Cold and cloudy; more snow on the way.
A recent article about the declining sex drive (aka libido) in teens and adults in Japan got me thinking. While the article focused on the results of the study and how the country is up in arms because their extremely low birth rate is causing age imbalance and could spell economic disaster, they didn't offer much in the way of causes. They briefly mentioned people being over worked but that does not account for 1/3, yes one third, of teenage boys saying they have absolutely no interest in sex (not even same sex.) Say what? Doesn't that raise some red flags for anyone? Like, what's in the drinking water?
The US has a declining teen birth rate, which is a good thing. Its cause though is admittedly a mystery. In fact, the experts and researchers were surprised and really can not fully explain the dramatic results. They are mostly attributing it to the recession but I don't know how that affects teens. In fact, I would think it would rise, it's cheap entertainment on a Friday night when money is tight. It might be convenient to attribute the decline to the recession and all the abstinent programs (why didn't they work 8 years ago?) but what if that is all a coincidence? What if it is more biological than that?
I could not find any stats specifically on a declining sex drive in the US. Trying to google declining sex, libido and US didn't exactly get me what I was looking for. But I did find some recent research on the affects of plastics and human sex drive, the first of its kind. Researchers found a direct correlation between urine levels of BPA and sexual drive in Chinese men. And yes, when BPA goes up, guess what goes down?
And there are countless studies of plastics (gender benders), specifically the estrogen mimickers, and the affect on feminizing male fish. And there are plenty of lab experiments too on animals to support the deleterious effects of BPA. But not so much research on humans because...we can't do experiments on humans. (sort of like climate change, you can only present the data)
So now it's time to connect the dots... I know I'm going out on a limb here, a big limb too, but it's my gut reaction. What if the not-explained-very-well decline in the Japanese libido and the (ditto) U.S. teen birth rate decline are the effects of the "all around us" gender benders in our environment, food and water? What if the plastic revolution is finally catching up with us? After all, Japan has a long reputation of plastic use, sometimes called a wrap happy culture - many products and foods come wrapped multiple times in...plastic.Not good plastic either, think vinyl. Japan also has had a long standing tradition of bentos; the small divided, usually plastic, food containers. While most of the bentos on the market are up to the stricter BPA standards that Japan now has, I question the decades of cheap plastic use prior to the relatively recent interested in the effects of plastic, plus microwaving the plastic etc. that may (remember I'm admittedly out on a limb here) be responsible for the current generation of not-interested-in-sex Japanese. In addition, Japan switched using BPA cash register receipt paper back in 2006, it seems to have been replaced with BP-S, which may be just as bad.
It is also interesting to note, that birth rate seems to be related to how "developed" a country is, but a close look at the chart has some interesting tweaks. I think it is safe to assume that "development" also goes with levels of pollutions and the environmental toxic exposures that have increased over the last century due to "development". This is ditto for world breast cancer rates too. Yes birth rate may be related to economics, education, culture, religion etc.but part of the equation just may be exposure to gender benders via our "modern" convenient lifestyle.
As soon as I saw the article about the lower teen sex drive in the Japanese, I immediately thought gender benders. The evidence is too overwhelming. I really do believe we are now seeing the effects of run away environmental toxic exposure. The cart was let out well ahead of the horse years ago (thank you lobbying powerhouse ACC, and our let's wait and see attitude) and I believe we are beginning to pay the price. When one third of young men are not interested in sex, and actually "despised" the thought, something is very very amiss in our society.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Safe Cosmetics Video - And Things You Can Do
Watching a pair of kestrels lying in wait.
Safe Cosmetics, founded by health and environmental groups, has started a new campaign via video to get their message out. They've asked for help so I'm just doing my bit here.
They interview regular folks off the street about their knowledge about personal care products, which turns out to be pretty weak. If you're up on the subject, there isn't really anything new, but the point is so few, it must be a minuscule amount, people know much about the subject, as you'll see in the video. The point is to get the subject of safe cosmetics on people's radar.
So you might ask why? If you look at the list of endorsing organizations for safe cosmetics it gives you an idea of where the concerns are coming from: physicians, women's groups, children's groups, autistic organizations, environmental groups, right to know organizations and cancer groups. That's because the thousands of chemicals that have not even been tested, that are in our daily lives through "things or stuff" we put in or on our body may have serious consequences to our health, our children's health, the environment and other critters.
Just out today from Newsweek is an article about how chemicals may be causing obesity, even in newborns because there is no other explanation as to why this is occurring. The article titled "Why Chemicals Called Obesogens May Make You Fat" explores the new theory about chemical exposure and how it tweaks our ability to regulate our fat cells. Back to the long standing gender bender issue. (wasn't that the whole thing about BPA and SIGG etc.?)
The long list of questionable chemicals that go into our cosmetics is huge, some say 80,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested, most of concern are petroleum in base. So what can you do? (or tell a friend to do) Glad you asked. Here are some things you can do to help the Safe Cosmetic Campaign, for yourself, others and the environment (our future):
1 - Watch the video and send to friends by email using this link
2 - Sign the petition for Safe Cosmetics
3 - Use low chemical profile products - less is more (better)
4 - Use certified organic products to lessen chemical exposure
5 - Make your own products, DYI cosmetic recipes are available
6 - Know your ingredients - daunting task but using the Skin Deep cosmetic safety data base is a great place to start
7 - Start learning, begin with Treehugger's excellent article: 7 Common Cosmetic Ingredients You Need to Avoid
8 - And ... Watch the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Video
Safe Cosmetics, founded by health and environmental groups, has started a new campaign via video to get their message out. They've asked for help so I'm just doing my bit here.
They interview regular folks off the street about their knowledge about personal care products, which turns out to be pretty weak. If you're up on the subject, there isn't really anything new, but the point is so few, it must be a minuscule amount, people know much about the subject, as you'll see in the video. The point is to get the subject of safe cosmetics on people's radar.
So you might ask why? If you look at the list of endorsing organizations for safe cosmetics it gives you an idea of where the concerns are coming from: physicians, women's groups, children's groups, autistic organizations, environmental groups, right to know organizations and cancer groups. That's because the thousands of chemicals that have not even been tested, that are in our daily lives through "things or stuff" we put in or on our body may have serious consequences to our health, our children's health, the environment and other critters.
Just out today from Newsweek is an article about how chemicals may be causing obesity, even in newborns because there is no other explanation as to why this is occurring. The article titled "Why Chemicals Called Obesogens May Make You Fat" explores the new theory about chemical exposure and how it tweaks our ability to regulate our fat cells. Back to the long standing gender bender issue. (wasn't that the whole thing about BPA and SIGG etc.?)
The long list of questionable chemicals that go into our cosmetics is huge, some say 80,000 chemicals, most of which have never been tested, most of concern are petroleum in base. So what can you do? (or tell a friend to do) Glad you asked. Here are some things you can do to help the Safe Cosmetic Campaign, for yourself, others and the environment (our future):
1 - Watch the video and send to friends by email using this link
2 - Sign the petition for Safe Cosmetics
3 - Use low chemical profile products - less is more (better)
4 - Use certified organic products to lessen chemical exposure
5 - Make your own products, DYI cosmetic recipes are available
6 - Know your ingredients - daunting task but using the Skin Deep cosmetic safety data base is a great place to start
7 - Start learning, begin with Treehugger's excellent article: 7 Common Cosmetic Ingredients You Need to Avoid
8 - And ... Watch the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Video
Monday, September 7, 2009
SIGG - Just Another Plastic Water Bottle
Mist rolling in; feels like being in the clouds.
In case you have been on some remote island or in deep in the jungle without any contact to the human world for the last 3 weeks, you missed the SIGG scandal and their admission that they had not been forthcoming about their lining indeed containing BPA. So while Sigg was selling their "BPA-Free" bottles (not) to confident sucking pregnant women, SIGG was pretending to be an environmental company and laughing all the way to the bank.
I won't bother to rehash all the facts and comments that have come before this, a lot of which has been discussed in previous blogs (you can do a search in upper left corner) but I do want to point out some irony.
The SIGG lining, the old BPA containing lining and the new "eco-care", (what ever that means, they won't say) are made from types of epoxies, a polymer made from resins. Just google epoxy and there are many definitions. But guess what? It's a plastic. SIGG (and Laken) can spin all the eco words they want, but the bottom line is, their lining is plastic, always was and will be.
"... plastics. any of a group of synthetic or natural organic materials that may be shaped when soft and then hardened, including many types of resins, resinoids, polymers, cellulose derivatives, casein materials, and proteins: used in place of other materials, as glass, wood, and metals, in construction and decoration, for making many articles, as coatings, and, drawn into filaments, for weaving."
SIGG is willing to exchange their old bottle for their new one but do you really want to be drinking from an unknown plastic? Yes it beats using disposable water bottles but by now (since you were not deep in the jungle) you know there are many alternatives to SIGG. Have you seen the SIGG bottle that says "I'M NOT PLASTIC?" Kind of ironic.
I am fascinated by the blog and twitter discussions of folks willingly replacing their old SIGG bottle with another SIGG, no questions asked. Is it me or are they missing something?
So I guess that squeezey inexpensive #4 plastic (low-density polyethylene or LDPE) plastic water bottle isn't so bad after all. I'm not a fan of plastic but it beats throwing away single use water bottles. They, #4 bottles, are inexpensive, have a relatively low environmental cost (impact) of manufacturing and can be recycled. (virgin aluminum is many more times environmentally costly compared to steel, glass and plastic) Plastics #2, #4, and #5 have a strong food safety record, so they say.
SIGG (and Laken) claim they are "an environmental company". What is so environmental about using virgin aluminum which is 6 times more "costly" than the next type of container and then lining it with an unknown plastic that you refuse to be transparent about? (oh, must be that 1% planet donation thing they do) It seems to me that drinking from a SIGG is just liking drinking from any other plastic water water bottle, only worse.
In case you have been on some remote island or in deep in the jungle without any contact to the human world for the last 3 weeks, you missed the SIGG scandal and their admission that they had not been forthcoming about their lining indeed containing BPA. So while Sigg was selling their "BPA-Free" bottles (not) to confident sucking pregnant women, SIGG was pretending to be an environmental company and laughing all the way to the bank.
I won't bother to rehash all the facts and comments that have come before this, a lot of which has been discussed in previous blogs (you can do a search in upper left corner) but I do want to point out some irony.
The SIGG lining, the old BPA containing lining and the new "eco-care", (what ever that means, they won't say) are made from types of epoxies, a polymer made from resins. Just google epoxy and there are many definitions. But guess what? It's a plastic. SIGG (and Laken) can spin all the eco words they want, but the bottom line is, their lining is plastic, always was and will be.
"... plastics. any of a group of synthetic or natural organic materials that may be shaped when soft and then hardened, including many types of resins, resinoids, polymers, cellulose derivatives, casein materials, and proteins: used in place of other materials, as glass, wood, and metals, in construction and decoration, for making many articles, as coatings, and, drawn into filaments, for weaving."
SIGG is willing to exchange their old bottle for their new one but do you really want to be drinking from an unknown plastic? Yes it beats using disposable water bottles but by now (since you were not deep in the jungle) you know there are many alternatives to SIGG. Have you seen the SIGG bottle that says "I'M NOT PLASTIC?" Kind of ironic.
I am fascinated by the blog and twitter discussions of folks willingly replacing their old SIGG bottle with another SIGG, no questions asked. Is it me or are they missing something?
So I guess that squeezey inexpensive #4 plastic (low-density polyethylene or LDPE) plastic water bottle isn't so bad after all. I'm not a fan of plastic but it beats throwing away single use water bottles. They, #4 bottles, are inexpensive, have a relatively low environmental cost (impact) of manufacturing and can be recycled. (virgin aluminum is many more times environmentally costly compared to steel, glass and plastic) Plastics #2, #4, and #5 have a strong food safety record, so they say.
SIGG (and Laken) claim they are "an environmental company". What is so environmental about using virgin aluminum which is 6 times more "costly" than the next type of container and then lining it with an unknown plastic that you refuse to be transparent about? (oh, must be that 1% planet donation thing they do) It seems to me that drinking from a SIGG is just liking drinking from any other plastic water water bottle, only worse.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Colleges Going Green - They Need to Do Better
Sunny clear day, with fall clearly in the air.
I had the very mixed emotions of bringing my daughter (my baby) to college on Saturday. Having been raised in a "college town", I love visiting campuses for that academic, young spirited, high energy rush. I also now enjoy visiting colleges with a green eye perspective to see how colleges are going green. At the end of the day, I left with some pleasant surprises and, unfortunately, some disappointments.
Colleges going green get a lot of media attention, especially since there seems to be some competition to be listed in the top what ever for being green. I think it's a good thing to go after such a status; certainly better than the party school category.
The college my daughter is attending is no where to be found on "the list"of green colleges, but their website still boasts a tab for "green living". The initiatives are impressive, with the ever present, well documented, school's "commitment" to going green. Looks great on paper (not literal, it's online) but visiting proved to be another story.
When we first drove up to the dorm entrance I was surprised and pleased that my daughter was handed her room keys along with a stainless steel water bottle. (thank God it wasn't a SIGG) It was a no-name brand but the message was more important than the product - use reusable water bottles. This was a great start.
Once in the room, there was a standard size paper posted on the back of the door with instructions for recycling, but no encouragement to Reduce and Reuse before you Recycle, like using the water bottle they were just given. It was the basic list of items to recycle but what was seriously lacking were containers to put all this. It would have been nice to have 2 waste containers, one clearly labeled for recycling, so student were constantly reminded of what was expected of them. Some schools hand out bags clearly marked so they can easily carry them to where they need to go. It is a waste of a perfectly good bag, but they probably have a much higher participation rate.
My other daughter happens to be doing a semester exchange out in Northern California which she likens to Burlington, Vermont on steroids. In her dorm room there are 2 baskets, one trash and one recycling for students. Each trash can on campus is buddied with a recycling bin. All dumpsters have a big sign on it: "WAIT - Can you recycle it?" Sounds like a pretty easy enough thing to do. Why can't all schools do this? And towns and cities for that matter.
Back to the dorm room. Also on the sheet of paper were reminders to turn off the lights when leaving the room and any other electrical "things" not needed (I suppose that is the "reduce part"). It mentioned using CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs) and said to dispose of them properly in a plastic bag and give them to a janitor. I'm not sure how many students will actually do this, I hope all. It very casually mentioned that they contained mercury but I would have liked to see them really push the proper disposal and to not put it in the regular trash. Maybe they didn't want to sound alarming or have some parent freak out about the mercury but I think they could have heightened the instructions a bit.
I did find something quite disturbing and totally unacceptable - the instructions, in the event that a CFL broke, actually said to look it up online as to how to take care of it. ?^$%?? By then it's too late and the likelihood of everyone looking up the directions online seem pretty remote. I would have like to have seen in big print, bigger than everything else, about opening windows and getting out of the room asap, in addition to the "be careful about picking up the glass" etc. This is a very serious over site on the college's part.
There were no other do's or don't like using a smart strip or at the very least turning of the surge protector to power down phantom load.
Once the furniture was rearranged and the bed made, off to the student union we went. They had coffee for the parents (yes I brought my thermos) and, EEK, handed out free water in disposable bottles. Why didn't they have big containers of water like the coffee so students could use those stainless steel bottles they were just given? Doesn't anyone use a water fountain anymore?
There was a table set up by an environmental group showing green cleaning products, reusable water bottles, a Brita filter that did not say BPA-Free and some paper items with recycled content. I asked them if they were encouraging students to hang dry their clothes and they mumbled something about trying to figure out where to hang a line outside. I suggested some racks inside might work too but they thought the lack of "air" might not let the clothes dry. I shared my thoughts about how once the heat comes on, the air is usually pretty dry and the clothes should have no problem drying. My daughter was mortified.
In the afternoon we went to the Welcoming Event by the President and Deans held in their big auditorium. Before it started, one of Deans handed out, EEK, bottled water. This really struck me. How is it that the students were given reusable water bottles but the staff was not setting an example? What's good for the goslings is good for the geese. As I sat and listened, I wondered what would this scene would have been like 30 years ago. They would not have handed out bottled water, people didn't drink water like they do today. If someone needed water,they would have brought their own glass or the school would have provided a pitcher of water and small glass for all. I think that anyone can manage to get through 1 hour without the need to drink water and this obsession with drinking water is, well, an obsession.
Overall the day was lovely, the school is wonderful and my daughter is sure to flourish. But I did leave very surprised at how un-progessive the school was with regard to environmental awareness and behaviors. After reviewing their website, which seems quite thorough, it doesn't seem the school is really walking the walk. There's talk about renewable energy, there are a few solar panels on one building, they do carbon-offsets and have a green building policy. These are all really big wonderful top-down initiatives to be applauded for sure but equally important are the small things, done by each person everyday for the bottom up approach.
Colleges, at least some, should perhaps review their green policies, update them, and put all the do's and don'ts that might be on their website into real action. I think it is wonderful that there is so much emphasis on colleges going green, that institutions have sustainability policies and being environmentally conscious is "in". Colleges have such a precious opportunity to teach young people about our role in the future of the environment, to create lasting habits and to have them appreciate all that surrounds them. I love that colleges are going green - but they need to do better.
I had the very mixed emotions of bringing my daughter (my baby) to college on Saturday. Having been raised in a "college town", I love visiting campuses for that academic, young spirited, high energy rush. I also now enjoy visiting colleges with a green eye perspective to see how colleges are going green. At the end of the day, I left with some pleasant surprises and, unfortunately, some disappointments.
Colleges going green get a lot of media attention, especially since there seems to be some competition to be listed in the top what ever for being green. I think it's a good thing to go after such a status; certainly better than the party school category.
The college my daughter is attending is no where to be found on "the list"of green colleges, but their website still boasts a tab for "green living". The initiatives are impressive, with the ever present, well documented, school's "commitment" to going green. Looks great on paper (not literal, it's online) but visiting proved to be another story.
When we first drove up to the dorm entrance I was surprised and pleased that my daughter was handed her room keys along with a stainless steel water bottle. (thank God it wasn't a SIGG) It was a no-name brand but the message was more important than the product - use reusable water bottles. This was a great start.
Once in the room, there was a standard size paper posted on the back of the door with instructions for recycling, but no encouragement to Reduce and Reuse before you Recycle, like using the water bottle they were just given. It was the basic list of items to recycle but what was seriously lacking were containers to put all this. It would have been nice to have 2 waste containers, one clearly labeled for recycling, so student were constantly reminded of what was expected of them. Some schools hand out bags clearly marked so they can easily carry them to where they need to go. It is a waste of a perfectly good bag, but they probably have a much higher participation rate.
My other daughter happens to be doing a semester exchange out in Northern California which she likens to Burlington, Vermont on steroids. In her dorm room there are 2 baskets, one trash and one recycling for students. Each trash can on campus is buddied with a recycling bin. All dumpsters have a big sign on it: "WAIT - Can you recycle it?" Sounds like a pretty easy enough thing to do. Why can't all schools do this? And towns and cities for that matter.
Back to the dorm room. Also on the sheet of paper were reminders to turn off the lights when leaving the room and any other electrical "things" not needed (I suppose that is the "reduce part"). It mentioned using CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs) and said to dispose of them properly in a plastic bag and give them to a janitor. I'm not sure how many students will actually do this, I hope all. It very casually mentioned that they contained mercury but I would have liked to see them really push the proper disposal and to not put it in the regular trash. Maybe they didn't want to sound alarming or have some parent freak out about the mercury but I think they could have heightened the instructions a bit.
I did find something quite disturbing and totally unacceptable - the instructions, in the event that a CFL broke, actually said to look it up online as to how to take care of it. ?^$%?? By then it's too late and the likelihood of everyone looking up the directions online seem pretty remote. I would have like to have seen in big print, bigger than everything else, about opening windows and getting out of the room asap, in addition to the "be careful about picking up the glass" etc. This is a very serious over site on the college's part.
There were no other do's or don't like using a smart strip or at the very least turning of the surge protector to power down phantom load.
Once the furniture was rearranged and the bed made, off to the student union we went. They had coffee for the parents (yes I brought my thermos) and, EEK, handed out free water in disposable bottles. Why didn't they have big containers of water like the coffee so students could use those stainless steel bottles they were just given? Doesn't anyone use a water fountain anymore?
There was a table set up by an environmental group showing green cleaning products, reusable water bottles, a Brita filter that did not say BPA-Free and some paper items with recycled content. I asked them if they were encouraging students to hang dry their clothes and they mumbled something about trying to figure out where to hang a line outside. I suggested some racks inside might work too but they thought the lack of "air" might not let the clothes dry. I shared my thoughts about how once the heat comes on, the air is usually pretty dry and the clothes should have no problem drying. My daughter was mortified.
In the afternoon we went to the Welcoming Event by the President and Deans held in their big auditorium. Before it started, one of Deans handed out, EEK, bottled water. This really struck me. How is it that the students were given reusable water bottles but the staff was not setting an example? What's good for the goslings is good for the geese. As I sat and listened, I wondered what would this scene would have been like 30 years ago. They would not have handed out bottled water, people didn't drink water like they do today. If someone needed water,they would have brought their own glass or the school would have provided a pitcher of water and small glass for all. I think that anyone can manage to get through 1 hour without the need to drink water and this obsession with drinking water is, well, an obsession.
Overall the day was lovely, the school is wonderful and my daughter is sure to flourish. But I did leave very surprised at how un-progessive the school was with regard to environmental awareness and behaviors. After reviewing their website, which seems quite thorough, it doesn't seem the school is really walking the walk. There's talk about renewable energy, there are a few solar panels on one building, they do carbon-offsets and have a green building policy. These are all really big wonderful top-down initiatives to be applauded for sure but equally important are the small things, done by each person everyday for the bottom up approach.
Colleges, at least some, should perhaps review their green policies, update them, and put all the do's and don'ts that might be on their website into real action. I think it is wonderful that there is so much emphasis on colleges going green, that institutions have sustainability policies and being environmentally conscious is "in". Colleges have such a precious opportunity to teach young people about our role in the future of the environment, to create lasting habits and to have them appreciate all that surrounds them. I love that colleges are going green - but they need to do better.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bush, Oil Drilling Ban, and Environment - Do Not Mix
A nice cool morning with the music of birds.
A symbolic move but oh how destructive. What is Bush thinking? Apparently all the arguments against lifting the off shore drilling ban - oil will not actually come to the market for another 5 or more years, the new oil will only add 3% to our supply, it is costly, creates negative local impact - didn't matter to our President because lifting the ban symbolically makes him look good, like he is actually doing something about the oil crisis.
Lifting the ban is a slap in the environmental face because it ignores our golden opportunity to switch gears and actually get away from oil dependence and truly embark on new sustainable technologies for energy. Lifting the ban also ignores the need to reduce CO2 emissions and stop burning fossil fuel, i.e. oil. So much for his pseudo interest in helping climate change.
Imagine all that money that will now be spent looking for prospect gold when it could go towards creating electric cars and solar power, and we could actually free ourselves from oil dependence and accomplish the necessary CO2 reductions needed to continue life as we know it.
But for some, I guess it sure felt good knowing our President was taking some kind of action, as pathetic and destructive as it was and will be.
A symbolic move but oh how destructive. What is Bush thinking? Apparently all the arguments against lifting the off shore drilling ban - oil will not actually come to the market for another 5 or more years, the new oil will only add 3% to our supply, it is costly, creates negative local impact - didn't matter to our President because lifting the ban symbolically makes him look good, like he is actually doing something about the oil crisis.
Lifting the ban is a slap in the environmental face because it ignores our golden opportunity to switch gears and actually get away from oil dependence and truly embark on new sustainable technologies for energy. Lifting the ban also ignores the need to reduce CO2 emissions and stop burning fossil fuel, i.e. oil. So much for his pseudo interest in helping climate change.
Imagine all that money that will now be spent looking for prospect gold when it could go towards creating electric cars and solar power, and we could actually free ourselves from oil dependence and accomplish the necessary CO2 reductions needed to continue life as we know it.
But for some, I guess it sure felt good knowing our President was taking some kind of action, as pathetic and destructive as it was and will be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)