New York and Chicago, where residents might have previously been more inclined to use public transportation.

Nonetheless, the sharing economy continues to grow, and its not just about cars. The popularity of sites like Airbnb remains strong, and according to a reportby PwC, 72 percent of Americans say theyre likely to participate in a sharing service in the coming two years.

More renewable energy

Though the warming of the planet is ultimately bad news, theres still plenty of indication that the green energy economy will continue to improve, diversify and grow. According to Scientific American, the U.S. Energy Information Administration is expecting renewable energy to be the fastest-growing source of power in the coming years.

More and more consumers are switching to green power within their own homes, if they have the means to do so. The Solar Energies Industry Association reported that the second half of 2015 was the biggest quarter yet for solar power, with nearly 1,400 megawatts of power installed nationwide.

As both individuals and communities look to transition to renewable energy, it will undoubtedly change the energy landscape. Well have to see what other surprises global warming and climate change action will have on consumer behavior in the coming years.

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

Excerpt from – 

3 Ways Climate Change Affects How We Spend Money

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Ways Climate Change Affects How We Spend Money

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

by AdrianYqwwp Posted on January 15, 2016

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.

Here’s a Video Showing the Very Worst Anti-Science Bullshit of 2015

by Myrna Posted on December 23, 2015

Snowballs, witch-hunts, and a big measles outbreak. In 2015, science was a favorite punching bag for many of America’s politicians. While leaders of nearly 200 nations met in Paris to hammer out a historic deal to combat climate change, the US Senate held a hearing—hosted by presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (R-Texas)—to debunk the science. It had a subtle title: “Data or Dogma?” In fact, 2015 did nothing to alter the notion that one whole American political party—and nearly all of its candidates for the White House—remains stuck on a murky spectrum from outright climate denial to the policy version of ¯_(ツ)_/¯, as we wrote about all-too often this year. There was, of course, the infamous snowball thrown on the floor of the Senate. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) claimed that global warming wasn’t happening because it was cold when he made the snowball. (Repeat after me: Weather does not a climate trend make.) But perhaps the more insidious attack on science was directed by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Smith accused government scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of rigging climate data to disprove the so-called “global warming pause” (a contested but popular talking point often used to attack the science). He then attempted to depose the scientists and subpoena their documents. “Political operatives and other NOAA employees likely played a large role in approving NOAA’s decision to adjust data that allegedly refutes the hiatus in warming,” he told the Washington Post. But if you can’t fight the science outright in public, why not simply try to ban the words? That was the ingenious tactic allegedly employed by the state of Florida, under Gov. Rick Scott (R). Employees from several state departments said they had been told not to use the phrases “climate change” and “global warming” in official state business. (The governor denied the allegations.) 2015 also saw yet another round of measles outbreaks, including one that spread at Disneyland in California. Public health officials blamed parents who don’t vaccinate their kids. That anti-vaxxer sentiment found a powerful megaphone in Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who at September’s televised GOP debate repeated the totally discredited—and dangerous—theory that vaccines cause autism. “Autism has become an epidemic,” Trump claimed. “Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.” (Trump insisted he’s still in favor of vaccines, despite warning a national TV audience that they are endangering children.) Watch the whole, not-so-splendid, anti-science show above. Front-page image credit: Smoke: Claire McAdams/Shutterstock; Man: Everett Collection/Shutterstock Follow this link:  Here’s a Video Showing the Very Worst Anti-Science Bullshit of 2015 ; ; ;

View article: 

Here’s a Video Showing the Very Worst Anti-Science Bullshit of 2015

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Video Showing the Very Worst Anti-Science Bullshit of 2015

9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

by Paisley154 Posted on December 4, 2015

Though climate change is a global problem, many of the solutions to it are local and dependent on the actions all of us individually take to reduce the build-up of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.

You’ve probably heard that you should fly airplanes less or drive an electric car or install solar panels to help use less coal, oil and natural gas, because burning fossil fuels causes climate change. But buying a new car or putting solar on your roof may not be within reach.

Here are 9 actions that definitely should be within reach, and you can take them right now.

1) Eat more fruits and vegetables and less meat. It takes a lot of energy to produce meat. More than one-third of the fossil fuels produced in the U.S. are used to raise animals for food, says this Care2 analysis. That’s because of the large quantity of resources it takes to produce the grain and soybeans needed for animal feed. It’s also because it takes a lot of energy to slaughter the animals, truck them to processing plants, process them, then get them to the grocery store. Plus, the hundreds of millions of farm animals raised generate methane, which in itself is a potent global warming gas. Switching to a more vegetarian diet would reduce fossil fuels burned and methane gas emitted. Here’s how you can get started eating a more plant-based diet.

2) Swap and share more, and buy less that’s brand new. Producing anything new requires a new infusion of natural resources, other materials and of course energy to run the entire operation. But once those goods are produced, very little energy is consumedand few greenhouse gases emittedto extend their life through sharing, swapping, lending, borrowing or buying it gently used from a thrift store. Sure, you might like something new, but does it have to be brand new? The planet says “no.”

3) Choose ENERGY STAR appliances. The ENERGY STAR program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has inspired appliance manufacturers to produce highly efficient appliances to help consumers save energy. If you’re in the market for a new refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner or electronics, be sure to purchase a model that sports the ENERGY STAR logo. You’ll save more energy and not even notice it. And remember, any time you save energy, you save money. One more thing: keep your refrigerator coils cleaned so this appliance, which runs pretty much all the time, will run as efficiently as possible.

4) Tighten up your house and program your home’s energy use. Some homes may waste as much as 20 or 30 percent of the energy they consume because their windows and doors leak and the attics and crawl spaces aren’t insulated. First steps: get a home energy audit to see how much energy you’re actually wasting, then take advantage of state and federal tax credits to pay for improvements. At the same time, install a programmable thermostat so you can automatically turn the heat down when you go to sleep or when no one is home and up when you’re active in the house.

5) Buy renewable energy from your local utility company. Many utility companies now offer their customers the option to purchase energy that’s generated by wind or solar. The utility will purchase power from a wind or solar supplier and pass that along to you. It will cost a few pennies more in most places, but it’s generally affordable. Contact your utility or go to the company’s website to explore the options available to you.

6) Support family planning and birth control. People need energy to live, and the more people there are, the more energy the world needs. Family planning gives women access to birth control so they can have as few or many children as they wish. The Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco reports that providing contraception and abortion services for 225 million under-served women worldwide would cut more carbon than even solar and wind. You can read their entire report here.

7) Replace these 5 lights. The U.S. government’s Energy.Gov website recommends replacing your home’s five most frequently used light fixtures or bulbs with ENERGY STAR models. You’ll save $75 a year on energy costs. The most frequently used light fixtures are usually the overhead light in thekitchen and bathroom, table lamps in the living room, and outdoor porch lights. Here’s a sample of the energy-saving bulbs you can choose from.

8) Wash clothes in cold water. The arrival of detergents formulated to work in cold water means you don’t have to heat water any more when you do your laundry. ENERGY STAR estimates that almost 90 percent of the energy consumed by a washing machine goes to heating water, so making the switch to cold water washing would use far less energy and save about 1,600 pounds of the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.

9) Plant three trees. Planting the right tree in the right place will help you save energy at home by providing wind protection, shade and cool air. Plus, trees add beauty, privacy and wildlife habitat, says the Utah State University Extension Service. Deciduous treesthose that lose all their leaves each fallprovide summer shade, but then allow for direct solar gain into homes that have windows on the south facing side of their structure. Evergreens, on the other hand, save energy by slowing cold winds in the winter.

What other ways have you found to save energy at home and reduce your climate change impact? Please share.

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

Originally from:

9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Thermos, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

Scientists Hooked Up an Inflatable Bag to a Cow Stomach. The Timelapse Video Is Insane.

by JenniHarlow Posted on December 2, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Cows are gassy beasts. And this gas is bad for the planet. Last year, my colleague Josh Harkinson detailed just how dangerous this gas has become in our atmosphere:

Cows are already the nation’s single largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas produced by oil extraction, decomposing trash, and the guts of grazing animals that’s as much as 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide. A single cow farts and belches enough methane to match the carbon equivalent of the average car. According to a 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, the world’s 1.4 billion cows produce 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases—more than the entire transportation sector.

Our hunger for beef is a big problem for the climate: More cows, more methane, faster warming. Now we have a sensational new visual way to understand exactly how much methane we’re talking about, thanks to a new documentary called Racing Extinction, which airs on Discovery Channel Wednesday night in 220 countries and territories around the world—a date designed to coincide with the early days of the high-stakes UN climate summit, where diplomats are attempting to forge a new global deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

To measure just how much a single cow emits every day, scientists at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology hooked up inflatable plastic bags to cows’ stomachs. Then they fed them. And then, they watched the methane bags inflate. Check out the time-lapse:

Look, they even have special belch-backpacks:

Watch the entire fascinating segment below, courtesy of Discovery. And check out the documentary Wednesday night, at 9 pm ET:

Originally posted here: 

Scientists Hooked Up an Inflatable Bag to a Cow Stomach. The Timelapse Video Is Insane.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scientists Hooked Up an Inflatable Bag to a Cow Stomach. The Timelapse Video Is Insane.

EPA catches Dow in weed-killer lie, asks court to reverse approval

by KyleKeegan0 Posted on November 30, 2015

green4us

Codex: Skitarii (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

In mechanical lockstep legions of Skitarii march across the galaxy at the behest of their calculating masters. Elite soldiers augmented with ancient technology and gifted with esoteric weaponry, the Legiones Skitarii are the relentless armies of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Driven by their masters’ ceaseless hunger for knowledge, the Skitarii bring order to worlds through determined […]

iTunes Store
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up – Marie Kondo

This New York Times best-selling guide to decluttering your home from Japanese cleaning consultant Marie Kondo takes readers step-by-step through her revolutionary KonMari Method for simplifying, organizing, and storing. Despite constant efforts to declutter your home, do papers still accumulate like snowdrifts and clothes pile up like a tangled mess of noodles? Japanese cleaning consultant […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Tau Empire (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

A dynamic race whose technology eclipses anything their foes can muster, the tau use speed, strategy and overwhelming firepower to win their battles. Guided by the mysterious Ethereal caste, all tau strive for the Greater Good of their empire, forging ever onward into the stars to assimilate or annihilate everything that stands in their path. […]

iTunes Store
Path to Glory: Warhammer Age of Sigmar (Tablet Edition) – Games Workshop

Gather your warbands and worship your chosen God of Chaos with glorious deeds on the battlefield! Battle other champions and rise in your patron's favour. Rally more followers to your banner and establish yourself as the greatest warlord of Chaos the Mortal Realms have ever seen! 'Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Path to Glory' allows you […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Space Marines (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

The Space Marines are the Angels of Death, humanity’s finest warriors. Clad in the greatest armour and armed with awesomely destructive weapons, they defend the Imperium of Mankind from the alien, the traitor and the daemon. Codex: Space Marines is the most comprehensive guide ever to these superlative warriors. It contains all the rules and […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Cult Mechanicus (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

The ground shudders beneath the tread of towering robots and lumbering war engines as the armies of the Cult Mechanicus advance. Guided by the dark genius of their Tech-Priests, the armies of the Machine God sweep across the stars in their endless quest for knowledge. Any who dare stand against them soon learn to fear […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Imperial Knights (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

Thundering across the battlefield, the towering walkers known as Imperial Knights scatter the foes of the Imperium with booming battle cannon shots and roaring swings of their massive chainblades. The Knights are piloted by proud and deadly warriors of ancient cultures, each one part of a noble family whose lineage can stretch back to before […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Khorne Daemonkin (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

Screaming praise to their dark and bloody master, the Khorne Daemonkin rampage across the stars claiming skulls and destroying worlds. They are the mortal servants of the Blood God who give their flesh to the inhabitants of the Warp – gore-crazed cultists and brutal Chaos Space Marines who covet daemonic possession so they might bring […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Dark Angels (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

The First Legion of old, the Dark Angels have fought in the Emperor’s name for ten thousand years. Yet within the shrouded ranks of the Chapter there lurks an ancient secret, one so terrible that should it ever be revealed it would mean damnation for the Chapter.   Codex: Dark Angels is your comprehensive guide […]

iTunes Store
War Zone Damocles: Mont’ka (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

Following a humbling defeat at the hands of Commander Shadowsun, the forces of the Imperium return to the former hive world of Agrellan, now the Tau Empire’s youngest sept world of Mu’gulath Bay. Countless regiments of tanks and Guardsmen are thrown into the meat grinder as the Imperial commanders vow to reclaim the world from […]

iTunes Store

View article: 

EPA catches Dow in weed-killer lie, asks court to reverse approval

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Paradise, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA catches Dow in weed-killer lie, asks court to reverse approval

What is Dirty Electricity and is it Harmful?

by JereLhotsky1481 Posted on November 23, 2015

Dirty electricity is a growing issue that can be easily misunderstood due to its complexity.

To help clear up any confusion, here are some answers to common questions about dirty electricity.

What is dirty electricity?

Electricity enters homes and other buildings at a constant frequency, typically 50 or 60 hertz (Hz,) depending on which country you live in. This is considered clean energy as it enters your home.

The problem starts when the electricity reaches appliances, computers or other electronic devices. Many of these devices require a transformer to convert the voltage and/or current, which disrupts the flow of electricity.

These power disruptions create irregular, high frequency surges of dirty electricity that travel along a buildings normal wiring, which should only contain 50 or 60 Hz electricity. The surges are also known as high frequency voltage transients.

Is dirty electricity harmful to our health?

Electrical wires and any devices that use electricity emit electromagnetic fields (EMF), also known as electromagnetic radiation (EMR). These fields will easily pass through most common materials. They are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.

A growing body of evidence is showing that EMF exposure can be linked to various health conditions. And the stronger an electrical frequency is, the stronger the EMF will be. Thats why the high frequency transients associated with dirty electricity are of particular concern.

The World Health Organization has recognized that there are potentially both short term and long term health risks associated with EMF exposure.

Also, in 2012, a group of independent scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals, called The BioInitiative Working Group, published the BioInitiative Report. Their goal was to give an overview of whats known about the biological effects of EMF exposure. They reviewed over 2,000 scientific studies and concluded that there is substantial scientific evidence showing that even low levels of EMF have biological effects.

Laboratory studies showed that EMF exposure was linked to genotoxic effects, including DNA damage, as well as adverse effects on immune function, neurology, human behavior and melatonin production. There were also various population studies that found connections between EMF exposure and brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, salivary gland tumors, leukemia, Alzheimers disease, Lou Gehrigs disease and breast cancer.

For instance, one study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine looked at a cancer cluster in a southern California school exposed to high frequency voltage transients in their electrical system. The researchers found that a single year of employment at this school increased a teachers cancer risk by 21 percent, and teachers there more than 10 years increased their risk by 610 percent. They concluded that these high frequency transients may also be a universal carcinogen, not isolated to a single school.

What EMF levels are safe?

Despite the growing research showing the health risks of EMF, a challenge arises when governing agencies try to determine what levels are actually safe.

There are many different aspects of EMF to consider, such as the electrical voltage, frequency and pulse variations, as well as the duration of a persons exposure and any cumulative exposure over time. All these factors make it difficult to set exact safety standards for EMF in our homes.

Currently, most safety regulations only consider levels of EMF that are high enough to increase the temperature of an object. This is also known as ionizing radiation, such as x-rays.

Any lower energy frequencies that are considered non-ionizing, or do not heat objects, are assumed to be safe to use. These are the types of frequencies we are regularly exposed to from dirty electricity and were found to have detrimental effects in the BioInitiative Report.

In fact, The BioInitiative Working Group feels there may be no lower limit where exposure does not affect us. Until we can find a lower limit where its proven that bioeffects do not occur, they recommend limiting exposure to EMF whenever possible.

How can you avoid dirty electricity?

You have many options for reducing your exposure to dirty electricity and EMF.

There are meters you can buy that measure the levels of EMF in your home. EMF is typically measured either in milligauss (mG) or microTesla (T), depending on your country.

You can also download a phone application that will measure EMF, either for an Android or iPhone.

Some main sources of dirty electricity are:

Computers
Television sets
Cordless phones
Entertainment units
Energy efficient lighting
Energy efficient appliances
Dimmer switches
Power tools
Arcing on power lines, caused by loose wires or tree branches touching the lines

Try measuring the EMF levels near any of your suspect appliances, computers or other electrical devices. Replace any of these devices where possible, such as replacing cordless phones with corded phones, or energy efficient lighting (compact fluorescent or LED bulbs) with incandescent or AC halogen light bulbs.

If youre finding high levels in your house, you can install one or more dirty electricity filters. These are available from various online companies. Electrical filters have been shown to control high frequency currents in home electrical systems, but do your research to make sure the company youre buying from is legitimate.

You can tell if the filters are working when you have an EMF meter because you can take before and after measurements.

Many cities also have professional EMF consultants who can come to your home to measure EMF and suggest ways to reduce your exposure.

Sources
Dirty Electricity, by Samuel Milham
Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, by Camilla Rees and Magda Havas
Overpowered, by Martin Blank

Related
5 Gadgets That Can Slash Costly Vampire Energy Use
Is Your Cell Phone a Health Hazard?
Shocking State of the Worlds Antibiotic Resistance

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

See original article here: 

What is Dirty Electricity and is it Harmful?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What is Dirty Electricity and is it Harmful?