From Union of Concerned Scientists:
2. Arsenic in your chicken
Many chicken products sold in the United States are contaminated with arsenic, a known carcinogen, according to a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Investigators found arsenic in half of 155 samples from supermarkets and in all 90 samples from fast-food restaurants. All the samples were below the tolerance level set by the Food and Drug Administration. According to the report, arsenic is legally fed to an estimated 70 percent of broiler chickens to kill parasites and promote growth. Its use on poultry farms causes environmental contamination when soils are fertilized with chicken manure containing arsenic, and when other animals are fed chicken litter containing arsenic. Arsenic is not allowed in organic chickens, and Tyson, the nation's largest chicken producer, claims not to use it. Read the report here or read about chicken and arsenic in The New York Times (free registration required). To find producers who claim not to feed their chickens additives such as arsenic and antibiotics, visit the Eat Well Guide.
3. Organic diets lower pesticide levels in the body
Eating an organic diet can dramatically lower pesticide levels in the body, according to a study that measured organophosphates in children, conducted by scientists from Emory University, the University of Washington, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Initially all 23 children were eating a conventional diet, and urine samples from all of them contained metabolites of the common pesticides malathion and chlorpyrifos. Then the children switched to an organic diet, and the pesticides in their urine dropped to undetectable levels. When the children returned to a conventional diet, the pesticide levels went back up. Read the study in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Saturday, April 08, 2006
March of the Penguins
Today I attended a movie event hosted by the Australian Democrats and the Animal Cruelty Society - "March of the Penguins". This is a documentary about the year in the life of the Emporer Penguins in Antarctica. It was amazing to see how beautiful and organised nature can be. Very inefficient maybe in our eyes though you do have to realise how much of an advanced organism we are.
Their journey starts with the mass journey of male and female Penguins at the end of summer, 70km from the sea to a safer place inland where the ice is thick. The Males and Females match up and love each other before producing an egg. The female hands the egg over to the male to look after and if they don't do the transition properly then the egg will spend too long on the ice and "die". She takes the long walk back to the sea, which is further now as winter has created more ice. The father looks after the egg through the long, cold and dark winter, and when the sun starts to rise again some three months late or so, and the days get longer and warmer, the egg hatches. The father has a little bit of food stored away and gives the chick that. It will only sustain the chick for a day or two and in that time the mother must be back - such amazing timing! In this waiting time the father could end up not holding the chick tightly enough and it doesn't take long for chick to die from the cold. When the mother gets back, she needs to find the father and chick (if they are still there), purely through calling out to them. The father then hands the chick over to the mother (again a dangerous move) and he calls to the chick and it calls back so they can find each other again later when he returns. He goes back to the sea and the mother regurgitates food to the chick to feed and strengthen it. The sea ice is melting as summer continues on, so the distance to the water becomes less and less. He goes back to get food (its a bugger of a journey for him since he hasn't eaten in something like 105 days). He returns with food and then the cycle goes on for a couple months with she going back and returning with food, and then he does the same, and so on. In this time the chick keeps growing. The parents need to be alert of predators such as flighted birds that are eager to pick off a chick or two for food. At about March the chick is prety much abandoned to fend for itself and the parents break up and dissapper back into the sea. In a couple months they'll return to find a new partner (The Penguins are monogomists whilst they are together but each season they will have a new / different partner). The chicks hang around for a while together and then after some time (not sure exactly how long) they'll take to the sea for the first time. They will return in 5 years to become parents themselves.
I'd like to get closer to nature and understand it better. In this I'd like to take more wildlife photos (in the latest Issue (eight) of Cosmos Magazine, in the section "CALL OF THE WILD", they presented the world's most beautiful photographs of the creatures and places that make our planet unique - from the winners of the 2005 Wildlife Photographer of the Year. This inspired me. The photos can be seen at Natural History Museum Exhibition.)
Their journey starts with the mass journey of male and female Penguins at the end of summer, 70km from the sea to a safer place inland where the ice is thick. The Males and Females match up and love each other before producing an egg. The female hands the egg over to the male to look after and if they don't do the transition properly then the egg will spend too long on the ice and "die". She takes the long walk back to the sea, which is further now as winter has created more ice. The father looks after the egg through the long, cold and dark winter, and when the sun starts to rise again some three months late or so, and the days get longer and warmer, the egg hatches. The father has a little bit of food stored away and gives the chick that. It will only sustain the chick for a day or two and in that time the mother must be back - such amazing timing! In this waiting time the father could end up not holding the chick tightly enough and it doesn't take long for chick to die from the cold. When the mother gets back, she needs to find the father and chick (if they are still there), purely through calling out to them. The father then hands the chick over to the mother (again a dangerous move) and he calls to the chick and it calls back so they can find each other again later when he returns. He goes back to the sea and the mother regurgitates food to the chick to feed and strengthen it. The sea ice is melting as summer continues on, so the distance to the water becomes less and less. He goes back to get food (its a bugger of a journey for him since he hasn't eaten in something like 105 days). He returns with food and then the cycle goes on for a couple months with she going back and returning with food, and then he does the same, and so on. In this time the chick keeps growing. The parents need to be alert of predators such as flighted birds that are eager to pick off a chick or two for food. At about March the chick is prety much abandoned to fend for itself and the parents break up and dissapper back into the sea. In a couple months they'll return to find a new partner (The Penguins are monogomists whilst they are together but each season they will have a new / different partner). The chicks hang around for a while together and then after some time (not sure exactly how long) they'll take to the sea for the first time. They will return in 5 years to become parents themselves.
I'd like to get closer to nature and understand it better. In this I'd like to take more wildlife photos (in the latest Issue (eight) of Cosmos Magazine, in the section "CALL OF THE WILD", they presented the world's most beautiful photographs of the creatures and places that make our planet unique - from the winners of the 2005 Wildlife Photographer of the Year. This inspired me. The photos can be seen at Natural History Museum Exhibition.)
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The probability of global bankruptcy
At the last Climate Action Brisbane meeting at Friends of the Earth (FOE) headquarters, the following was handed out. Sources haven't been checked and authenticity hasn't been confirmed but sounds very plausible and likely given what we can see happening around us.
Extract from book "The Little Green Handbook", by Ron Nielsen, 2005, published by Scribe Publications. Reproduced without authorization under the 'fair use' doctrine of international copyright law, without profit.
Perhaps the best and most convincing short-cut to the problems associated with studying the slow process of climate change and extreme weather, lies in weather-related economic losses. The relevant records are not only well documented and scrutinized, but are also expressed in terms of a single quantity we can easily understand and appreciate - the money we have to pay for weather-induced damage. These records are maintained by insurance companies, and it is in their interest to make them reliable.
One such company is the Munich Re group, which has clients in more than 150 countries. Before being made available to clients, records of weather-related losses are checked and verified several times. They involve large sums of money, and many companies rely on their accuracy. According to Munich Re, local weather-related economic losses increased from $3 billion per year in 1980 to $80 billion per year at the end of the 20th century. Losses per decade increased from $86 billion for 1980-89 to $474 billion for 1990-99.
Only a small percentage of the losses are covered by insurance, but someone has to pay for them. Only 34 per cent of Australia's weatherh-related loses in 1998 were covered. In that year only 29 per cent were insured on the continent of America, 27 per cent in Europe, 7 per cent in Africa and 4 per cent in Asia.
Global weather-related losses covered by insurance increased from $26.2 billion for the 1980-89 decade to $123.5 billion for 1990-99. These data show that, on average, only 26 per cent of weather-related losses were insured. Accurate records of uninsured losses are also important for insurance companies, because they contribute to an understanding of what is insurable.
How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses? If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last. To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for global world product (GWP) both expressed in 2001 US dollars.
Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income. As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade have increased ... 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $29 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 percent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.
Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynomial function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage, there will be no money left for anything else.
The world seems to finally be accepting what the Environmentalists have been warning everyone about for ages. The most recent issue of Time magazine has the cover story Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried.
My take on this is that the world will have to change the way it "does business" fast and voluntarily - we can't afford to wait until we are made to do it since then we will certainly have gone beyond the tipping point.
Extract from book "The Little Green Handbook", by Ron Nielsen, 2005, published by Scribe Publications. Reproduced without authorization under the 'fair use' doctrine of international copyright law, without profit.
Perhaps the best and most convincing short-cut to the problems associated with studying the slow process of climate change and extreme weather, lies in weather-related economic losses. The relevant records are not only well documented and scrutinized, but are also expressed in terms of a single quantity we can easily understand and appreciate - the money we have to pay for weather-induced damage. These records are maintained by insurance companies, and it is in their interest to make them reliable.
One such company is the Munich Re group, which has clients in more than 150 countries. Before being made available to clients, records of weather-related losses are checked and verified several times. They involve large sums of money, and many companies rely on their accuracy. According to Munich Re, local weather-related economic losses increased from $3 billion per year in 1980 to $80 billion per year at the end of the 20th century. Losses per decade increased from $86 billion for 1980-89 to $474 billion for 1990-99.
Only a small percentage of the losses are covered by insurance, but someone has to pay for them. Only 34 per cent of Australia's weatherh-related loses in 1998 were covered. In that year only 29 per cent were insured on the continent of America, 27 per cent in Europe, 7 per cent in Africa and 4 per cent in Asia.
Global weather-related losses covered by insurance increased from $26.2 billion for the 1980-89 decade to $123.5 billion for 1990-99. These data show that, on average, only 26 per cent of weather-related losses were insured. Accurate records of uninsured losses are also important for insurance companies, because they contribute to an understanding of what is insurable.
How long can we cope with weather-related economic losses? If global income is substantially greater than the losses, and if it increases at least as fast as the losses, we have nothing to worry about. There will always be enough money to repair the damage. If global income increases more slowly than the losses, it is worthwhile to calculate how long the money will last. To estimate this period I have analysed the data for weather-related economic losses and for global world product (GWP) both expressed in 2001 US dollars.
Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income. As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade have increased ... 450 per cent, in the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $29 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 percent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy.
Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynomial function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage, there will be no money left for anything else.
The world seems to finally be accepting what the Environmentalists have been warning everyone about for ages. The most recent issue of Time magazine has the cover story Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried.
My take on this is that the world will have to change the way it "does business" fast and voluntarily - we can't afford to wait until we are made to do it since then we will certainly have gone beyond the tipping point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
