Today’s Tip: Four easy ways to go green and save money 
Many people think going green is expensive, that it costs more money in the long run than living a conventional lifestyle. That’s not true. In many cases going green not only does NOT cost more, it can save you money. Here are four easy ways to go green AND save money.

Number One: Build a clothesline. Besides the obvious costs of electricity, a tumble dryer wears out clothes more quickly.

Number Two: Skip bottled water. Buy a reusable container and fill it with tap water, a great choice for the environment, your wallet, and your health. The EPA and other international governments’ standards for tap water are always stricter than the FDA’s standards for bottled water. Hard to believe, but water is more expensive than gasoline when you buy it by the quart.

Number Three: Install a digital thermostat with timers. Saving enery means saving money by adjusting your thermostat a little cooler in the winter and a little warmer in the summer. By installing a digital thermostat with timers, you can easily drop the temperature of your house a few degrees while nobody is home then bring it back up right before everyone gets back. Or do it by hand. But do it.

Number Four: Vege Tuesdays. Going vegetarian once a week saves money and the planet. Staples such as rice, corn, and beans can make trips to a grocery store less expensive. The biggest savings come in health care costs years later as eating less meat lowers your risk of heart disease, cancer, and dementia. It’s better for the planet, reduces water usage, and global-warming gases.

There you have it. Four ways to save money and go green at the same time. Choose one, and get started this week.

Today’s Tip: Is a poem.
Every once in a very rare while I come across a poem or a paragraph of prose that says it all. That happened a few weeks ago while reading Red Bird, a collection of poems by Mary Oliver, one of my favorite living poets, who has been called an “indefatigable guide to the natural world.” She won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry in 1984.
This poem is only two sentences long. In fact, it’s title is almost longer than the poem itself. It’s called “Watching a Documentary About Polar Bears Trying to Survive on the Melting Ice Floes.” Listen carefully. It’s short and to the point. Here goes:
            “That God had a plan, I do not doubt.            But what if His plan was, that we would do better?”
           
            I love that little poem. It’s a meditation. Here it is again.
            
             “That God had a plan, I do not doubt.
But what if His plan was, that we would do better?”
            Think about it. 

Today’s Tip: Understand chemical exposure
Since 1999, the U.S. Center for Disease Control (or CDC for short) has been doing biomonitoring studies to see what kinds of chemicals are regularly found in the blood and urine of Americans. The exposure report shows how pervasive many of these chemicals are, reflecting the massive increase in their use in industrialized countries.

The list of human-made chemicals now found in human tissue is long, encompassing 212 environmental chemicals. The latest report, published in 2009, added 75 chemicals to the list, including bisphenol A (found in plastic, especially water bottles and baby bottles), triclosan (found in antibacterial soap), a dozen perfluorinated chemicals (such as PFOA used in nonstick cookware), and 29 volatile chemicals (such as the gasoline additive MTBE).

Some chemicals are extremely persistent in the environment, such as PCBs that were banned in the 1970s but are still found in Americans today, even in children who weren’t born when the ban took effect.

Other substances, such as perfluorinated chemicals used in manufacturing, can build up in our bodies to levels higher than what’s in the environment. In animal studies, they have been shown to cause cancer, liver toxicity, and interfere with growth and development. Two common ones, PFOs and PFOA, were found in nearly all people tested.

In contrast, bisphenol A, an endocrine disruptor that has been shown to cause reproductive problems in animal studies, is thought to be metabolized fairly quickly, but it was still found in 93% of the participants sampled. This means that we’re taking it in as fast as our bodies can eliminate it.

Scientific studies using the CDC data have found links between certain contaminants and disease. A 2010 study, for example, reported a 55% increased risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children who had ten times the organophosphate pesticide levels than average in their bodies.

A 2010 study found an association between higher PFOA levels and thyroid disease. And a 2008 study reported that higher urinary bisphenol A levels correlated with between 18% and 63% higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in adults.

These kinds of studies cannot conclude that a substance is causing disease: The illness might have preceded exposure, for example. What these studies do show, however, is that the increase in human-made chemicals found in body tissue corresponds with the dramatic increase in certain diseases. Data collected under the Toxic Substances Control Act show that 74 billion pounds of industrial chemicals are made in or imported to the U.S. every day—this does not include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, or fuel. These facts, taken together, point to a conclusion that at least some of these chemicals are making us very sick.

What to do about it? It’s buyer beware in the marketplace today. The most important thing you can do is be informed. Among other things, stay tuned to The Green Zone for information about how to avoid harmful environmental chemicals and green-up your life.  

Today’s Tip: The truth about airport body scans.
Are airport body scans safe? The government says so. The airlines say yes, they are safe. But some experts are unconvinced. One of them is Kerry Crofton, a British Columbia health educator and author of the book Wireless Radiation Rescue: Safeguarding Your Family from the Risks of Electropollution.

“I would request a physical pat down,” she says. And she recommends not allowing a young child go through a body scanner. Pregnant women should stay away from them, too.

The full-body scanners in the United States use millimeter-wave technology. When a passenger steps into a millimeter-wave scanner, radio-frequency energy is projected over the body. The radio waves are reflected back to create a 3-dimensional silhouette-type image that security staff see on a screen in another room.

Crofton wants to know who, if anyone, is monitoring the devices, how are they calibrated, how consistent are the levels, and what long-term data do we have on their use. She believes we may be unknowingly exposing people to consistent risk.

Those who argue the scanners are harmless goes point out they use only nonionizing radiation, not ionizing radiation, as is used in X-rays and the sun’s ultraviolet rays, which can disrupt DNA and cause tissue damage. This doesn’t convince Crofton, who believes there may be significant adverse biological effects. Supporting her argument are studies which find that nonionizing radiation produces changes at the cellular level. Even low levels can suppress the immune system, disrupt neurological function, and have other negative effects.

Because effects from radiation exposure are cumulative, it’s another cause for concern. We’re exposed to radiation from many more sources than we were even 20 years ago--in X-rays, during high altitude flights in airplanes, and when using our cell phones (where health effects of long-term use are still unknown). Full body scans add to that body burden.

Travelers not wanting to pass through the full-body scanners can ask for a physical pat down, though be prepared for it to take 15 minutes or more.
Information gathered from The Georgia Straight,  Oct. 14, 2010

Today’s Tip: Planet Earth cannot sustain our use of resources.

The 2010 Living Planet Report, conducted by World Wildlife Fund International, was released last week and reported once again that planet earth cannot sustain our use of its resources. Humans need 1.5 planets to sustain our consumption patterns, according to the report.

“Exhaustion of natural resources has already happened locally in some places,” says the report, “for example the collapse of cod stocks in Newfoundland in the 1980s. At present, people are often able to shift their sourcing when this happens—moving to a new fishing ground or forest, clearing new land for farming, or targeting a different population or a still-common species. But at current consumption rates, these resources will eventually run out, too—and some ecosystems will collapse even before the resource is completely gone.”

The report, which measures the health of almost 8,000 populations of more than 2,500 species, shows a 30% drop in biodiversity “stock” since 1970, when humanity first began consuming more resources than the planet could sustain. The tropics show a 60% decline in less than 40 years.

What is a bit surprising is that the United States does not have the largest footprint per average citizen. That dubious honor goes to the United Arab Emerites, which uses 26 ½ acres per person. Qater is next with 26 global acres. Third is Denmark with 20. Belgium is fourth with 19 3/4 global acres. And the U.S. is fifth with 19 ½ acres. Half of the U.S. footprint is from fossil fuel consumption, so half of that impact is carbon emissions.

Like spending more money than we have, consuming more sources than we can sustain is a recipe for disaster. We’re not headed in the right direction. Human beings need to make more sustainable choices, especially when it comes to energy consumption, to avoid damaging basic life-support systems on Earth over the next few decades.

Start with your car. Drive less. Buy a fuel efficient car—a hybrid or electric model—if you can. Otherwise, take the bus, ride a bike, and walk more often. Monitor how much energy you use to heat and cool your house. And buy food grown locally. Cutting down on these three things goes a long ways toward lowering your global footprint.

Pay attention too to all the places where you use fossil fuels. Gasoline-powered landscape equipment, for example, including mowers, trimmers, blowers, and chainsaws, accounts for 16 % of hydrocarbon emissions and 21 % of carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources nationwide, according to the U.S. EPA.

We each need to pay attention if planet Earth is to survive.

Information gathered from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, Oct. 14, 2010, pg. B5

RETURN TO PREVIOUS PAGE