Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Just when you thought it was safe to eat food grown in your own backyard, this article comes out in the New York Times. Beware: lead contaminated soil. Apparently, food grown in soil contaminated with high levels of lead isn’t safe to eat. Go figure.
Of course those who shoulder the major risk burden also happen to be those who did not create the problem:
"Fetuses and small children, because of their rapidly developing nervous systems, are more sensitive to and suffer the most harm from lead exposure. Adverse effects include damage to the brain and nervous system, lower I.Q., behavior problems and slow growth. Adults may suffer cognitive decline, hypertension, nerve disorders, muscle pain and reproductive problems."
But wait. How can this be? Lead was eliminated from paint and gasoline back in the 1970s. How can we still be paying the price several decades later? Unfortunately for us, lead is persistent in the environment. How does soil become contaminated with lead? Though use of leaded gasoline was a big source back in the day, the problem persists with the improper disposal of lead batteries, automotive parts and the demolition of properties/structures containing lead (just to name few). So, those greedy buggers who recently tore down the neighborhood eyesore in favor of the McMansion may have contributed to this threat to their (and/or your) personal food supply. At least we can say this potential risk “knows no socioeconomic boundaries”.
But there is hope.
"…some experts advise planting greens, specifically Indian mustard and spinach, for a couple of seasons as phytoremediation, or plant-based mitigation, before growing crops intended for food. By growing spinach for three months, researchers at the
lowered the lead count in one garden by 200 p.p.m." Universityof Southern Maine
Monday, May 11, 2009
The immediate health effects are many and resemble intoxication in some affected individuals. Other health outcomes are potentially long-lasting: confusion, uncontrollable shaking, tremors, paralysis and chronic fatigue. The bad news, is that passengers are not the only ones at risk. The crew, including pilots, can also inhale this toxic gas and become impaired during the flight.
The airlines are, of course, resisting monitoring cabin air for this, and other chemicals. Monitoring air quality in the cabins seems like a good idea as first step in safeguarding the public’s health. However, one must ask, what action would they (could they) take if high levels of TCP were detected in cabin air? Are there alternative fuels that could be substituted for what is used now? And how would any changes in operating procedures or fuel used affect the cost of an airline ticket? The last time I flew, I was charged an extra $12 per flight just to choose my seat in advance. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that any action taken by (or against) the airline to confront this issue will come back to bite you in your wallet. Fly the friendly skies…..
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Just about every environmental problem we currently face can be traced back to overpopulation -- starvation, dwindling natural resources (e.g., clean potable water), the unrelenting demand for energy, loss of nature and biodiversity (e.g., severe overfishing of our oceans), and unlimited streams of pollution and filth that choke our rivers and lungs and contaminate our food supply. There are already more than 6.7 billion people on this planet, with an estimated 3 billion more to come by 2050. As such, I argue, our population growth should be restrained.
Now, I realize that not all countries are on equal ground here. Folks repeatedly argue that some countries, predominantly in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Ukraine, Germany, Italy), are experiencing negative population growth, while others, primarily in Africa and the Middle East, a growth explosion. Negative growth may result in increased economic insecurity as demographics shift from a population with a large foundation of young productive workers--workers whose productivity is the foundation of support for a country’s social programs--to one with a large number of retired and elderly citizens.
There are also arguments made by those who have religious beliefs that reject use of contraception. They do not believe in birth control. What do you say to these folks? I’m not sure how to reason with these groups, some so dogmatic in their values, that they would preach abstinence-only sex education instead of condom use to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections (e.g., HIV) in Africa--even when the population most at risk is women, the majority being married.
Educated people have difficulty discussing this topic without becoming overly emotional. ‘Enough!’ a friend recently said, cutting me off when discussing this topic over dinner, ‘some people just want big families.’ In the interest of the greater good, for the betterment of the planet as a whole, perhaps--just maybe--some of our wants and desires should be curbed. Who is to say that just because we want something, we should be able to have it--be able to do it? Why are people so threatened when you suggest that the number of children a family has, be limited? Exactly why is this idea so controversial?
Back in the day, large families made sense. Perhaps you needed more hands to help make ends meet on the farm, for example. Infant and child mortality were high thanks to the infectious diseases (unopposed by antibiotics) that ran roughshod through unprotected populations. But our ability to extend life, sometimes through extraordinary medical interventions, has caused the number of humans on this planet to swell. From a global perspective, the trends are clear. Our planet, in terms of the number of humans it can carry, is stretched to its limits.
A 2008 article in Salon reported on the topic of population control and is one of the most balanced discussions I’ve seen. Approximately 40 years ago, the average family size consisted of five children. This number has fallen in recent years to approximately 2.6 per family. Why the decline? Better access to family planning services (e.g., contraception, abortion) and increased educational and occupational opportunities for women are thought to be major contributors. When given the choice, women do appear to make appropriate decisions regarding family size.
There’s no question that the problems surrounding overpopulation and limited resources are complex. Unbalanced consumption is also a huge factor contributing to the perils facing this planet. The
The solution I support isn’t based on financial ability, class or race. It is not eugenics. It is based simply on a number. Replace yourselves--you and your partner. Replace yourselves and then stop reproducing. Limit your offspring to two children. After that, feel free to add to your family by adopting a child who desperately needs a loving home.
In the end, nature will take care of itself. I believe we can see this happening before our very eyes. How else do you explain increasing infertility rates, the dramatic rise in autoimmune diseases, the reemergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the constant warnings to limit our fish consumption due to mercury contamination (to name just a few)? Just think, if we don’t begin to address our wicked ways and show a little restraint, nature will steer us in a certain direction--kicking and screaming--whether we like it or not. Nature will limit our ability to reproduce. Nature will see to it that we die young. Nature will throw at us increasingly virulent and pathogenic infectious diseases to limit our numbers and cull the herd. I truly believe that we should limit our population growth, not because planet Earth requires it for survival--this planet will continue to exist no matter what we do. We should take this proactive step to help ensure our place on it.