Organic Change, Organic Life, Eco-Friendly Water

Being back....!

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:58:00 -0700

Being back...

You are all going to agree with me, there is no better place than the one that makes you feel fulfilled...

Well, I can say that having collaborating a while with Christine Lewicki - a great author, mother, mentor - has truly changed my professional and personal lives. Indeed, today I feel I am doing what I am supposed to do, what I was meant to do. And this is what I called being fulfilled.

I am not saying I have achieved the success I am dreaming of but I can say I am on the path to achieving success just because I enjoy my life in all ways.

Thank you Christine for the beautiful work you do with people. You are truly talented in finding each of our uniqueness and pushing us forward.

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:39:00 -0700

Back from Europe... life there is sweet and happy! The boys and I spent 3 months in France in Brittany, in the middle of the countryside. It's green, humid and it rains so much that our eyes couldn't get tired from watching the grass, the trees, all the the different cultures in the vast fields.

What is most pleasant is the way people care about Earth. They know how to recycle, how to reduce energy consumption, etc... They are so conscious about ecology that we have to learn from them. Well, not that they know more than Native people all over the world, but at least, they are closer than people from the US. Of course, there are many exceptions here too and we have to promote and talk about it as much as we can. For example, this product (link below) has been introduced in the US from Japan, 5 years before it was in Europe. It promotes health on many different levels ; humans, animals and of course plants.... Check it out.

http://hdeuxflo.yourbodyiswater.info
Thanks and have a Healthy & Wealthy September month!

Is a skin graft necessary?

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Thu, 30 May 2013 11:29:00 -0700

Have you heard of Strong Acidic water or Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water?

You can actually get it at home and use it as a Disinfectant. It kills all Germs in 30 seconds and you don't have to worry about chemical danger or Pollution in your home.

Studies have been done and publications are available on Pubmed (worldwide scientific reference) and other websites such as:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electrolyzed+oxidizing+water

http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-35748937925&origin=inward&txGid=Z7qOkwZbBj3bxmazLGPbugH%3a2

See it for yourselves....

I posted this many times over the past 2 to 6 years, because my son Léo (2 1/2 years old then) got severely burnt on his arm on Memorial Day 2010.

Beware of extinguished fire pits. UNDER THE ASHES LAY HOT COALS!!

After visiting many emergency rooms, we were told to go to the County Burnt Center as ER doctors were not specialized enough to help Léo. Once there, the surgeon diagnosed him with 3rd degree (little nerves and veins were gone), some 2nd degree and little 1st degree burns. According to her, infection would spread everywhere within days and Léo was due for a skin graft, but.... here's what I posted at that time and I'm still amazed of the results:

"Have you heard of Manuka Honey? It is a medical honey that helps with wound treatment.

The combination of Ionized and Electroyzed Water from the SD501 machine from Enagic and the honey as a topical agent on my 2 1/2 year old son's arm saved him from getting a surgery and a skin graft....

The antibacterial water we use came from our SD501 we have at home. The pH is 2.5 (very acidic). To stop the burning and inflammation, we sprayed a water at pH 11.5 (very alkaline) and to finish up the wound treatment, we ran a ph 5.5 (same pH as human skin) water directly on his arm. The surgeon at the Burn Center was amazed how well the wounds were healing and after 2 weeks said our son would not need surgery anymore.

I'm now hydrating his scars with the 5.5 pH (same pH as the skin) in order to apply a vitamin E cream to help with healing. He's getting better everyday."

Need more info on the water... contact us.
As for the Manuka honey, here is the link: http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/november/Molan/honey-as-topical-agent.html

So, for those parents out there who are facing similar Stress, please do the research and try Alternatives. A skin Graft is a serious Surgery, and there is nothing better than leaving the skin heal and grow naturally on its own. You just need to have the right tools for that!!!

Love & Respect,

http://hdeuxflo.kangendemo.com/

Gmail account: h.deux.flo@gmail.com

Blog: Organic Change, Organic Life, Eco-friendly water

http://hdeuxflo.blogspot.com/

Reusable Lunch Bags...

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Thu, 30 May 2013 10:55:00 -0700

Hello Everyone,

I've been absent for a while, actually a long while. I tried to post but taking care of a little one could be sometimes challenging, not to mention the big drive everyday to get my 2 other sons to school! Nevertheless, I never stop doing research on the last ecological things we can be doing to help our beautiful Planet, which I call also our Mother.

There are so many "Green" companies I like but this one caught my eyes lately, as I've been noticing these little bags laying on my friend's kitchen counter.... More and more people want to become eco-friendly, so this could be a first step if you're not already doing it.

Take a look: http://www.re-pacbags.com

and enjoy shopping!

Illegal Monsanto GMO Wheat Found in Oregon

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Thu, 30 May 2013 10:36:00 -0700

By John Upton
Grist, May 30, 2013
Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Oregon News page and our Food Safety Research Center page.

A farmer in Oregon found a patch of wheat growing like a weed where it wasn't expected, so the farmer sprayed it with the herbicide Roundup. Surprisingly, some of the wheat survived.

The startled farmer sent samples of the renegade wheat to a laboratory, which confirmed something that should have been impossible: The wheat was a genetically engineered variety that had never been approved to be grown in the U.S., nor anywhere else in the world.

Nano-particules.... not as safe as they predicted!

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:35:00 -0700

Hey Guys,

I found this great article about nano-particules and wanted to share...

@h.deux.flo

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ‘I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

Some nanoproducts on the market, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventory:

Benny the Bear Plush Toy (made by Pure Plushy Inc.) Includes nanosilver to fight bacteria, moulds, and mites.

Precious Protechtor Baby Blanket (made by Olivers Babycare Ltd.) Made with nanosilver, which the company’s website says “helps protect premature babies from infection”.

Kids Tear-Free SPF 30(sunscreen made by Banana Boat) Incorporates titanium dioxide and iron oxide in nano form.

Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF 15 (made by Burt’s Bees) Includes nano-sized titanium dioxide.

Slim Shake Chocolate (made by RBC Life Sciences Inc.) The company’s website says its “nanoclusters” are “designed to carry nutrition into your cells”.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

What happens when nanoparticles get out into the environment in wastewater or when products are thrown out?

Nanosilver is the most common nanomaterial on the market. Its extraordinary antimicrobial properties have earned it a place in a huge variety of products, including baby pacifiers, toothpaste, condoms, clothes, and cutting boards.

Virginia Walker, a biology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, decided to study nanosilver one day after a grad student said her mother had bought a new washing machine that doused clothes with silver nanoparticles to clean them better.

It sounded intriguing, Walker recalled thinking, but what would happen if nanosilver in the laundry water wound up in the environment? “What would it do to the bacterial communities out there?” she wondered.

On a whim, Walker decided to study the question. She figured the nanosilver would probably have no impact on beneficial microbes in the environment because any toxicity would be diluted.

“I did the experiment almost as a lark, not expecting to find anything,” she said by phone. “I hoped I would not find anything.”

In fact, Walker found that nanosilver was “highly toxic” to soil bacteria. It was especially toxic to one kind of nitrogen-fixing bacterium that is important to plant growth.

“If you had anything that was sensitive to nanoparticles, the last thing you would want is to have this microbe affected,” Walker said in a phone interview from her office.

The study prompted Walker to do more studies on nanoparticles. In one study now being reviewed for publication, one of her students found that mice exposed to nanoparticles developed skeletal abnormalities.

“People should have their eyes open. There are so many different nanoparticles, and the consequences of their use could be grave. We know almost nothing about these things,” Walker said.

Other scientists have raised concerns about nanosilver too. Some clothes makers now put it in socks and shirts, promising it will help control body odour. In a 2008 study in the Washington, D.C.–based journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers took nanosilver-laced socks and washed them in water. They found the socks released up to half of their nanosilver into the water.

“If you start releasing ionic silver, it is detrimental to all aquatic biota. Once the silver ions get into the gills of fish, it’s a pretty efficient killer,” said study coauthor Troy Benn, a graduate student at Arizona State University, in a ScienceDaily.com story in 2008.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of people who don’t necessarily know what nanotechnology is, but they are out there buying products with nanoparticles in them.”

And what about the promise that nanotech could produce cleaner energy? The idea was that nanoparticles could make solar panels more efficient, be used as fuel additives to improve gas mileage, and make lighter cars and planes.

Most of the promised efficiency gains haven’t materialized, according to a 2010 report from Friends of the Earth. And it turns out that making nanomaterial is itself a huge energy guzzler.

A kilogram of carbon nanotubes—a nanoparticle used in cancer treatment and to strengthen sports equipment—requires an estimated 167 barrels of oil to produce, the Friends of the Earth report said.

Carbon nanotubes are “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”, said a 2010 report to a symposium of the U.S.–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

That report said many nanoproducts may remain profitable despite their high energy cost only because of enormous government subsidies to the nanotech industry—$1.6 billion from the U.S. government last year.

But despite all this, regulation of nanotech remains glacially slow. The European Parliament voted nearly unanimously to recommend that nanoproducts be banned from food in 2009. But the European Commission rejected that recommendation last year, agreeing only that it may require labels on food containing nanomaterials. It will also require labels on cosmetics containing some nanoingredients starting in 2014.

Canada and the U.S. have yet to go even that far. At Health Canada, which regulates nanotechnology, a web page dealing with nanoproducts hasn’t been amended in four years and contains outdated information.

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

They used to say small is beautiful. But that was before small got scary.

To find out if a product contains nanoparticles, search the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Also check the Environmental Working Group’s survey of sunscreens and other products.

SOURCE: http://www.straight.com/article-404589/vancouver/tiny-nanoparticles-could-be-big-problem

Organic Change, Organic Life, Eco-Friendly Water: Change your Water, Change your Life

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Wed, 2 May 2012 22:28:00 -0700

Organic Change, Organic Life, Eco-Friendly Water: Change your Water, Change your Life: I know, I already send this message many times, but truly, this is an amazing discovery for me and I need to share this with everyone who h...

WHY OCA BELIEVES THAT MOST "NATURAL" FOODS ARE A FRAUD

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Wed, 2 May 2012 22:22:00 -0700

There is widespread use of GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients in so-called "natural" foods, including the "natural" brands that make up most of WFM and UNFI's sales.
So-called "natural" (non-organic) soy milk, including leading brands such as "Silk," are made with conventional soy lecithin, utilizing the hazardous chemical, hexane, as an extraction agent.
90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "Whole Foods," "natural" or "food based" are spiked with synthetic chemicals.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/whole_foods_unfi.cfm

Human genes engineered into experimental GMO rice being grown in Kansas

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Wed, 2 May 2012 22:16:00 -0700

Unless the rice you buy is certified organic, or comes specifically from a farm that tests its rice crops for genetically modified (GM) traits, you could be eating rice tainted with actual human genes. The only known GMO with inbred human traits in cultivation today, a GM rice product made by biotechnology companyVentria Bioscienceis currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas -- and possibly elsewhere -- and most people have no idea about it.

Since about 2006,Ventriahas been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified (GM) with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins produced by this "Frankenrice" and using them in pharmaceuticals. With approval from the U.S.Department of Agriculture(USDA),Ventriahas taken one of the most widely cultivated grain crops in the world today, and essentially turned it into a catalyst for producing new drugs.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035745_GMO_rice_human_genes_Kansas.html#ixzz1tmTCu83Z

Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:07:00 -0800

Hey.... I am a Woman and I know women and men out there appalled by Rush Limbaugh's comments should boycott his radio broadcast and tell him to retire! The good thing is that he represents the Republican Party and now these guys have to deal with him...

How amazing that in this day and age, men can still think like Cavemen, OK maybe like in the Middle-age era.

What's wrong with this guy? Has he lost his mind or is he for real? And he's married...! Is it just for the heck of it or he has a real wife? Where is she, what's her reaction on this? How does she feel about her husband insulting women?

When it's the time we finally realize that we are all Human Beings?

Enough hatred now.... let's pull ourselves together and work towards a better life, a better Earth.

Thank you,

Be Green In 2012!

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:10:00 -0800

Dear All,

I wish the whole planet a great New Year. May 2012 bring all live beings Peace, Love and Health. May we all be aware of our surroundings and may we all become conscious of cleaning Mother Earth....

Here is an article from one of the greatest website called "Nourishing the Planet":

Enjoy...

As we head into 2012, many of us will be resolving to lose those few extra pounds, save more money, or spend a few more hours with our families and friends. But there are also some resolutions we can make to make our lives a little greener. Each of us, especially in the United States, can make a commitment to reducing our environmental impacts.

Here are 12 simple steps that you can take be more green in the new year. (Photo credit: Julie Carney, Gardens for Health International)

The United Nations has designated 2012 as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All. Broadening access to sustainable energy is essential to solving many of the world’s challenges, including food production, security, and poverty.

Hunger, poverty, and climate change are issues that we can all help address. Here are 12 simple steps to go green in 2012:

(1) Recycle

Recycling programs exist in cities and towns across the United States, helping to save energy and protect the environment. In 2009, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to require all homes and businesses to use recycling and composting collection programs. As a result, more than 75 percent of all material collected is being recycled, diverting 1.6 million tons from the landfills annually—double the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for each pound of aluminum recovered, Americans save the energy resources necessary to generate roughly 7.5 kilowatt-hours of electricity—enough to power a city the size of Pittsburgh for six years!

What you can do:

Put a separate container next to your trash can or printer, making it easier to recycle your bottles, cans, and paper.

(2) Turn off the lights

On the last Saturday in March—March 31 in 2012—hundreds of people, businesses, and governments around the world turn off their lights for an hour as part of Earth Hour, a movement to address climate change.

What you can do:

Earth Hour happens only once a year, but you can make an impact every day by turning off lights during bright daylight, or whenever you will be away for an extended period of time.

(3) Make the switch

In 2007, Australia became the first country to “ban the bulb,” drastically reducing domestic usage of incandescent light bulbs. By late 2010, incandescent bulbs had been totally phased out, and, according to the country’s environment minister, this simple move has made a big difference, cutting an estimated 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. China also recently pledged to replace the 1 billion incandescent bulbs used in its government offices with more energy efficient models within five years.

What you can do:

A bill in Congress to eliminate incandescent in the United States failed in 2011, but you can still make the switch at home. Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) use only 20–30 percent of the energy required by incandescents to create the same amount of light, and LEDs use only 10 percent, helping reduce both electric bills and carbon emissions.

(4) Turn on the tap

The bottled water industry sold 8.8 billion gallons of water in 2010, generating nearly $11 billion in profits. Yet plastic water bottles create huge environmental problems. The energy required to produce and transport these bottles could fuel an estimated 1.5 million cars for a year, yet approximately 75 percent of water bottles are not recycled—they end up in landfills, litter roadsides, and pollute waterways and oceans. And while public tap water is subject to strict safety regulations, the bottled water industry is not required to report testing results for its products. According to a study, 10 of the most popular brands of bottled water contain a wide range of pollutants, including pharmaceuticals, fertilizer residue, and arsenic.

What you can do:

Fill up your glasses and reusable water bottles with water from the sink. The United States has more than 160,000 public water systems, and by eliminating bottled water you can help to keep nearly 1 million tons of bottles out of the landfill, as well as save money on water costs.

(5) Turn down the heat

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that consumers can save up to 15 percent on heating and cooling bills just by adjusting their thermostats. Turning down the heat by 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit for eight hours can result in savings of 5–15 percent on your home heating bill.

What you can do:

Turn down your thermostat when you leave for work, or use a programmable thermostat to control your heating settings.

(6) Support food recovery programs

Each year, roughly a third of all food produced for human consumption—approximately 1.3 billion tons—gets lost or wasted, including 34 million tons in the United States, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Grocery stores, bakeries, and other food providers throw away tons of food daily that is perfectly edible but is cosmetically imperfect or has passed its expiration date. In response, food recovery programs run by homeless shelters or food banks collect this food and use it to provide meals for the hungry, helping to divert food away from landfills and into the bellies of people who need it most.

What you can do:

Encourage your local restaurants and grocery stores to partner with food rescue organizations, like City Harvest in New York City or Second Harvest Heartland in Minnesota.

Go through your cabinets and shelves and donate any non-perishable canned and dried foods that you won’t be using to your nearest food bank or shelter.

(7) Buy local

“Small Business Saturday,” falling between “Black Friday” and “Cyber Monday,” was established in 2010 as a way to support small businesses during the busiest shopping time of the year. Author and consumer advocate Michael Shuman argues that local small businesses are more sustainable because they are often more accountable for their actions, have smaller environmental footprints, and innovate to meet local conditions—providing models for others to learn from.

What you can do:

Instead of relying exclusively on large supermarkets, consider farmers markets and local farms for your produce, eggs, dairy, and meat. Food from these sources is usually fresher and more flavorful, and your money will be going directly to these food producers.

(8) Get out and ride

We all know that carpooling and using public transportation helps cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as our gas bills. Now, cities across the country are investing in new mobility options that provide exercise and offer an alternative to being cramped in subways or buses. Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C. have major bike sharing programs that allow people to rent bikes for short-term use. Similar programs exist in other cities, and more are planned for places from Miami, Florida, to Madison, Wisconsin.

What you can do:

If available, use your city’s bike share program to run short errands or commute to work. Memberships are generally inexpensive (only $75 for the year in Washington, D.C.), and by eliminating transportation costs, as well as a gym membership, you can save quite a bit of money!

Even if without bike share programs, many cities and towns are incorporating bike lanes and trails, making it easier and safer to use your bike for transportation and recreation.

(9) Share a car

Car sharing programs spread from Europe to the United States nearly 13 years ago and are increasingly popular, with U.S. membership jumping 117 percent between 2007 and 2009. According to the University of California Transportation Center, each shared car replaces 15 personally owned vehicles, and roughly 80 percent of more than 6,000 car-sharing households surveyed across North America got rid of their cars after joining a sharing service. In 2009, car-sharing was credited with reducing U.S. carbon emissions by more than 482,000 tons. Innovative programs such as Chicago’s I-GO are even introducing solar-powered cars to their fleets, making the impact of these programs even more eco-friendly.

What you can do:

Join a car share program! As of July 2011, there were 26 such programs in the U.S., with more than 560,000 people sharing over 10,000 vehicles. Even if you don’t want to get rid of your own car, using a shared car when traveling in a city can greatly reduce the challenges of finding parking (car share programs have their own designated spots), as well as your environmental impact as you run errands or commute to work.

(10) Plant a garden

Whether you live in a studio loft or a suburban McMansion, growing your own vegetables is a simple way to bring fresh and nutritious food literally to your doorstep. Researchers at the FAO and the United Nations Development Programme estimate that 200 million city dwellers around the world are already growing and selling their own food, feeding some 800 million of their neighbors. Growing a garden doesn’t have to take up a lot of space, and in light of high food prices and recent food safety scares, even a small plot can make a big impact on your diet and wallet.

What you can do:

Plant some lettuce in a window box. Lettuce seeds are cheap and easy to find, and when planted in full sun, one window box can provide enough to make several salads worth throughout a season.

(11) Compost

And what better way to fertilize your garden than using your own composted organic waste. You will not only reduce costs by buying less fertilizer, but you will also help to cut down on food and other organic waste.

What you can do:

If you are unsure about the right ways to compost, websites such as HowToCompost.org and organizations such as the U.S. Composting Council, provide easy steps to reuse your organic waste.

(12) Reduce your meat consumption

Livestock production accounts for about 18 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and accounts for about 23 percent of all global water used in agriculture. Yet global meat production has experienced a 20 percent growth rate since 2000 to meet the per capita increase of meat consumption of about 42 kilograms.

What you can do:

You don’t have to become a vegetarian or vegan, but by simply cutting down on the amount of meat you consume can go a long way. Consider substituting one meal day with a vegetarian option. And if you are unable to think of how to substitute your meat-heavy diet, websites such as Meatless Monday and Eating Well offer numerous vegetarian recipes that are healthy for you and the environment.

The most successful and lasting New Year’s resolutions are those that are practiced regularly and have an important goal. Watching the ball drop in Times Square happens only once a year, but for more and more people across the world, the impacts of hunger, poverty, and climate change are felt every day. Thankfully, simple practices, such as recycling or riding a bike, can have great impact. As we prepare to ring in the new year, let’s all resolve to make 2012 a healthier, happier, and greener year for all.

Reducing Food Waste during the Holiday Season

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:49:00 -0800

1. Be realistic: The fear of not providing enough to eat often causes hosts to cook too much. Instead, plan out how much food you and your guests will realistically need, and stock up accordingly. The Love Food Hate Waste organization, which focuses on sharing convenient tips for reducing food waste, provides a handy “Perfect portions” planner to calculate meal sizes for parties as well as everyday meals.

2. Plan ahead: Create a shopping list before heading to the farmers’ market or grocery store. Sticking to this list will reduce the risk of impulse buys or buying unnecessary quantities, particularly since stores typically use holiday sales to entice buyers into spending more.

During the meal: Control the amount on your plate to reduce the amount in the garbage.

3. Go small: The season of indulgence often promotes plates piled high with more food than can be eaten. Simple tricks of using smaller serving utensils or plates can encourage smaller portions, reducing the amount left on plates. Guests can always take second (or third!) servings if still hungry, and it is much easier (and hygienic) to use leftovers from serving platters for future meals.

4. Encourage self-serve: Allow guests to serve themselves, choosing what, and how much, they would like to eat. This helps to make meals feel more familiar and also reduces the amount of unwanted food left on guests’ plates.

After the meal: Make the most out of leftovers.

5. Store leftovers safely: Properly storing our leftovers will preserve them safely for future meals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that hot foods be left out for no more than two hours. Store leftovers in smaller, individually sized containers, making them more convenient to grab for a quick meal rather than being passed over and eventually wasted.

6. Compost food scraps: Instead of throwing out the vegetable peels, eggshells, and other food scraps from making your meal, consider composting them. Individual composting systems can be relatively easy and inexpensive, and provide quality inputs for garden soils. In 2010, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to pass legislation encouraging city-wide composting, and similar broader-scale food composting approaches have been spreading since.

7. Create new meals: If composting is not an option for you, check out Love Food Hate Waste’s creativerecipes to see if your food scraps can be used for new meals. Vegetable scraps and turkey carcasses can be easily boiled down for stock and soups, and bread crusts and ends can be used to make tasty homemade croutons.

8. Donate excess: Food banks and shelters gladly welcome donations of canned and dried foods, especially during the holiday season and colder months. The charity group Feeding America partners with over 200 local food banks across the United States, supplying food to more than 37 million people each year. To find a food bank near you, visit the organization’s Food Bank Locator.

9. Support food-recovery programs: In some cases, food-recovery systems will come to you to collect your excess. In New York City, City Harvest, the world’s first food-rescue organization, collects approximately 28 million pounds of food each year that would otherwise go to waste, providing groceries and meals for over 300,000 people.

Throughout the holiday season: Consider what you’re giving.

10. Give gifts with thought: When giving food as a gift, avoid highly perishable items and make an effort to select foods that you know the recipient will enjoy rather than waste. The Rainforest Alliance, an international nonprofit, works with farmers and producers in tropical areas to ensure they are practicing environmentally sustainable and socially just methods. The group’s certified chocolates, coffee, and teasare great gifts that have with long shelf-lives, and buying them helps support businesses and individuals across the world.

As we sit down at the dinner table during the Holiday Season, we must recognize those who may not be so fortunate. The food wasted in the United States each year is enough to satisfy the hunger of the approximately 1 billion malnourished people worldwide, according to Tristram Stuart, a food waste expert and contributing author to State of the World 2011. As we prepare for upcoming holiday celebrations, the simple changes we make, such as using food responsibly and donating excess to the hungry, can help make the holiday season more plentiful and hunger-free for all.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/reducing-food-waste-during-the-holiday-season/

Strong Disinfectant without Chemicals

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:22:00 -0700

Have you heard of strong Acidic water or Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water?

You can actually get it at home and use it as a Disinfectant. It kills all Germs in 30 seconds and you don't have to worry about chemical danger or Pollution in your home.

Studies have been done and publications are available on Pubmed (worldwide scientific reference) and other websites such as:

http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-35748937925&origin=inward&txGid=Z7qOkwZbBj3bxmazLGPbugH%3a2

See it for yourselves....

I posted this many times over the past 2 or 3 years, because my son Léo got severely burnt on his arm on Memorial Day 2010. Beware of extinguished fire pits. Under the ashes lay hot coals.

After visiting many emergency rooms, we were told to go to the County Burnt Center as ER doctors were not specialized enough to help Léo. Once there, the surgeon diagnosed him with 3rd degree (little nerves and veins were gone), some 2nd degree and little 1st degree burns. According to her, infection would spread everywhere within days and Léo was due for a skin graft, but.... here's what I posted at that time and I'm still amazed of the results:

So for those parents out there who are facing similar Stress, please do the research and try Alternatives. A skin Graft is a serious Surgery, actually, few surgeries and the scaring is no better than if you leave the skin heal and grow naturally on its own.

Thanks,
@h.deux.flo

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FLIP-FLOPS

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:28:00 -0700

A company based in Indonesia has now started to produce environmentally friendly sandals made from old newspapers.
PaperFlops are made from all-natural materials including newspapers, coconut shells, palm tree roots and natural rubber. Each pair of PaperFlops uses 1Kg of old newspaper, and also uses a natural sealant that makes these flips tough and waterproof.

Additionally, PaperFlops has chosen to employ mentally and physically disabled workers and street kids in Jakarta, Indonesia, which makes this company a real highlight with its social and environmental responsibility standards.

Makes you wonder why you would want to buy any other sandal doesn’t it?

You can purchase PaperFlops here.

More Policy Support Is Needed to Feed the World’s Hungry

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:24:00 -0700

Here is a great article from Danielle Nierenberg's website "Nourishing the Planet"

I love what she does, what she writes about and all of the actions she's taking all around the world.

Policymakers around the world need to step up their efforts to combat hunger, malnutrition, and poverty by providing greater support for agriculture. The winners of this year’s World Food Prize show how policymakers and leaders who invest in their countries’ agricultural futures can make lasting change.

The World Food Prize, awarded each year since 1994 and sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan, recognizes the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity, or availability of food in the world, thereby helping to boost global food security. This year, the prize will be awarded to John Agyekum Kufuor, the former president of Ghana, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president of Brazil, for their outstanding achievements in reducing hunger in their countries. The ceremony will take place during theBorlaug International Symposium in Des Moines, Iowa, from October 12 to 14.

Both of this year’s World Food Prize recipients have made considerable contributions to their countries’ agricultural sectors. Under former Ghanaian President Kufuor’s tenure, both the share of people suffering from hunger and the share of people living on less than $1 dollar a day were halved. Economic reforms strengthened public investment in food and agriculture, which was a major factor behind the quadrupling of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) between 2003 and 2008. Because 60 percent of Ghana’s population depends directly on agriculture, the sector is critical for the country’s economic development.

In addition to the economic reforms, Ghana’s Agricultural Extension Servicehelped alleviate hunger and poverty by educating farmers and ultimately doubling cocoa production between 2002 and 2005. And the country’sSchool Feeding Program, which began in 2005, ensures that school children receive one nutritiously and locally produced meal every day. The program has transformed domestic agriculture by supporting irrigation, improving seeds and crop diversification, making tractors more affordable for farmers, and building feed roads, silos, and cold stores for horticultural crops.

In Brazil, among the major goals of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s presidency were alleviating poverty, improving educational opportunities for children, providing greater inclusion of the poor in society, and ensuring that “every Brazilian has food to eat three times a day.” The government implemented policies and actions known as the “Zero Hunger Programs” to provide cash aid to poor families (guaranteeing a minimum income and enabling access to basic goods and services); to distribute food to poor families through community restaurants, assisted-living facilities, day-care centers, and related organizations; and to provide nutritious meals to children in public schools. As a result, the number of hungry people in Brazil was halved, and the share of Brazilians living in extreme poverty decreased from 12 percent in 2003 to 4.8 percent in 2009.

Not just in Ghana and Brazil, but around the world, policymakers, farmers, activists, and other leaders are investing in agricultural innovations to reduce hunger and alleviate poverty—although many of these efforts need to be scaled up. In Uganda, for example, Project DISC (Developing Innovations in School Cultivation) is teaching students how to grow, cook, and eat native vegetables, including spiderwiki and amaranth. Not only are the students learning how to cook and provide for themselves, but the classes are giving them a reason to stay in rural areas and become farmers, instead of migrating to the cities. In other countries, including Niger, Kenya, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, farmers are learning how to increase their harvests and get more “crop per drop.” In Benin, the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) has introduced solar-powered drip irrigation that is improving nutrition and raising incomes for farmers. After one year of implementing the innovation, villagers were eating three to five servings of vegetables a day, and children were going to school instead of spending time carrying water to the fields.

Unfortunately, agriculture is not often a top priority for policymakers—in Africa, only seven nations invest10 percent or more of their national budgets in the sector. The leaders and policymakers—including former presidents Kufuor and da Silva—who have invested in agriculture and helped to reduce hunger and poverty in their countries deserve praise. But with some 1 billion hungry people remaining in the world who have to cope with volatile food prices, climate change, and water scarcity, much greater investment and policy support is needed to boost agriculture and improve global food security.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Organic farming thrives, with demand from supermarkets

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:41:00 -0700

Hey Guys,

This is the first time in almost 2 months since I posted articles.... but I have a huge excuse. I was busy giving birth to a beautiful little boy named Enzo. He was born at home in water in the most non-violent way and completely natural. It was a great experience for him and I, but also for my husband and the beautiful 5 women who were with me to assist the birth.

Anyhow, I'm back, probably irregularly, but I'm back!!

Here, enjoy the below article - THIS IS GREAT NEWS!

An organic farming advocate says the industry is suffering something akin to growing pains in Australia, partly because supermarkets are increasingly stocking the produce.

Dr Andrew Monk, from the Biological Farmers of Australia, says the big supermarket chains have put organic meat, fruit and vegetables within reach of more consumers.

"More availability has meant more sales, it's been as simple as that. And that, in turn, has led to producers then thinking we should produce and supply into that space," he said.

"There's opportunities there, but the challenge is always in an emerging market like ours that there's always winners and losers.

"There's a bit of attrition going on.

"There's been some people leaving the industry, even though overall there's been net growth both in terms of producer numbers and, more interestingly, in average size of farm and average turnover."

Dr Monk says the industry is seeing a demographic shift at the producer end.

"In the past, you probably saw less traditional, multi-generation farming families move into the organic space, it tended to be almost innovators from the city," he said.

"These days you're seeing more normal, if you want to call it that, people in the farming sector or the retail sector picking up this idea of organic and saying we might be able to build a business model around this."

But Dr Monk says there is still a place for the smaller, niche producers in organics, and the diversity of the industry is one of its strenths.

"The good thing, I think, for the organic industry is that we are very diverse in market outlet," he said.

"There's also been a growth in farmers markets and direct to consumer produce marketing, as well as the significant growth of volumes into the supermarket chains."

Dr Monk says only 1 per cent of the food sold in shops in Australia is considered organic and that lags behind Europe and the US, which average 2 to 3 per cent.

He says that's because some of the food contamination scares that've happened overseas have not occurred here.

Consumer Alert on Water Fluoridation: 41% of American Teenagers Have This Disease

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:30:00 -0700

The CDC, ADA, and local health officials continue to promote fluoridation even though just this January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended a nation-wide reduction in fluoride levels after it learned that 41 percent of American adolescents, ages 12-15, have dental fluorosis, a clear sign of overexposure to fluoride, and that the rate is continuing to increase steadily.

Only now is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water reviewing the allowable amount of fluoride in drinking water, more than four years after the National Research Council reported to Congress that the current allowable fluoride levels (MCL/MCLG) were too high.

In the face of lax federal regulation, health activists are acting locally. More than 250 communities that have rejected fluoridation.

This year in New Hampshire and Arkansas, citizen groups got legislation introduced at the state-level which would require notices on all municipal water bills warning parents not to feed infants fluoridated water. Citizens in Tennessee, led by the Lillie Center were successful in getting a prominent team of bi-partisan legislators to call for an end to the promotion of fluoridation by the state. In Alaska, Fluoride Free Fairbanks along with many concerned citizens urged their city council to review fluoridation, and in March the city council's task force charged with studying the issue recommended that the city stop adding fluoride to their water. Clearly, a small group of educated and dedicated citizens can accomplish a lot when they organize locally against fluoridation.

Watch this video from the Fluoride Action Network to learn more.

Learn more about the dangers of fluoride by reading, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There." Called a "painstakingly researched exposé of fluoridation's overall ineffectiveness and toxicity", it is a must read for anyone interested in fluoride issues, and provides a complete science-based analysis of the entire practice of fluoridation.

Read more about this book

Farmers Markets Could Generate Tens of Thousands of New Jobs with Modest Federal Support, New Report Finds

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:07:00 -0700

They’re Growing Nationally, but Federal Policies Favoring Industrial Agriculture Hold Them Back

WASHINGTON - August 4 - Over the last several decades, thousands of farmers markets have been popping up in cities and towns across the country, benefiting local farmers, consumers and economies, but they could be doing a lot better, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). What’s holding farmers markets back? Federal policies that favor industrial agriculture at their expense.

“On the whole, farmers markets have seen exceptional growth, providing local communities with fresh food direct from the farm,” said Jeffrey O’Hara, the author of the report and an economist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “But our federal food policies are working against them. If the U.S. government diverted just a small amount of the massive subsidies it lavishes on industrial agriculture to support these markets and small local farmers, it would not only improve American diets, it would generate tens of thousands of new jobs.”

UCS released the report just a few days before the 12th annual U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Farmers Market Week, which starts on Sunday, August 7. According to the report, “Market Forces: Creating Jobs through Public Investment in Local and Regional Food Systems,” the number of farmers markets nationwide more than doubled between 2000 and 2010 jumping from 2,863 to 6,132, and now more than 100,000 farms sell food directly to local consumers.

All that growth happened with relatively little help. Last year, for example, the USDA spent $13.725 billion in commodity, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster assistance payments mostly to support large industrial farms, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount the agency spent that year to support local and regional food system farmers? Less than $100 million, according to USDA data.

In 2007, the most recent USDA figure, direct agricultural product sales amounted to a $1.2 billion-a-year business, and most of that money recirculates locally. “The fact that farmers are selling directly to the people who live nearby means that sales revenue stays local,” O’Hara said. “That helps stabilize local economies.”

Keeping revenues local also can mean more job opportunities. Last summer, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked Congress to set a goal in the 2012 Farm Bill of helping at least 100,000 Americans to become farmers by, among other things, providing entrepreneurial training and support for farmers markets. O’Hara’s report takes up Vilsack’s challenge and argues that supporting local and regional food system expansion is central to meeting that goal.

In the report, O’Hara identified a number of initiatives the federal government could take to encourage new farmers and the growth of farmers markets in the upcoming Farm Bill. For example, the report called on Congress to:

support the development of local food markets, including farmers markets and farm-to-school programs, which can stabilize community-supported markets and create permanent jobs. For example, the report found that the Farmers Market Promotion Program could create as many as 13,500 jobs nationally over a five-year period, if reauthorized, by providing modest funding for 100 to 500 farmers markets per year.
level the playing field for farmers in rural regions by investing in infrastructure, such as meat-processing or dairy-bottling facilities, which would help meat, dairy and other farmers produce and market their products to consumers more efficiently. These investments could foster competition in food markets, increase product choice for consumers, and generate jobs in the community.
allow low-income residents to redeem food nutrition subsidies at local food markets to help them afford fresh fruits and vegetables. Currently, not all markets are able to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.

“Farmers at local markets are a new variety of innovative entrepreneurs, and we need to nurture them,” said O’Hara. “Supporting these farmers should be a Farm Bill priority.”

###

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/08/04-0

Plastic Bag Ban in our Nation

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:00:00 -0700

Source: http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/oceans/oceans-reports/leading-the-way-toward-a-clean-ocean-communities-around-the-world-take-action-against-plastic-bags

Update, July 2011:

On July 14th 2011, The California Supreme Court ruled that the city of Manhattan Beach can enforce a local ordinance banning plastic bags. The policy had been held up by a lawsuit brought by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Manhattan Beach can now move forward on their bag ban, bringing the total number of California cities and counties that have successfully taken action against plastic bag pollution to 12.
[1] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S180720.PDF

Plastic bags contribute to the pollution of California’s ocean and beaches.

Californians use approximately 16 billion plastic bags per year—more than 400 annually per person.
Less than 5 percent of plastic bags are recycled. Instead, they end up sitting in landfills, littering streets, clogging streams, fouling beaches, or floating out to sea.
Plastic trash threatens ocean ecosystems. Sea turtles and other marine animals often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them, causing injury or death. In parts of the Pacific Ocean, including the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, plastic outweighs plankton by up to six times.
The city of San Francisco estimated that the taxpayer cost to subsidize the recycling, collection, and disposal of plastic and paper bags amounts to as much as 17 cents per bag. Applied to California as a whole, that adds up to more than $1 billion per year.

More than 80 national and local governments around the world have taken action to protect the ocean by reducing the use of plastic bags.

At least 20 nations and 47 local governments have passed bans on distributing specific kinds of throw-away plastic bags, including the nations of Italy, Kenya, Mongolia, Macedonia, and Bangladesh; the states of Maharashtra, India and Buenos Aires, Argentina; and the cities of Karachi, Pakistan and Telluride, Colorado.
Approximately 26 nations and local communities have established fee programs to reduce plastic bag use and/or increase the use of reusable alternatives, including Botswana, China, Hong Kong, Wales, Ireland, Israel, Canada’s Northwest Territories, Toronto, Mexico City, and Washington, D.C.

Bans and meaningful fee programs effectively reduce plastic bag pollution.

Bans and fee programs quickly reduce plastic bag distribution. Ireland, which in 2002 established a fee roughly equivalent to 28 U.S. cents per bag, saw plastic bag use drop by 90 percent within the first year. After Washington, D.C., implemented a much smaller 5 cent tax on plastic bags, the number of bags distributed by food retailers fell from 22.5 million per month to 3.3 million per month. And the year after banning plastic bags at pharmacies and supermarkets in 2007, San Francisco businesses distributed 127 million fewer plastic bags, and cut overall bag waste reaching the city landfill by up to 10 percent.

Eleven city and county governments in California have taken successful action to reduce plastic bag pollution.

Eleven California cities and counties have bans on plastic bags in effect, including Long Beach, Santa Monica, San Jose, San Francisco, and unincorporated Marin and unincorporated Los Angeles counties. Five of these communities, including Marin County and San Jose, have also authorized mandatory charges on paper bags to encourage citizens to use reusable bags.
Two additional communities, Oakland and Manhattan Beach, passed bans that were later struck down after legal challenges by plastic bag manufacturers.

Much more progress can be made to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean and transform our throw-away culture.

Education and recycling cannot keep pace with the generation of plastic bag pollution. Despite a 2006 law requiring retailers to place bag recycling bins in front of their stores, less than 5 percent of bags are recycled.
To make a real impact, all California cities and counties should restrict the use of plastic bags, and advocate for similar action at the state level.

Executive Summary

In the long debate about outer continental shelf (OCS) drilling, policy makers and the public have typically focused on how much more oil or natural gas would be produced, how much more tax revenue would be collected and how many new jobs would be created if the nation expanded areas available for drilling. One set of issues, a critical set from the standpoint of healthy oceans, that has largely been ignored is the marine resources and sustainable activities that would be subjected to potential harm from new offshore drilling. For the first time, this report collects comprehensive information about what’s at risk in the ocean and on our precious coasts should offshore drilling be expanded to areas like the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific coast.

The report includes an overview of the marine and coastal environment in each Minerals Management Service (MMS) planning area including special marine ecosystems, unique coastal places and parks, extraordinary marine life and the value of coastal recreation and fishing (commercial and recreational) for each state within the MMS region. For each MMS planning region, the report compares the annual value of sustainable activities like tourism and fishing to the value of estimated oil and natural gas resources in the region.

The table above clearly shows that for most planning regions other than the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, the annual economic value of sustainable activities like 2 coastal recreation and fishing, which depend on clean water and clean beaches, is somewhat larger, sometimes by an order of magnitude, than the estimated annual value of oil and gas production from that region.

Specifically, the annual value of sustainable activities is roughly between 1.5 to 20 times larger than the value of oil and gas production for each region with the exception of parts of the Gulf of Mexico where approximately 20% of U.S. oil and gas is produced. In the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the most hotly contested area for new drilling, sustainable businesses and jobs generate almost one and a half times (140%) the value that new oil and gas drilling would. for very long periods of time as long as they are not degraded, emphasize the global importance of healthy oceans and preserving marshes, mangroves, sea grasses and other estuarine environments.1 Our estimates of the value of coastal dependent businesses obviously do not include the value of the ecosystems services that these places provide. If calculated and added in, the ratio of sustainable activity to oil and gas value would be even more lopsided.

While not the detailed subject of this report, numerous reports detail damages from oil and gas exploration, drilling, production and refining2. These activities are not compatible with healthy oceans, beaches or coasts. Catastrophic oil spills from platforms, pipelines, tankers/barges and from onshore facilities occur often enough to raise grave concerns.

Chronic pollution from produced water, the water that is often brought up with oil and gas, and dumped into the ocean is also a problem. Drilling itself releases toxic drilling mud into the marine environment. Oil and gas exploration requires seismic surveys of tens of millions of acres of ocean using very high sound levels that hurt fish and marine mammals. If we wish to preserve sustainable activities like coastal recreation and fishing and the economic value these activities produce, we must then keep the nonrenewable activities like oil and gas production out of new areas of the ocean.

Special areas of the ocean and specific unique marine wildlife that would be threatened by the expansion of offshore drilling are presented in each chapter of the report and summarized in the table below. Generally speaking, drilling threatens coastal beaches, beach communities and estuaries because of the risk of oil spills. Crude oil is difficult or impossible to clean up in many coastal environments, especially if it gets into sandy, muddy or marshy areas. Offshore oil requires onshore infrastructure for pipelines, tanks, processing and support facilities. These are often sited in low lying coastal estuaries that industrialize the coast.

Industrial facilities continue to dump millions of pounds of toxic chemicals into America’s rivers, streams, lakes and ocean waters each year—threatening both the environment and human health. According to the EPA, pollution from industrial facilities is responsible for threatening or fouling water quality in more than 10,000 miles of rivers and more than 200,000 acres of lakes, ponds and estuaries nationwide.
The continued release of large volumes of toxic chemicals into the nation’s waterways shows that the nation needs to do more to reduce the threat posed by toxic chemicals to our environment and our health and to ensure that our waterways are fully protected against harmful pollution.
Industrial facilities dumped 232 million pounds of toxic chemicals into American waterways in 2007, according to the federal government’s Toxic Release Inventory.
• Toxic chemicals were discharged to more than 1,900 waterways in all 50 states. The Ohio River ranked first for toxic discharges in 2007, followed by the New River and the Mississippi River.
• Nitrate compounds— which can cause serious health problems in infants if found in drinking water and which contribute to oxygen-depleted “dead zones” in waterways – are by far the largest toxic releases in terms of overall volume.
Large amounts of toxic chemicals linked to serious health effects were released to America’s waterways in 2007.
• Industrial facilities discharged approximately 1.5 million pounds of chemicals linked to cancer to more than 1,300 waterways during 2007. The Ohio River received the greatest amount of cancer-causing chemical discharges, followed by the Catawba River in North and South Carolina and the Tennessee River. Pulp and paper mills, along with coal-fired power plants, were among the largest dischargers of cancer-causing chemicals.
• About 456,000 pounds of chemicals
Wasting Our Waterways
Figure ES-1. Industrial Discharges of Toxic Chemicals to Waterways by State
Table ES-1. Top 10 Waterways for Total Toxic Discharges
Waterway Toxic discharges (lb.)
OHIO RIVER (IL, IN, KY, OH, PA, WV) 31,064,643
NEW RIVER (NC, VA, WV) 14,090,633
MISSISSIPPI RIVER (AR, IA, IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, TN, WI) 12,717,205
SAVANNAH RIVER (GA, SC) 7,683,500
DELAWARE RIVER (DE, NJ, PA) 7,449,555
CAPE FEAR RIVER (NC) 5,380,054
TRICOUNTY CANAL (NE) 5,256,876
MISSOURI RIVER (IA, KS, MO, ND, NE) 5,049,336
MUSKINGUM RIVER (OH) 4,994,243
SHONKA DITCH (NE) 4,375,761

Executive Summary
linked to developmental disorders were discharged into more than 1,200 waterways. The Alabama River led the way in discharges of developmental toxicants, followed by the Verdigris River in Kansas and Oklahoma and the Mississippi River.
• Approximately 266,000 pounds of chemicals linked to reproductive disorders were released to more than 1,150 waterways. The Ohio River received the most discharges of reproductive toxicants, followed by the Verdigris River and the Mississippi River.
• Discharges of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (including dioxin and mercury), organochlorines and phthalates are also widespread. Safer industrial practices can reduce or eliminate discharges of these and other dangerous substances to America’s waterways.
To protect the public and the environment from toxic releases, America should prevent pollution by requiring industries to reduce their use of toxic chemicals and restore and strengthen Clean Water Act protections for all of America’s waterways.
The United States should revise its strategy for regulating toxic chemicals to encourage the development and use of safer alternatives. Specifically, the nation should:
• Require chemical manufacturers to test all chemicals for their safety and submit the results of that testing to the government and the public.
• Regulate chemicals based on their intrinsic capacity to cause harm to the environment or health, rather than basing regulation on resource-intensive and flawed efforts to determine “safe” levels of exposure to those chemicals.
• Require industries to disclose the amount of toxic chemicals they use in their facilities – safeguarding local residents’ right to know about potential public health threats in their communities and creating incentives for industry to reduce its use of toxic chemicals.
• Require safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, where alternatives exist.
• Phase out the worst toxic chemicals.
The United States should restore Clean Water Act protections to all of America’s waterways and improve enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
• The federal government should clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to headwaters streams, intermittent waterways, isolated wetlands and other waterways for which jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has been called into question as a result of recent court decisions.
• The EPA and the states should strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act by, among other things, ratcheting down permitted pollution levels from industrial facilities, ensuring that permits are renewed on time, and requiring mandatory minimum penalties for polluters in violation of the law.
• The EPA should eliminate loopholes —such as the allowance of “mixing zones” for persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals—that allow greater discharge of toxic chemicals into waterways.
• The EPA should issue strong limits on releases of toxic heavy metals from power plants.
Wasting Our Waterways
In June 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. It wasn’t the first time the Cuyahoga burst into flames, but the 1969 fire came at a crucial moment—a time when Americans were finally beginning to pay serious attention to the impact of industrial pollution on the environment. The image of a major urban river on fire crystallized for many Americans the sense that our nation’s waterways—once sources of beauty and inspiration as well as critical resources for human communities and wildlife alike—had too long been used as dumping grounds for industry.
Americans resolved to reclaim their waterways, and just three years later, they scored a major victory when Congress adopted the federal Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act’s goals were unambiguous—industrial discharges to America’s waterways were not just to be reduced, but were to be eliminated in less than a generation, by 1985.

America’s oceans are home to whales, dolphins, sea turtles, fish and an enormous variety of other
sea life. But today our oceans are in trouble. Destructive overfishing, pollution, global warming
and habitat damage are putting important marine animals at risk. Many populations are in serious
decline. The result of this poor management is a drastic reduction in fishing opportunities for
commercial and recreational fishermen.
On the West Coast, about one in ten (9% or 5 out of 53) of all federally managed fish stocks for
which there is adequate information are overfished.1 The Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Pacific Council) is one of eight regional fishery management councils that cover U.S. coasts.
Together with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Pacific Council is supposed to
determine how much of each type of fish can be caught on a sustainable basis and establish other
types of fishing rules.

On the west coast, about one in seven (14% or 7 out of 49) of all federally managed fish stocks for which there is adequate information are overfished. Approximately one in twenty (6% or 3 out of 49) stocks are experiencing overfishing and headed in that direction.

Taken together, ten federally managed fish stocks are either depleted or experiencing overfishing. This represents 20% of the 49 fish stocks for which the federal government has enough information to make an assessment. In addition, another ecologically and economically valuable fish, Pacific whiting, is being driven down towards an overfished level with the help of poor decisions from the Pacific fishery management council.

‘Overfished’ typically means that a fish population has been reduced to below 20-25% of its original population. When eight out of ten fish of any kind are missing from the ocean, it has profoundly negative effects on the rest of the ocean’s animals like whales, dolphins, sea turtles and other fish. The ecosystem is unbalanced; predators may not find enough to eat and prey species may explode because there are not enough predators to eat them. ‘Overfishing’ means that a fish stock is being caught faster than it can replace itself and it is therefore heading towards overfished status or not recovering to healthy levels. Taken together these two terms describe fish stocks in jeopardy or threatened.

In an effort to improve fisheries management, Congress revised the primary law governing fishing in U.S. oceans, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, at the end of 2006. The Act requires the National Marine Fisheries Service and the regional fishery management councils, which devise and propose local plans that are supposed to maintain healthy fish populations, to follow new rules. These rules are now under development; and this report recommends that the new rules follow important conservation principles.

Eating Outside the Box

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:20:00 -0700

Another way to eat. I love this article and Casey's motivation to change people's way of eating in (Bulgaria) Eastern Europe. Funny how these people were used to gardening and eating from scratch, but the big thing now is to become like any other industrial country.... Eating processed!!

Enjoy!

h.deux.flo

By Molly Theobald

This is the final part in a two part blog series about the Culinary Institute of America’s (CIA) “greening initiatives,” which are designed to teach young chefs about sustainable food production and consumption.

The emphasis on sustainable food production and consumption at the Culinary Institute of America (CIA) was very appealing to Casey Angelova when she applied to become a student at the New York campus in Hyde Park two years ago. Designed to both reduce the impact of the school’s four campuses on the environment and also teach students about the benefits of sustainable food production, the CIA’s greening initiatives include on-campus recycling and composting, student-run gardens, and classes that emphasize local and seasonal ingredients.

Already an experienced cook who had taught herself to use ingredients that she was growing in her own backyard, Angelova came to the Institute as with a lot more experience in sustainable cooking and eating than many of her peers. Most of the food Angelova eats comes from her own garden. She composts her food scraps and has a tendency to “bore [her] friends with long discussions about soil composition and how to make marshmallows from scratch.”

But she wasn’t always so comfortable getting her hands dirty . Growing up in her parents’ house in Brooklyn, “everything in the pantry could survive a nuclear disaster,” says Angelova. And for a long time, Angelova was perfectly happy eating that way. “All my food was all out of a box and processed, but it was all I knew and all I wanted to eat.”

“Basically, I was perfectly happy eating out of a box until I met my now husband who encouraged me to try new things,” says Angelova. “I would go grocery shopping and be surprised when I couldn’t find broccoli in June,” said Angelova. “I was already on my way to being a bit of a foodie when I left the United States, but when I got to Bulgaria I was really smacked in the face with seasonality.”

But instead of being defeated by what she initially saw as a lack of ingredients, Angelova was inspired by her new relationship with local and seasonal foods. “One thing I really missed was brown sugar so I was buying it in the states and sending it to myself in Bulgaria, but that didn’t make any sense so I started just making it from scratch. Then I started a garden and the whole thing escalated from there.”

Now, as a student at CIA, Angelova is involved with the Slow Food USA chapter on campus and is actively helping her peers to appreciate locally produced foods and more sustainable food production methods. She also has her own blog, Eating, Gardening and Living in Hyde Park, and plans, after graduation, to open a completely sustainable restaurant and hotel with a farm and vineyard in Bulgaria. “I want people to come be on the farm and get involved and then eat food made from the ingredients that they helped to cultivate,” she says.

Unfortunately, in Bulgaria, it’s a sign of wealth to eat processed and imported foods. “To the nouveau riche, basically, the whole agriculture thing equals poverty,” says Angelova. Angelova hopes that her business will help make locally sourced and produced food appealing to consumers in Bulgaria.

“Educating people and getting them interested in things like recycling and compost and local food sounds simple but it’s a slow process,” says Angelova. “For the most part people already know this stuff, but they need to really understand why they should change their bad habits.”

The CIA’s program is helping to do this, says Angelova, by getting the students so involved in every aspect of food preparation, from cultivation to processing to disposing and recycling. “When you develop a relationship with the entire process,” says Angelova, “it’s really hard to go back to eating out of a box.”

Click here to read the first part of this series.

Molly Theobald is a research fellow with the Nourishing the Planet project.

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

SOURCE: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/eating-outside-the-box-organic-food-agriculture-cia-culinary-institute-of-america-hunger-recycling-eating/

Nano-particles.... not as safe as they predicted!

noreply@blogger.com (H2FLO) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:24:00 -0700

Hey Guys,

I found this great article about nano-particles and wanted to share...

h.deux.flo

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.