Your spine is made up of 24 bones that together, form your vertebral column, the protective housing for your nervous system.
View the Original article
Friday 15 April 2011
Stretches to Keep Your Spine Healthy
To review, ligaments and muscles go from one bone to another. The main difference is that ligaments stabilize joints, while muscles allow you to move them.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Maine Town Passes Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance Becomes First in US to Declare Food Sovereignty
By John Reinhardt
The town of Sedgwick, Maine, population 1,012 (according to the 2000 census), has become the first town in the United States to pass a Food Sovereignty ordinance. In doing so, the town declared their right to produce and sell local foods of their choosing, without the oversight of State or federal regulation.
What does this mean? In the debate over raw milk, for example, the law opens the gate for consumer and producer to enter a purchasing agreement without interference from state or federal health regulators. According to the Mayo Clinic, a 1987 FDA regulation required that all milk be pasteurized to kill pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli. The Sedgwick ordinance declares that:
View the Original article
The town of Sedgwick, Maine, population 1,012 (according to the 2000 census), has become the first town in the United States to pass a Food Sovereignty ordinance. In doing so, the town declared their right to produce and sell local foods of their choosing, without the oversight of State or federal regulation.
What does this mean? In the debate over raw milk, for example, the law opens the gate for consumer and producer to enter a purchasing agreement without interference from state or federal health regulators. According to the Mayo Clinic, a 1987 FDA regulation required that all milk be pasteurized to kill pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli. The Sedgwick ordinance declares that:
Producers or processors of local foods in the Town of Sedgwick are exempt from licensure and inspection provided that the transaction is only between the producer or processor and a patron when the food is sold for home consumption. This includes any producer or processor who sells his or her products at farmers' markets or roadside stands; sells his or her products through farm-based sales directly to a patron; or delivers his or her products directly to patrons.
In short, the ordinance allows buyer and seller to enter their own agreement which overrides the regulation of government when dealing with transactions involving local foods.
View the Original article
Wednesday 13 April 2011
Germany Set to Abandon Nuclear Power for Good
By Juergen Baetz
BERLIN - Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.
The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.
The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."
Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.
And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.
"If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."
View the Original article
BERLIN - Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.
The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.
The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."
Berlin's decision to take seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months for new safety checks has provided a glimpse into how Germany might wean itself from getting nearly a quarter of its power from atomic energy to none.
And experts say Germany's phase-out provides a good map that countries such as the United States, which use a similar amount of nuclear power, could follow. The German model would not work, however, in countries like France, which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting.
"If we had the winds of Texas or the sun of California, the task here would be even easier," said Felix Matthes of Germany's renowned Institute for Applied Ecology. "Given the great potential in the U.S., it would be feasible there in the long run too, even though it would necessitate huge infrastructure investments."
View the Original article
Tuesday 12 April 2011
ADHD: It's The Food, Stupid
By Kristin Wartman
Over five million children ages four to 17 have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States and close to 3 million of those children take medication for their symptoms, according to the Centers for Disease Control. But a new study reported in The Lancet last month found that with a restricted diet alone, many children experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. The study's lead author, Dr. Lidy Pelsser of the ADHD Research Centre in the Netherlands, said in an interview with NPR, "The teachers thought it was so strange that the diet would change the behavior of the child as thoroughly as they saw it. It was a miracle, the teachers said."
Dr. Pessler's study is the first to conclusively say that diet is implicated in ADHD. In the NPR interview, Dr. Pessler did not mince words, "Food is the main cause of ADHD," she said adding, "After the diet, they were just normal children with normal behavior. They were no longer more easily distracted, they were no more forgetful, there were no more temper-tantrums." The study found that in 64 percent of children with ADHD, the symptoms were caused by food. "It's a hypersensitivity reaction to food," Pessler said.
View the Original article
Over five million children ages four to 17 have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States and close to 3 million of those children take medication for their symptoms, according to the Centers for Disease Control. But a new study reported in The Lancet last month found that with a restricted diet alone, many children experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. The study's lead author, Dr. Lidy Pelsser of the ADHD Research Centre in the Netherlands, said in an interview with NPR, "The teachers thought it was so strange that the diet would change the behavior of the child as thoroughly as they saw it. It was a miracle, the teachers said."
Dr. Pessler's study is the first to conclusively say that diet is implicated in ADHD. In the NPR interview, Dr. Pessler did not mince words, "Food is the main cause of ADHD," she said adding, "After the diet, they were just normal children with normal behavior. They were no longer more easily distracted, they were no more forgetful, there were no more temper-tantrums." The study found that in 64 percent of children with ADHD, the symptoms were caused by food. "It's a hypersensitivity reaction to food," Pessler said.
View the Original article
Monday 11 April 2011
What Would the World Look Like If We Relied on Industrial Agriculture to Feed Everyone?
By Ari LeVaux
The world's population will probably hit 9 billion by 2050. That's about the only thing agreed upon by partisans in a long-waged debate over how best to feed all those bellies.
On March 8, Dr. Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, released a report arguing that the use of small-scale, diverse farming methods, which he calls "agroecology," can double agricultural production in poverty-stricken areas, increase the economic prospects of the inhabitants, and improve their local environment.
This argument refutes a common dismissal of sustainable agriculture: that it could never feed the world. That's the contention of those who believe in agriculture methods that involve the intensive use of energy, water, machinery, and chemicals to grow cash crop monocultures. I recently discussed these competing paradigms with De Schutter, in the context of what it might look like if industrial agriculture were, in fact, to feed the world.
"I'm surprised at the simplistic diagnosis that appears to be dominant in public discourse," De Schutter said. "The official mantra is we need a 70 percent increase in agricultural production to feed the world. But this completely oversimplifies the debate. It only pays attention at the supply side of the equation, when we must also work on demand -- for instance the overconsumption of meat in industrialized countries. By 2050, if the current curves continue, 50 percent of global cereal production will go either to feeding cattle or to the irresponsible push towards biofuels production and consumption through fiscal stimuli and subsidies."
View the Original article
The world's population will probably hit 9 billion by 2050. That's about the only thing agreed upon by partisans in a long-waged debate over how best to feed all those bellies.
On March 8, Dr. Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, released a report arguing that the use of small-scale, diverse farming methods, which he calls "agroecology," can double agricultural production in poverty-stricken areas, increase the economic prospects of the inhabitants, and improve their local environment.
This argument refutes a common dismissal of sustainable agriculture: that it could never feed the world. That's the contention of those who believe in agriculture methods that involve the intensive use of energy, water, machinery, and chemicals to grow cash crop monocultures. I recently discussed these competing paradigms with De Schutter, in the context of what it might look like if industrial agriculture were, in fact, to feed the world.
"I'm surprised at the simplistic diagnosis that appears to be dominant in public discourse," De Schutter said. "The official mantra is we need a 70 percent increase in agricultural production to feed the world. But this completely oversimplifies the debate. It only pays attention at the supply side of the equation, when we must also work on demand -- for instance the overconsumption of meat in industrialized countries. By 2050, if the current curves continue, 50 percent of global cereal production will go either to feeding cattle or to the irresponsible push towards biofuels production and consumption through fiscal stimuli and subsidies."
View the Original article
Sunday 10 April 2011
Big Ag Wants To Make It a Crime to Expose Animal Abuse at Factory Farms
By Wayne Pacelle
What do Florida and Iowa have in common when it comes to animal agriculture? They've both been hot spots, past and present, for the movement to combat some of the worst abuses in industrial agribusiness. And now the factory farming industry is fighting back in both states-and their latest methods represent their biggest overreach yet.
In Florida, the Humane Society of the United States and other groups pushed for the adoption of the first statewide law in the country to restrict the extreme confinement of animals on factory farms. In 2002, voters there passed Amendment 10, to phase out the caging of breeding sows in gestation crates. In Iowa, HSUS and other animal welfare groups have conducted a series of undercover investigations (see the video) to expose cruelty in the nation's biggest factory farming state.
Now, these two states have something else in common. They are trying to make it a crime to photograph or videotape farm animals. They don't want to criminalize animal cruelty, but they do want to make criminals of people trying to document abuse and to put an end to the cruelty. Lawmakers have introduced bills in both states to establish criminal penalties for going undercover at agricultural facilities and simply taking pictures.
View the Original article
What do Florida and Iowa have in common when it comes to animal agriculture? They've both been hot spots, past and present, for the movement to combat some of the worst abuses in industrial agribusiness. And now the factory farming industry is fighting back in both states-and their latest methods represent their biggest overreach yet.
In Florida, the Humane Society of the United States and other groups pushed for the adoption of the first statewide law in the country to restrict the extreme confinement of animals on factory farms. In 2002, voters there passed Amendment 10, to phase out the caging of breeding sows in gestation crates. In Iowa, HSUS and other animal welfare groups have conducted a series of undercover investigations (see the video) to expose cruelty in the nation's biggest factory farming state.
Now, these two states have something else in common. They are trying to make it a crime to photograph or videotape farm animals. They don't want to criminalize animal cruelty, but they do want to make criminals of people trying to document abuse and to put an end to the cruelty. Lawmakers have introduced bills in both states to establish criminal penalties for going undercover at agricultural facilities and simply taking pictures.
View the Original article
Saturday 9 April 2011
The Rainbow of Food Dyes in Our Grocery Aisles Has a Dark Side
By David W. Schab and Michael F. Jacobson
Today's supermarket is a fun house of hues. Its aisles feature riotously colored processed foods perfectly engineered to appeal to the part of your brain that says "yum": Technicolor Starburst candy. Polychromatic Froot Loops. A rainbow of flavored juices.
Those hyper-saturated colors have come to seem normal, even natural, like the come-ons of tropical fruits. But they are increasingly produced through the magic of artificial food dyes, applied not just to candies and snack foods but to such seemingly all-natural products as pickles, salad dressing and some oranges.
Artificial dyes aren't just making your Yoplait Light Red Raspberry yogurt blush and your Kraft Macaroni and Cheese glow in the dark. They are causing behavioral problems and disrupting children's attention, according to a growing number of scientific studies. On Wednesday, following the lead of European regulators, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee will begin a review of research on the behavioral effects of artificial dyes. In a significant turn from the agency's previous denials that dyes have any influence on children's behavior, an FDA staff report released last week concluded that synthetic food colorings do affect some children.
View the Original article
Today's supermarket is a fun house of hues. Its aisles feature riotously colored processed foods perfectly engineered to appeal to the part of your brain that says "yum": Technicolor Starburst candy. Polychromatic Froot Loops. A rainbow of flavored juices.
Those hyper-saturated colors have come to seem normal, even natural, like the come-ons of tropical fruits. But they are increasingly produced through the magic of artificial food dyes, applied not just to candies and snack foods but to such seemingly all-natural products as pickles, salad dressing and some oranges.
Artificial dyes aren't just making your Yoplait Light Red Raspberry yogurt blush and your Kraft Macaroni and Cheese glow in the dark. They are causing behavioral problems and disrupting children's attention, according to a growing number of scientific studies. On Wednesday, following the lead of European regulators, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee will begin a review of research on the behavioral effects of artificial dyes. In a significant turn from the agency's previous denials that dyes have any influence on children's behavior, an FDA staff report released last week concluded that synthetic food colorings do affect some children.
View the Original article
GE Food Policy Protest at White House and in 33 Cities Across the US
By Eddie Gehman Kohan
Beyond the fence line of the North Lawn of the White House on Saturday afternoon, a group of worried citizens gathered for the Rally For the Right to Know. A call for action against genetically modified/genetically engineered food, the event was organized by the Organic Consumers Association, as part of its Millions Against Monsanto campaign.
The protesters--including kids--carried placards decrying GE foods, as well as a big red banner that read GMO's.
View the Original article
Beyond the fence line of the North Lawn of the White House on Saturday afternoon, a group of worried citizens gathered for the Rally For the Right to Know. A call for action against genetically modified/genetically engineered food, the event was organized by the Organic Consumers Association, as part of its Millions Against Monsanto campaign.
The protesters--including kids--carried placards decrying GE foods, as well as a big red banner that read GMO's.
View the Original article
Friday 8 April 2011
Americans Stage Protest over Genetically Modified Foods
By Marjan Asi
The movement for labeling genetically modified foods is growing as was illustrated in protests held in at least 20 cities throughout the US this past Saturday. Here in Washington, protesters gathered outside the White House to vocalize their demand for the right to know if the foods they purchase are genetically modified.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are often known, are food products that have been altered at the genetic level. Scientists say GMOs are necessary, because the increased food production that comes with it is needed for the rising human population. And even though no large-scale study has shown any negative effects of GMOs on people, many are still concerned about possible long-term adverse health affects.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, genetically modified foods are considered safe and therefore not requiring labeling. They are extensively researched and regulated, and in 1992 the FDA decided that GMOs were no different from conventional foods. But according to these protesters, a growing body of evidence shows that this is not the case.
One corporation that has fought hard to keep GMO labels from being placed on food products is Monsanto. A very powerful agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto patents and sells genetically modified seeds. According to its website, "Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients."
View the Original article
The movement for labeling genetically modified foods is growing as was illustrated in protests held in at least 20 cities throughout the US this past Saturday. Here in Washington, protesters gathered outside the White House to vocalize their demand for the right to know if the foods they purchase are genetically modified.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are often known, are food products that have been altered at the genetic level. Scientists say GMOs are necessary, because the increased food production that comes with it is needed for the rising human population. And even though no large-scale study has shown any negative effects of GMOs on people, many are still concerned about possible long-term adverse health affects.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, genetically modified foods are considered safe and therefore not requiring labeling. They are extensively researched and regulated, and in 1992 the FDA decided that GMOs were no different from conventional foods. But according to these protesters, a growing body of evidence shows that this is not the case.
One corporation that has fought hard to keep GMO labels from being placed on food products is Monsanto. A very powerful agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto patents and sells genetically modified seeds. According to its website, "Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients."
View the Original article
Thursday 7 April 2011
Radiation Detected in Massachusetts Rainwater as Fukushima Crisis Worsens
By Mike Adams
The Fukushima crisis continues to worsen by the day, with nuclear experts around the world finally realizing and admitting we've all been lied to. "I think maybe the situation is much more serious than we were led to believe," said Najmedin Meshkati of the University of Southern California, in a Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...). That same article revealed that recent radiation readings at Fukushima show "contamination 100,000 times normal in water at reactor No. 2 and 1,850 times normal in the nearby sea."
Massachusetts rainwater has also been found to be contaminated with low levels of radiation from Fukushima, indicating just how widespread the radioactive fallout has become. It's not just the West Coast of North America that's vulnerable, in other words: even the East Coast could receive dangerous levels of fallout if Fukushima suffers a larger release of radioactive material into the air.
Rolling blackouts are now continuing throughout Japan due to the drop in power production from Fukushima diminishing Japan's electricity generating capacity (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/20..). The only reason Japan isn't experiencing widespread power blackouts right now is because so many factories were damaged or swept away from the tsunami itself. Once a serious rebuilding effort gets underway, Japan is going to find itself critically short of electrical power.
View the Original article
The Fukushima crisis continues to worsen by the day, with nuclear experts around the world finally realizing and admitting we've all been lied to. "I think maybe the situation is much more serious than we were led to believe," said Najmedin Meshkati of the University of Southern California, in a Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...). That same article revealed that recent radiation readings at Fukushima show "contamination 100,000 times normal in water at reactor No. 2 and 1,850 times normal in the nearby sea."
Massachusetts rainwater has also been found to be contaminated with low levels of radiation from Fukushima, indicating just how widespread the radioactive fallout has become. It's not just the West Coast of North America that's vulnerable, in other words: even the East Coast could receive dangerous levels of fallout if Fukushima suffers a larger release of radioactive material into the air.
Rolling blackouts are now continuing throughout Japan due to the drop in power production from Fukushima diminishing Japan's electricity generating capacity (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/20..). The only reason Japan isn't experiencing widespread power blackouts right now is because so many factories were damaged or swept away from the tsunami itself. Once a serious rebuilding effort gets underway, Japan is going to find itself critically short of electrical power.
View the Original article
Wednesday 6 April 2011
GM Soy Making its Way into the UK Food Chain Through Animal Feed
By Jonathan Benson
Labeling laws throughout the European Union (EU) require that all food containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients be properly labeled. But a new report from The Telegraph explains that many big-name food brands in the UK that sell meat, dairy, and other animal products are sourcing from animals fed GMOs, but selling the final product without a proper GMO label.
The problem of GMOs sneaking in the back door through animal feed is not limited to the EU, as many other countries that require mandatory GMO labeling are experiencing similar scenarios. A recent NaturalNews report highlighted GMO contamination problems with Fonterra, a New Zealand-based cooperative that is the world's largest exporter of dairy products, as well (http://www.naturalnews.com/031776_d...).
Some experts insist that animals fed GM feed do not end up producing GM-contaminated meat and dairy. But others say that GM traits are, indeed, passed on through animal feed into the animal itself, contaminating milk and meat with GM materials. They also say that the growing prevalence of GM feed -- particularly GM soy -- is destroying rainforests, introducing extreme amounts of new pesticides into the environment, and damaging animal and human health.
View the Original article
Labeling laws throughout the European Union (EU) require that all food containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients be properly labeled. But a new report from The Telegraph explains that many big-name food brands in the UK that sell meat, dairy, and other animal products are sourcing from animals fed GMOs, but selling the final product without a proper GMO label.
The problem of GMOs sneaking in the back door through animal feed is not limited to the EU, as many other countries that require mandatory GMO labeling are experiencing similar scenarios. A recent NaturalNews report highlighted GMO contamination problems with Fonterra, a New Zealand-based cooperative that is the world's largest exporter of dairy products, as well (http://www.naturalnews.com/031776_d...).
Some experts insist that animals fed GM feed do not end up producing GM-contaminated meat and dairy. But others say that GM traits are, indeed, passed on through animal feed into the animal itself, contaminating milk and meat with GM materials. They also say that the growing prevalence of GM feed -- particularly GM soy -- is destroying rainforests, introducing extreme amounts of new pesticides into the environment, and damaging animal and human health.
View the Original article
Tuesday 5 April 2011
Rally at Nashville Farmers' Market Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods
By Jenny Upchurch
"What's GMO stand for?" a driver yelled at Flo Oakes and her group outside the Nashville Farmers' Market on Saturday morning.
"Genetically modified organisms," they hollered back.
A few dozen people held banners and shouted slogans here as part of a nationwide rally demanding action to help consumers identify from where food comes.
Genetically modified organisms have had changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The changes make them resistant to viruses and chemicals. Typical plants and products include soybeans, corn and canola and cotton seed oil.
"I'm not a biologist, not a scientist,"Oakes said. "I feel like we're being guinea pigs. We have never put genes together like this and then put them in the environment without proper scrutiny and testing."
Activists want genetically modified foods labeled and they want limits on how closely such plants can be grown to organic agriculture to prevent cross-contamination. They also want more research on the safety of genetically modified organisms.
View the Original article
"What's GMO stand for?" a driver yelled at Flo Oakes and her group outside the Nashville Farmers' Market on Saturday morning.
"Genetically modified organisms," they hollered back.
A few dozen people held banners and shouted slogans here as part of a nationwide rally demanding action to help consumers identify from where food comes.
Genetically modified organisms have had changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The changes make them resistant to viruses and chemicals. Typical plants and products include soybeans, corn and canola and cotton seed oil.
"I'm not a biologist, not a scientist,"Oakes said. "I feel like we're being guinea pigs. We have never put genes together like this and then put them in the environment without proper scrutiny and testing."
Activists want genetically modified foods labeled and they want limits on how closely such plants can be grown to organic agriculture to prevent cross-contamination. They also want more research on the safety of genetically modified organisms.
View the Original article
Monday 4 April 2011
Protesters in Salem, Oregon Denounce Influence of Monsanto Corporation
By Christopher Parker
Opponents of genetically modified organisms rallied Saturday before the Oregon State Capitol in Salem to discuss Monsanto's control over national agricultural business, its influence on politics through lobbying and the proliferation of GMOs in farming practices.
The "Rally for the Right to Know" was held in conjunction with rallies in other state capitols and Washington, D.C., as part of the Organic Consumers Association's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign.
Event organizer Sabrina Siegel, a Eugene resident, became involved with "Millions Against Monsanto" after learning about the possible health effects of GMOs.
"As a mother I became very nervous and disturbed about the whole thing," Siegel said. "I just became worried as a parent to help all children, not just my children. It motivated me to teach people about the issue."
Rally participants spoke of the importance of supporting legislation to require food producers to list what ingredients are genetically modified.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved GMOs for consumption, but controversy remains because of Monsanto's close political ties with government regulating agencies. One current issue is the Obama administration's appointment of Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who served as the corporation's vice president of public policy.
View the Original article
Opponents of genetically modified organisms rallied Saturday before the Oregon State Capitol in Salem to discuss Monsanto's control over national agricultural business, its influence on politics through lobbying and the proliferation of GMOs in farming practices.
The "Rally for the Right to Know" was held in conjunction with rallies in other state capitols and Washington, D.C., as part of the Organic Consumers Association's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign.
Event organizer Sabrina Siegel, a Eugene resident, became involved with "Millions Against Monsanto" after learning about the possible health effects of GMOs.
"As a mother I became very nervous and disturbed about the whole thing," Siegel said. "I just became worried as a parent to help all children, not just my children. It motivated me to teach people about the issue."
Rally participants spoke of the importance of supporting legislation to require food producers to list what ingredients are genetically modified.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved GMOs for consumption, but controversy remains because of Monsanto's close political ties with government regulating agencies. One current issue is the Obama administration's appointment of Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who served as the corporation's vice president of public policy.
View the Original article
Sunday 3 April 2011
Risks Over Recycling Sewage into Biosolids are Still Not Resolved
By Christopher Dunagan
View the Original article
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Toxic Sludge page, Washington News page, and our Environment and Climate Resource page.
Class B biosolids applied to Bremerton's forest are relatively dry. Before application, at least 99 percent of the pathogens have been removed. After 30 days, no measurable pathogens remain. Still, public access remains closed to this area.
When the city of Bremerton started applying processed sewage sludge to its forestland west of Gorst, the trees began to grow dramatically faster.
One can see the result 20 years later in tree rings when the Douglas firs are cut down: skinny rings before the application, fat rings ever since.
Some people consider biosolids - produced from sewage sludge - to be a prime fertilizer, rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and organic material.
Others raise questions about an array of low-level compounds found in the material, from toxic industrial chemicals to pharmaceutical drugs to personal health care products.
View the Original article
Saturday 2 April 2011
Interview with Renowned Scientist David Suzuki on the Future of the Planet
By Joseph Roberts
View the Original article
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, and our Environment and Climate Resource page.
Joseph Roberts: How did it all begin?
David Suzuki: We started when the Worldwatch Institute said it's the turnaround decade. We thought we were only going to be here for 10 years. So we said every dollar we raise we're going to spend because we don't have time. Who would've imagined that 20 years later we'd still be here and that conditions would be worse.
JR: And it hasn't turned around.
DS: No. We've had five years now of the most anti-environmental government we've ever had. We have a leader who claims the economy is his highest priority, proroguing parliament to focus on the economy and yet a leading economist like Sir Nicholas Stern says if we don't deal with climate change it's going to destroy the global economy. Our prime minister has never, ever, said this is an important issue affecting Canada and we've got to do something.
JR: My concern now is the way global economics is actually speeding up the destruction. With the UN declaring 2011 the International Year of the Forest and we have less than a third of the forest left on this planet, what is to be done?
View the Original article
Friday 1 April 2011
Organic Farming Just as Productive as Conventional, and Better at Building Soil, Rodale Finds
By Tom Philpott
View the Original article
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, and our Farm Issues page.
Organic agriculture is a fine luxury for the rich, but it could never feed the world as global population moves to 9 billion.
That's what a lot of powerful people -- including the editors of The Economist -- insist. But the truth could well be the opposite: It might be chemical-intensive agriculture that's the frivolous luxury, and organic that offers us the right technologies in a resource-constrained, ever-warmer near future.
That's the conclusion I draw from the latest data of the Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial (FST), which Rodale calls "America's longest running, side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic agriculture." Now, Rodale promotes organic ag, so industrial-minded critics will be tempted to dismiss its data. But that would be wrong -- its test plots have an excellent reputation in the ag research community, and the Institute often collaborates with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.
Housed on Rodale's 330 acre farm, the FST compares three systems for growing corn and soy, the first two organic and the third conventional: 1) one based on rotating feed crops with perennial forage crops for cows, and fertilizing with manure; 2) another based on rotating grains with cover crops, with fertility coming from nitrogen-fixing legumes; and 3) a system reliant on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)